INTRODUCTION, HYPOTHESIS, AND PREDICTION
In their influential review of research into the interactions of
language and gender1
I use the term
“gender” here as shorthand for what Bucholtz (2000:80) terms “social gender” to
underscore the difference among grammatical gender, biological sex, and
the social behaviors that result from and contribute to social
constructions of gender identity or identities. Entwistle 1998 provides an accessible overview and
critique of the distinction between “sex” and
“gender.” For another useful critique of this terminology
and accompanying assumptions, see Maccoby (1988:755). See Harding (1998: 8–20) for a related discussion of
“essentialism” versus
“constructionism.”
, Eckert & McConnell-Ginet
(
1992:468) observe that “sex
differences in variation emerge even in communities where the sexes are
not systematically separated the way socioeconomic or racial groups
are.” This observation is similar to an earlier claim by Trudgill
(
1974:95) that “geographical, ethnic
group, and social-class varieties are, at least partly, the result of
social
distance, while sex varieties are the result of social
difference.”
It may be true that females and males are not separated from one
another as are socioeconomic or ethnic groups, where ethnicity also
maps onto economic distinctions of importance for a community. Such
separation clearly is both psychological and physical. The
psychological side is hinted at by research into the naming of best
friends (Gilbert 1998:131–33). Best
friends tend to come from within an individual's
socio-occupational level.2
Gilbert (1998:131–39) reviews work on friendships and
affiliations across socioeconomic groupings based on occupational
hierarchies, a common method of establishing class in variationist
sociolinguistics. Of particular interest are the findings, based on
Laumann 1966, that among the top
professionals and the lowest semiskilled or unskilled laborers, the
majority of named friendships are from these same groups. In the middle
groups, or those occupations within the hierarchy, one finds a greater
degree of friendships across occupations. In effect, one may infer a
greater degree of significant friendships across socioeconomic groups
in the middle-class groups. One may infer a smaller degree of
significant friendships across socioeconomic groups in the two
endpoints of the occupational hierarchy. For those familiar with Milroy
& Milroy's (1992) discussion of the
curvilinear class pattern in language change as a function of network
differences across social classes, the data from Gilbert and Laumann
will be of interest.
Physical distance between socioeconomic
groups may be inferred from studies of income distribution across urban
settings. Such research invariably reports that, in urban settings,
certain neighborhoods have higher concentrations of working-class or
lower-income households whereas others exhibit higher concentrations of
professionals or higher-level executives. Thus, income and occupation,
two constituents of class or social stratification (
Crompton 1998), also entail physical distance
between class groups. Because physical distance serves as a barrier to
communication (
Bailey et al. 1993:383), we
see how socioeconomic distance may lead to dialect difference. These
patterns of psychological and physical distances cannot be said to
apply to women and men or girls and boys in the same way. Females and
males interact with one another at home, at work, at school, and in
other public settings.
Nonetheless, a persistent finding across multiple societies is this:
Females and males, both as children and as adults, will segregate or
separate themselves or will be segregated or separated to varying
degrees. In other words, females and males are formed into or will form
same-gender groups. Such segregation or separation results in
distance.
The tendency to prefer same-gender affiliations emerges early in
life, around age 3 or 4 (Harkness & Super
1985, La Freniere et al. 1984, Maccoby 1988). The segregation peaks in early
adolescence or middle childhood, followed by a relative lessening of
segregation in the teenage years (Hartrup
1983, Larson & Richards 1991,
Thorne 1993). In their study of
children's patterns of interaction and affiliation across six
different cultures, Whiting & Edwards arrived at this frequently
quoted finding: “In sum, our findings taken together with those
from other studies suggest that the emergence of same-sex preferences
in childhood is a cross-culturally universal and robust
phenomenon” (1988:81).
However, gender segregation continues beyond childhood as a
characteristic of the adult workplace3
(Maccoby
1998:227;
Petersen & Morgan
1995; Wright
1997:318–70), is a
characteristic of formal and informal club membership (
Perren et al. 2003,
Popielarz
1999), and appears to persist into late-life friendships (Jerrome
1981,
1992;
Jerrome & Wenger 1999;
Matthews 1986;
Rawlins
1992).
Why and how these preferences for same-sex affiliation emerge is the
object of considerable debate. Some researchers articulate
psychological and biological motives (Maccoby 1988, 1998), whereas
others explore activity, situational, institutional, or cultural
influences (Harkness & Super 1985, Richer 1990, Thorne
1993). Whatever the reasons, and there are multiple reasons, one
factor does emerge sporadically across the literature. This is age
segregation. Thorne succinctly stated this finding: “…
where age separation is present, gender separation is more likely to
occur” (1993:51).
These findings have clear implications for quantitative dialect
research. The implications may be identified if we first recall Leonard
Bloomfield's assertion that “density of
communication,” meaning differing degrees of spoken interaction,
results in the “most important differences of speech”
(1933:46) within a community. If females and
males tend to separate or be separated from one another in peer groups,
their spoken cross-gender interactions will not be as frequent as their
interactions with members of the same sex. If less frequent, in line with
Bloomfield, one could predict “important differences.” Such
hypothesized differences would not emerge as a result of females'
and males' consciously differentiating themselves from one another,
though such difference can be drawn on for social constructions to the
extent that awareness of difference exists (Barrett
1999, Liang 1999, McCloskey 1999). The differences here would result,
at least partially, from a relative preponderance of same-gender
interactions and from a relative infrequency of cross-gender
interactions among peers.
This implication does not seem controversial. Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet note, “People tend to develop and regulate their
linguistic repertoire through contact with language used by those they
speak with regularly” (1992:468). More
to the point is Weinreich's forceful statement on the effects of
contact: “Contact breeds imitation and imitation breeds linguistic
convergence. Linguistic divergence results from secession,
estrangement, loosening of contact” (1953:
viii).
However, gender segregation differs from socioeconomic segregation in
that gender segregation is mixed with gender intimacy. In effect, such
segregation is rarely complete. Also, the degree of gender segregation
appears to fluctuate across the lifespan. It does so, if Thorne is
correct, in tandem with the fluctuations of age segregation.
How could variationists respond to this implication? Notice that we
speak here of differences in degree of same-gender affiliations not as
absolutes, but as statistical tendencies that are characteristic of
groups.4
Because the objects of
investigation are groups and because the scope is macrosociological, we
cannot say anything direct about specific individuals per se. This does
not mean, of course, that individuals or subgroups cannot diverge from
typical patterns of the larger group's behavior, as Thorne 1993 amply shows. Also see Chambers (1995:84–91) on interlopers and insiders, and
Cameron (2000:274–75) on the divergent
stylistic patterning of quotation strategies for adults and children in
the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
In addition, these
differences are hypothesized to wax and wane in degree. Therefore,
degrees of difference between groups are of more interest than is the
actual frequency, index, or probability values that groups provide for
sociolinguistic variables. However, such values are necessary in order
to identify the degrees of difference.
The implication may be stated as a working hypothesis consisting of
three sets of propositions:
(A) The degree of difference in frequency, index, or probability
values for sociolinguistic variables between female and male speakers
will wax and wane across the lifespan.
(B) When sex segregation or separation is greatest, the degree of
quantitative difference will be the greatest. This will occur when age
segregation or separation is also strongly practiced or enforced.
(C) When sex segregation or separation is smallest, the degree of
quantitative difference will be the smallest. This will occur when age
segregation or separation occurs to a lesser extent.
Implicit in this formulation of the hypothesis are the following
assumptions. First, the speakers will be members of the same dialect
community.5
I recognize the ambiguity and
controversy in the term “dialect community.” See Santa Ana & Parodi 1998 for an excellent
treatment.
Second, the effects of gender segregation, as seen
in degree of quantitative difference, will be contemporaneous with the
gender segregation. In other words, the effects of gender segregation
on speech will occur at the same time that gender segregation is
occurring. There will not be a delay in the effect of gender
segregation in speech.
This assumption is close to the concept of convergence
within Accommodation Theory (Beebe & Giles 1984:8; Meyerhoff 1998),
but it differs in the following points. I will further assume that the
quantitative effects of convergence among same-gender groups entail
socially situated probability matching (Labov 1994:580–83). This probability matching may
result from conscious monitoring and intentional though variable
performance (Schilling-Estes 1998). However,
not all convergence need be motivated by conscious and intentional
identity display or alignment. This may also result from inter-speaker
and intra-speaker priming or perseveration6
Researchers use a variety of terms to refer to
statistically identifiable patterns of repetition. These terms include
“priming,” “persistence,”
“perseverance,” “perseveration,” or
“birds of a feather” effect (Pereira
Scherre & Naro 1991). I alternate between
“priming” and “perseveration” as a reflex of
the field. I intend them both to refer to patterned repetition. See
Cameron & Flores Ferrán 2004 for
more discussion relevant to variation.
, as discussed by Chang
et al. (
2000:219–20),
Bock & Griffin 2000, and Cameron & Flores
Ferrán
2004. Chang and colleagues add
that such priming effects, which occur in the absence of speaker
intention or control even as they require awareness
7 The degree and nature of the awareness required for
implicit learning is subject to debate. The debate covers both
definitions of what counts as awareness, the amount required for
different tasks, and whether implicit learning may be conceived of as
automatic, in cognitive science's sense of not being subject to
intentionality and control. If automatic, or automatic to a degree, it
may be the case that implicit learning is subject to influence from
other, more explicit processes of learning or cognition. See Seger
(1994:174–79) for these
issues.
and exposure, may result in long-term effects similar
to those of “implicit learning” (
Seger
1994). Bock & Griffin (
2000:189)
interpret priming as part of “the process of learning to perform
language,” or, more specifically, “learning to talk.”
However, priming remains in adult speech as one persistent and
recurrent element in the procedures of producing talk. As a
consequence, the effects of this convergence, emerging through the mix
of conscious monitoring and unconscious priming or perseveration, can
extend beyond the face-to-face moments of talk-in-interaction to assume
norm-like or genderlect
8 A discussion of
convergence and divergence as motivations in dialect formation is found
in Hinskens et al. 2000.
characteristics because statistical norms are learned implicitly via
exposure.
This working hypothesis may be supported if and only if the
frequency, index, or probability values for individual speakers'
use of sociolinguistic variables actually can change across the
lifespan beyond the early years of language acquisition. Two studies
indicate that such change may occur. These include Baugh's (1996) real-time study of four African American
males, and the research of Sankoff et al.
2001 into postcritical period change among adult speakers of
Montreal French, both male and female. In the absence of real-time,
long-term studies of individuals across the lifespan, our hypothesis
could be tested if we may infer the behavior of individuals throughout
their lifetimes by studying groups of individuals classified by
chronological age and gender, as is done in Apparent Time studies of
language change.
Support for the hypothesis would have at least the following characteristics.
- Among children prior to the teen years, we should find the greatest
degree of difference between females and males. This is in keeping with
the general finding that the tendency to prefer same-gender
affiliations emerges early in life around age 3 or 4 and peaks in early
adolescence or middle childhood.9
Actually, if we had a sufficient number of talkative and
tape-recorded preteen children from the ages of 3 to 12, we could
roughly predict a peak around the age of 10 or 11, relative to the
youngest children. One reviewer of this research correctly pointed out
that linguistic differences between a child of 5 and one of 11 may
dwarf those between an adult of 25 and one of 45. I agree. However, I
do not have data from a sufficient number of preteen children to tease
out this particular pattern, if the pattern is to be teased out.
Therefore, I make a general and gross prediction about the preteens.
Among the preteen Puerto Rican children I have studied and on whom I
report on in this article, these are the ages represented:
The 5-year-old girl and 6-year-old boy were interviewed in a small group
with 8- and 9-year-olds. These groups were either boys only or girls
only. One 10-year-old girl and one 11-year-old girl were interviewed
individually. The 11-year-old was interviewed in her home with the
intermittent presence of her younger sister, who was not directly
recorded. The other 11-year-old children were interviewed in groups of
three children at a time. Future researchers may specifically target
this age group in larger numbers to see if the predicted differences
emerge.
- This degree of difference should decrease somewhat during the teen
years. This is in keeping with the general finding that gender
segregation lessens somewhat, relative to earlier childhood, during the
teen years. However, gender segregation is still quite pronounced among
many teenagers. As such, support for the hypothesis would emerge if it
is the case that teens, relative to middle age groups, show a greater
degree of difference between females and males.
- At subsequent stages of the lifespan, we could expect a further
decrease in the degree of difference. In particular, during the years
of active work life, say from 20 to 60 or 65, we would expect less
gender segregation because the workplace, though subject to varying
degrees of gender segregation across differing occupations (Petersen & Morgan 1995), shows less age
segregation than occurs during the childhood years, when schooling
enforces age separation. In effect, the workplace and the working years
of adulthood provide, relative to school, more multi-age environments
for interaction.10
Owing to the macro-sociological nature of this
assertion, individual and group divergences, as well as cultural
divergences, are not addressed. See note 4 for similar point. Thus, the
generalizability of the claim about the multi-age workplace and working
stage of life, relative to school, can and should be questioned and
tested. Both reviewers of this research noted that certain professions
are simultaneously age- and gender-segregated, such as professional
athletics or stock exchange work. No professional athletes or stock
exchange workers are included in the Puerto Rican sample. Nonetheless,
the hypothesis as formulated permits yet another prediction here.
Professional athletes and stock exchange workers will differ more from
members of the opposite sex than will working individuals of the same
age group who work in environments that are less age- and
gender-segregated. The reviewers also noted that Thorne's question
(1993:108) about “which boys or girls,
where, when, and under what circumstances” applies to this period
of life as well. I agree. Indeed, Thorne's question may be applied
to any social group, however the group is defined. I discuss the relevance
of Thorne's question in a subsequent portion of the article, where I
use this particular question as an organizing principle of the research
presented here.
- Beyond the active working years, say 65 and higher, we could expect
that quantitative differences between males and females would expand
relative to the middle-aged groups. One does not find as much research
that clearly documents the daily interaction and friendship patterns of
the elderly in ways that researchers have done for children. However,
some research demonstrates a preference for same-gender friends and
affiliations in late life and indicates that these friendships, not
work relationships, become sites of increased spoken interaction (Jerrome & Wenger 1999, Matthews 1986). Moreover, researchers do report
that both age and gender segregation occur commonly among those beyond
age 60 or 65 in Western countries. For instance, Rawlins asserts,
“The elderly tend to be friends with age contemporaries with
similar life styles, values, and experiences, the same gender and
marital status” (1992:223). He adds that
“age similarity is defined more broadly in later life than at
earlier points.” Similar points emerge independently in Jerrome
(1981:178). In later work, Jerrome (1992:16) also argues that such segregation or
separation “is often in the interests of older people.”
Why? They seek out others with similar experiences that come from being
of the same age. The degree of age segregation, and hence of gender
segregation, in later life could vary across cultures depending on
residence patterns and the preference or not for multi-generational
homes. Wenger notes that the “three-generation household is a
widespread norm” (2001:539) in the Middle
East, Africa, and the Pacific. Of course, a lack of age segregation at home
does not entail a lack of age segregation in other domains of life. Indeed,
a degree of gender segregation in later life is also a consequence of the
following brute fact. To quote Arber & Ginn, “Later life is
primarily an experience of women” (1991:vii).
In short, as we age, men tend to die before women. Two relevant consequences
follow from this. In later life, proportionately more men remain in contact
with women than women do with men. A second consequence of this is that
women, in later life, can be drawn to one another for friendship and
support in the absence of men. This relative absence of men of the same
age cohort, then, results in de facto gender segregation. Considering the
cited research, which indicates the presence of both age and gender
segregation among the elderly, we should find that quantitative
differences between males and females expand relative to the
middle-aged groups.
These predictions amount to an irregular U-shaped pattern of gender
divergences across the lifespan. The greatest degree of difference will
be in early childhood, the teenage years, and the post-workplace years
of later life. The least degree of difference will occur in the middle
years of participation in the workplace. Note that this predicted
U-shaped pattern is formally similar to the pattern discussed by Downes
(1998:224) and Cheshire (1987) for the variable expression of some, though
not all, nonstandard variants of stable sociolinguistic variables
across the lifespan.
Aside from the implications for variationist sociolinguistics, the
hypothesis developed here could have implications for the Dual Culture
model of gendered discourse styles (Maltz &
Borker 1982, Tannen 1994). This model,
however, is much criticized. Thorne (1993:89–109), in particular, has provided a
nuanced, careful, and compelling critique of it. At the end of her
discussion of this issue, she advocates “examining gender in
context rather than fixing binary abstractions like ‘boys
emphasize status and girls emphasize intimacy.’ ” Instead,
we should ask “which boys or girls, where, when, and under what
circumstances” (1993:108). I have attempted
to respond to Thorne's arguments by intersecting gender and age with
age differences providing a series of contexts across the lifespan. Thus,
one answer to Thorne's question “Which boys or girls?”
is this: boys or girls at different moments of the lifespan when these
moments are indicated by chronological age differences.
Thorne's multiple wh-question may also be seen as
presupposing a few fundamental propositions that may very well be
central to current gender research. First, the range of social
experiences and constructions of gender identity cannot be categorized
adequately into a strict binary division that a Dual Culture model may
assume. In short, there are more different gender experiences across
and within cultures than there are biological types, which are only two
– female and male. Indeed, a realistic account of the range of
biological types also needs to go beyond two. Fausto-Sterling (2000:78–114), for instance, has argued that
there may be, minimally, five types of biologically based sexes among
humans. Second, gender as a social category of experience, action, and
opportunity is not clearly isolable from other social categories. The
experience and construction of gendered behaviors varies in content,
manner, relevance, and degree of salience across contexts of situated,
co-constructed, moment-to-moment talk-in-interaction, and across
categories of social membership such as age, class, club, community,
country, education, ethnicity, health, language, sexuality, or sport
11
11A third point, perhaps an
entailment of the second, could be added here. Deborah Cameron (1998:947) identifies this as “the progressive
abandonment in feminist scholarship of the assumption that
‘women’ and ‘men’ can be treated as internally
homogenous groups.” If the experiences and constructions of being
“women” and “men” vary across
micro-sociological contexts of emergent talk-in-interaction and
macro-sociological contexts of country, class, ethnicity, or age, then
it follows that “women” and “men” cannot be
treated as internally homogenous. Related to this is the suggestion
that differences within groups of females or differences within groups
of males may actually dwarf differences between females and males
(Eckert 1989:254; Ostermann 2003; Nichols
1983:59).
(
Arber & Ginn
1991;
Bing & Bergvall 1996;
Bucholtz 1995;
Deaux & Major
1987; Gilbert
1998:117–31;
Gilmore 1990; Hazen
2002:245;
Herdt 1990;
Kiesling 1998;
Kulick
1997;
McCloskey 1999;
Meân 2001;
Meyerhoff
1996;
Nanda 2000;
Ostermann 2003;
Pujolar i Cos
1997;
Pyke 1996;
Richer 1990;
Sherman
1987;
Sidnell 2002;
Stokoe & Smithson 2001;
Thorne 1993;
Valiente
2002; Wright
1997:239–317).
Given that gender practice and experience may vary widely, it is also
important to point out what our working hypothesis does not address. To
begin, the hypothesis is macro-sociological in scope and, as such, is
subject to overgeneralization in the face of micro-sociological
diversity. In other words, as in epidemiological studies of
“social aggregates” (Cockerham
1998:16), smaller group or specific individual divergences are
not directly accounted for nor directly investigated. In addition,
gender separation is but one aspect of gender practice and experience.
As a consequence, the hypothesis does not provide a basis for
discussing, at least directly, why females or males choose the variants
they do. What we are asking is whether degrees of difference between
groups of females and males from the same dialect community fluctuate
across the lifespan in a pattern or patterns that we can account for,
completely or partially, within the framework of the gender segregation
hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis does not directly address
such potentially mediating issues as prestige, status, power,
expressiveness, conflict within or across gender groupings, vernacular
ideologies, sensitivity to symbols, different meanings of variables for
the genders, the time course of change in which sociolinguistic
variables may be involved, or other related issues. Many of these
topics emerge around the question of why female speakers, relative to
males, more frequently favor standard variants of stable variables yet
also favor the innovative, hence possibly nonstandard, variants of
unstable variables (Cheshire 1998; Eckert 1989; Haeri 1996:91; Labov 1990,
2001:261; Nichols
1983; Trudgill 1972). The hypothesis
also does not, as formulated, address the potentially mediating effects
of personal development and language acquisition in early and middle
childhood, nor linguistic and cognitive change among the elderly (Chevrot et al. 2000, Kemper
1992, Roberts 1997). Both Chambers 1992 and Trudgill
1983 have shown that the ability or desire to converge or
diverge may diminish or vary across the lifespan, and that this ability
is mediated by the type of sociolinguistic variable involved. Finally,
owing to limitations in the data, both mine12
It is very difficult to establish a fully balanced set of
female and male speakers across all age groups and occupational
categories when doing urban dialect work of this sort. However, the
data for the Puerto Rican speakers is somewhat balanced in this
respect. If we further classify the speakers by two school types and
four categories of occupation, as found in Cameron (2000:273, 1992:67–76), we find the following:
and that reported by most other studies, the hypothesis and my review
will not consider potential differences in degree of
segregation/separation and their effects across lines of class,
ethnicity, or sexuality (Eckert
1997:165;
Cameron & Kulick 2003). The work of
Macaulay 1977 on Glasgow English provides data that
one may use to consider age, gender, and class. I know of no
large-scale variationist studies that intersect age, gender, and
sexuality. Of course, one could envision work intersecting age,
ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, community of practice, setting,
and a variety of other local ethnographically determined factors. It is
reasonable to assume that many of these issues interact with and
mediate the potential effects of gender segregation or separation.
This, however, is an empirical question requiring further research. As
part of my attempt to account for some of the data, I will draw on such
issues as language acquisition, expressiveness, stable versus unstable
variables, and the position of sociolinguistic variables within the
time course of change in progress.
In the research presented here, I will initially explore the
predictions of the gender and age segregation hypothesis by identifying
patterned degrees of difference between female and male speakers of
Puerto Rican Spanish across the lifespan, using an Apparent Time type
of data organization. I will do this by focusing on three
sociolinguistic variables, two phonological and one that straddles the
boundaries of syntax and discourse. The phonological variables include
intervocalic (d) and word-final (s), both of which have been
investigated extensively in Spanish dialects (Lipski
1994). The other variable involves direct quotation strategies
(Cameron 1998, 2000). For each variable, I will first provide some
orienting information on the set of variants, the resulting data, and
the patterning of degrees of difference across the lifespan. In turn, I
will discuss results and identify the extent to which the hypothesis is
supported or rejected. This discussion results in questions which may
be answered within the framework of the hypothesis, as well as
questions which lead me to consider other intersecting factors and to
look at other languages, communities, and variables. Thus, I will turn
next to research in other dialects of Spanish as well as in German and
English. Here I will focus on both stable and unstable variation at
various points in the time course of change, relying heavily, though
not exclusively, on Labov 2001. Subsequently,
I will return to Puerto Rican Spanish to consider the variable of the
fronting of subject noun phrases in wh-questions (Lizardi 1993). Like a few other variables, this
involves a loss or recession of form, rule, or constraint (Chambers & Trudgill 1980:94). Some of this work
will diverge considerably from the Puerto Rican data patterns. Other
research follows quite closely. Overall, I find more parallels to the
early parts of the Puerto Rican lifespan patterns than to the later
parts. Some patterns of differences between females and males are
clearly tied to the type of variable involved or to its status as a new
and vigorous change in progress. Given these findings, I will argue
that, just as other categories of social membership mediate gender
expression, so does language mediate gender expression. In other words,
we will see that language enables gender expression while
simultaneously constraining it, a concept in line with Giddens's
(1984:172–74) revision of
Durkheim's social facts as involving both “constraint”
and “enablement.”
THE COMMUNITY
The Puerto Rican data come from fieldwork which I carried out in San
Juan during 1989. Because I have written at some length about the
community and data gathering in Cameron 2000,
1996, and 1992, I
will limit my comments here to select demographics of the speaker data
base that are relevant to the current research on aging and gendering.
During October 1989, I interviewed a total of 76 speakers. From this
total, I selected 62 – 30 males and 32 females. These 62 speakers
were interviewed in primarily two types of interview configurations:
small groups and individually. Of a total of 38 interview sessions, 20
were done with individual speakers. The remaining 18 interviews, with a
total of 42 people, were done in small groups of 2 to 5 speakers.
In terms of age, the youngest speaker was 5 years old, and the oldest
was 84. As shown in Table 1, 29 of those
interviewed were children, either preteens or teenagers. The remaining
33 were adults beyond the teen years. Because I investigate the
intersections of aging and gendering here, I will not comment on
occupational and education information. For more on that, see Cameron
2000, 1996, and
1992.
Number of speakers by age and gender
As seen in Table 1, speakers are organized
into the following groups: preteens, or children from the ages of 5 to
11; teenagers or children of the ages, 14 to 17; adults, the age-based
groups of individuals of the ages 20 to 39, 40 to 59, and 60 and
higher. The last group, 60 and higher, ranges from 61 to 84. When I
discuss direct quotation strategies, I collapse this group with group
40–59 because the oldest males did not provide any tokens of one
of the strategies. One may wish to subdivide the preteens further on
the ground that 5-year-olds differ dramatically from 11-year-olds in
terms of cognitive and language development. However, owing to the
group format of the child interviews and the relatively small number of
speakers, I have grouped them together. Moreover, as noted, research
indicates that the degree of gender segregation among preteens on the
whole is higher than among those of subsequent age groups.13
See note 9 for more discussion of the issue
of the preteen children. Further divisions could also be made among
those between 60 to 85. However, I do not have sufficient numbers of
speakers to do this. Gerontologists prefer to see later life as having
at least two general stages, with the second stage beginning sometime
after 85. See references in Arber & Ginn (1991:3) as a starting point for this
issue.
I intend the use of chronological age here as a loose
indicator of life stage, not as a statement on biological or cognitive
aspects of aging. For potential problems with this method of speaker
organization, see Eckert (
1997:155) and Arber
& Ginn (
1991:2–4).
INTERVOCALIC (d)
Intervocalic (d) in Spanish is frequently cited as a straightforward
illustration of allophonic variation. Goldsmith writes that /d/
and other voiced stops in Spanish “are predictably stops or
spirants, depending on phonological context” (1990:70). If intervocalic, stops become spirantized
into fricatives. Elsewhere, they retain their stop status. Variationists,
however, have noted that the variable of intervocalic (d) has two or
possibly three variants. López Morales (1983:124) and Samper Padilla (1990:261) identify three variants, two of which are
distinguished as +/− relajada ‘relaxed’
fricatives. The third variant is a null or deleted form. Cedergren (1973:94) identifies a set of three variants which
includes a devoiced dental stop, a fricative, and a null or deleted form.
Other researchers, such as Ma & Herasimchuk
1975, identify only two variants: (inter-)dental fricative and
deletion.
Like Ma & Herasimchuk, I have been able to detect only two
variants of intervocalic (d): a voiced fricative or spirantized variant
of [d], close to
,
and the deleted or null form which I represent as [0].
Therefore,
or [0]/V__V. In pursuit of identifying where variation
was possible, I have excluded certain intervocalic contexts. These
include contexts where the following vowel is stressed, as in such
words as ciudad ‘city’, madera
‘wood’, or me quedé ‘I stayed’.
Also, some English borrowings appeared not to exhibit variation,
including sliding doors and videocassette. A small
set of words in Spanish also exhibited no noticeable variation and were
thus excluded: SIDA (Spanish acronym for ‘AIDS’),
radio, and alrededor ‘around’. In these
words, the intervocalic (d) was never deleted. In contrast, the
vernacular form bofetá from bofetada
‘slap’ was also invariant, never being produced as
bofetada. Also excluded were tokens overlapped by laughter or
coughing, a breathy inhale or exhale of air, or where extraneous noise
obscured the sound quality. (Roosters and passing buses were frequent
culprits.) I included the words todo ‘all’ and
nada ‘nothing’, which may show three variants, two
of which involve deletion. For instance, todo may be expressed as
with a long vowel due to coalescence, or [to] with no extra
length noticeable. Both [to:] and [to] counted as
cases of deletion.
From each speaker interviewed individually, I gathered 50 tokens.
With one exception, from each adult interviewed in small groups of two
or three, I also gathered 50 tokens. One adult female speaker,
interviewed with two friends, provided only 27 tokens. For children,
both preteens and teens, interviewed in small groups, I gathered 50
tokens from the group as a whole, not from each individual. I selected
50 tokens following the practice of Eckert
2000 in her work on the Northern Cities vowels. It also turned
out that intervocalic (d) does not occur with a frequency comparable to
other phonological variables. Thus, with 50 tokens alone I often
gathered all tokens available within 45 to 50 minutes of transcribed
tape. In total, 2,227 tokens of intervocalic (d) were analyzed. Turning
to Table 2, we find both frequency and
Varbrul weights.
14 Varbrul is a form of
logistic regression used for multivariate analysis (Paolillo 2002). I have chosen to use Varbrul here
for various reasons. First, in previous research (Cameron 2000, 1998) I used the
TVARB version of Varbrul for the analysis of word-final (s) and the
direct quotation strategies. It was in Cameron (2000:281–82), on the basis of TVARB, that I
initially discovered the zigzagging pattern of divergences between
females and males for word-final (s) and the quotations, though I then
had no basis for accounting for it. Hence the current work. Upon
investigating intervocalic (d), I assumed that further comparison would
be best if the basis for comparison were also Varbrul data. Second, the
IVARB version of Varbrul permits elimination of factor groups through
the Step-Up and Step-Down program. During the Varbrul analysis of
intervocalic (d), I submitted a set of six independent factor groups:
the intersections of (1) age and gender, (2) upper/lower class and
gender, (3) adult occupation and gender, (4) children's
public/private school and gender, and then (5) adult occupation
only, and (6) children's public/private school only. The Step
Up program selected the factor groups (1) age/gender and (3) adult
occupation/gender as significant. The Step Down program threw out
all other factor groups. However, upon running Varbrul again, it became
apparent that the factor groups (1) age/gender and (3) adult
occupation/gender overlapped to some extent. Adults include the age
groups 20/30, 40/50, and 60 and higher. Thus, I ran Varbrul on
intervocalic (d) with factor group (1) age/gender only. One
reviewer of this research has questioned the use of Varbrul here
because Varbrul assumes independence of factor groups. However, the
point of this research is the lack of independence between age and
gender. The assumption of independence in Varbrul is between
independent factor groups, however they are defined. Thus, if age and
gender were coded within the Varbrul analysis as separate independent
factor groups, one would expect interaction. Vogt defines interaction
as an effect that occurs “when independent variables not only
have separate effects but also have combined effects on a dependent
variable” (1993:122). By combining age
with gender into one factor group, I avoid interaction, a strategy common
to Varbrul analysis (Paolillo 2002:89). And
recall, Varbrul selected the combined factor group (1) age/gender as
significant. I did not investigate internal linguistic nor stylistic
constraints on intervocalic (d), as I have done for word-final (s) and
direct quotation strategies, because the object of interest is the
social patterning.
The weights were derived for the
spirantized variant
of the variable.
Intervocalic (d) by age and gender (frequencies, weights, degrees of
difference)
To derive the degree of difference between females and males, we
subtract the male Varbrul weight from the female. Thus, the degree of
difference between females and males in the preteen group is 20 points;
among the teens, it is 51 points; and so forth. If we plot these
degrees of difference on a graph, we find the pattern of degree of
difference between the genders across the lifespan that is depicted in
Figure 1.
Degrees of difference between females and males across the lifespan
for intervocalic (d).
A few points immediately become clear. First, across the five age
groups, we find a consistent and repeated favoring of the spirantized variant
by the female speakers. Second, with respect to frequency data, the null
variant is not dramatically high. Third, the greatest degree of difference
is found in the teen years. This is followed by a sharp decrease in the
middle years, with the dip being lowest between ages of 40 and 59. After
this, the degree of difference between females and males in the oldest
group increases until it is more than, but close in value to, the degree
of difference found in the preteens. This pattern of waxing and waning is
found also by using the frequency data. I will reserve discussion of how
the data fit the hypothesis until the discussion section, but I will add
here that when we turn to word-final (s) and direct quotation strategies,
we will find strikingly similar zigzagging patterns across the lifespan.
WORD-FINAL (s) AND DIRECT QUOTATION
STRATEGIES
The data presented here were initially reported in Cameron 2000. Because this earlier work involved a
comparison of word-final (s) and direct quotation strategies, I will
combine these two variables into one discussion here. The data for (s)
were initially derived for research into the functional compensation
hypothesis (Cameron 1996). As with
intervocalic (d), tokens of (s) were included in the analysis if they
did not appear in contexts of phonetic neutralization or in contexts
where extraneous noise made it impossible to hear clearly. Other
features of the envelope of variation are found in Cameron 1992. Word-final (s) consists of three variants: a
full alveolar fricative [s], a reduced glottal aspirate
[h], and a phonetically null version which I will mark as
[0]. With the exception of one adult male who provided fewer
than 200 instances of word-final (s), I minimally analyzed 200 tokens
of word-final (s) for all individual adult speakers and for all
children interviewed individually. For children interviewed in small
groups, I analyzed the group together for 200 tokens. In total, I will
report on 9,359 instances of word-final (s).
Like the variable (s), the direct quotation variable may also be
analyzed as consisting of three variants: a full, a reduced, and a null
variant. In order to illustrate these, consider the following examples,
initially reported in Cameron (1998:49).
Example (1) presents two variants of the direct quotation variable.
In line 1, the quote is framed by a verb of report consisting of a
finite verb plus the subject NP. I identify this variant as a verb
of direct report (henceforth VDR). Because Spanish is a null
subject language, the subject NP of these finite verbs may be variably
expressed. Hence, the VDR strategy includes finite verbs with either
lexically expressed or null subjects. Within this variant are included
all verbs of direct report. In (1), line 2, we find a second strategy.
Here, the quote is introduced by a bare subject NP lacking a finite
verb. I refer to this as Y NP, where Y stands for the Spanish
conjunction, y ‘and’, which frequently accompanies
the bare NP.
Example (2) presents the third strategy. From line 4 to line 7, four
direct quotes are performed, though none is framed by a preceding VDR
or Y NP. Following Clark & Gerrig (1990:772), I term this the freestanding
strategy of direct quotation.
As happens with syntactic or discourse variables, direct quotations
occur much less frequently than word-final (s) or intervocalic (d). In
total, I will report on 1,249 instances of direct quotation. Finally,
in contrast to both (s) and (d), there is some evidence, perhaps
controvertible, that the variable of direct quotation strategies is
undergoing a change in progress from below (see Cameron 2000 for discussion).
In the analysis that follows, I will focus on degrees of difference
that may be derived by using the results of TVARB. The TVARB program
provides probabilistic weights for a sociolinguistic variable
consisting of three variants. In the binomial IVARB program, as used
for intervocalic (d), a lack of effect of a constraint is identified
with a value of .50. A favoring effect of a constraint is indicated by
values above .50, with a disfavoring effect indicated by values less
than .50. In the trinomial program of TVARB, a favoring effect is
indicated by weights above .33. Values less than .33 indicate a
disfavoring effect, and a value of .33 indicates no effect. In deriving
degrees of difference, then, from a variable submitted to TVARB, one
must subtract the smaller values from the larger values for each
variant within a factor group. In turn, these three differences are
summed to give the total degree of difference. For instance, among the
preteens, for the variable of word-final (s), we subtract the male
value for the variant [s] from the female value (= 5 points),
the male value for [h] from the female value (= 19 points),
and the female value for [0] from the male value (= 23
points). In turn, we add these three results for a final number of 57
points, which represents the summed degree of difference between
preteen female and male speakers. This procedure was applied to all age
groups depicted for both word-final (s) and for the direct quotation
strategies. The results were then plotted on a graph.
Turning to Table 3, we find Varbrul weights
for each variant. If we derive the degree of point differences between
females and males for each of the age groups reported, we may then use
the numbers to plot the pattern of difference (see Figure 2).
Word final (s) and direct quotations strategies by age and gender
(weights, degrees of difference)* (TVARB weights)
Degrees of difference between females and males across the lifespan
for word-final (s).
As with intervocalic (d), a few points become immediately clear.
First, unlike intervocalic (d), for word-final (s) the female favoring
of the standard variants [s] and [h] is not fully
consistent, because in the age group of 40s and 50s, males have a
higher probability of [s]. However, as with intervocalic (d),
males relatively favor the null form not only for word-final (s) but
also for the direct quotation strategies (see Figure
3). This is consistent across all age groups. Second, as discussed
in Cameron 1998 and 2000,
the direct quotation strategies show a shift of gender favoring across the
lifespan for both the VDR and the Y NP variants. Third, also similar to
intervocalic (d) is a zigzagging pattern across the lifespan. The greatest
degree of difference for both word-final (s) and direct quotation strategies
is found in the teenage years. This is followed by a sharp decrease in the
middle years, with the dip being lowest between the ages of 20 and 39.
After this, the degree of difference between females and males
increases with age until it is more than or close in value to the
degree of difference found in the preteens or the youngest group. This
is similar to the pattern for intervocalic (d) though it differs
slightly in location of the lowest dip in values. Also, note that for
word-final (s), the degree of difference between female and male
speakers in the oldest group is quite close to the degree of difference
among the teenagers. Among the oldest, the degree of difference is 54
points, among the teenagers, 57, and among preteens, 47. For the direct
quotation strategies, the degree of difference among the oldest group
is closer to the degree of difference among the youngest group than it
is to the degree found among the teenagers. This is also true of the
pattern for intervocalic (d). In short, despite slight pattern
divergences for all three variables, we find a similar waxing and
waning pattern across the lifespan.
Degrees of difference between females and males across the lifespan for
direct quotation strategies.
A RETURN TO THE HYPOTHESIS AND SOME
QUESTIONS
Given these patterns, I now return to the hypothesis with the
following observations. Overall, the hypothesis is partially supported
and partially rejected in the same way for each of the three variables
represented. Examining each sub-proposition, I can say the
following:
(A) The degree of difference in frequency, index, or probability
values for sociolinguistic variables between female and male speakers
will wax and wane across the lifespan. (A) is supported by the
zigzagging pattern of differences between the groups across the
lifespan for each of the three variables.
(B) When sex segregation or separation is greatest, the degree of
quantitative difference will be the greatest. This will occur when age
segregation or separation is also strongly practiced or enforced. (B) is
rejected for the preteens but accepted for teenagers and for the oldest
group. Recall that the oldest group shows an increased degree of
difference, relative to middle age groups.
(C) When sex segregation or separation is smallest, the degree of
quantitative difference will be the smallest. This will occur when age
segregation or separation occurs to a lesser extent. (C) is supported
by the relative decrease in degree of difference between the genders in
the middle years.
At this point, we can ask additional interrelated questions which our
explorations of the hypothesis and the data make possible. I will first
ask questions that we can answer within the framework of the hypothesis
as formulated. Then, we will turn to questions that push us beyond the
hypothesis and the data.
Questions answerable within the framework of the hypothesis include
the following three:
(i) Why do teenagers, relative to the middle age group, show a
greater degree of difference between females and males for their values
for the sociolinguistic variables?
(ii) Why do the middle age groups overall show the least degree of
difference between females and males for their values for the
sociolinguistic variables?
(iii) Why does the degree of difference between females and males
increase in the oldest group relative to the middle age groups?
Questions that go beyond the hypothesis include the following :
(i) Why is the degree of difference smaller between preteen females
and males, contrary to expectation, than between female and male
teenagers?
(ii) Why does the degree of difference between females and males
increase among the teenagers relative to the preteens? Also, for two
out of the three variables, the degree of difference between females
and males is highest overall among the teenagers. Why is this so?
(iii) Do these zigzagging patterns show up in variables from other
languages and communities as well as in other variables of Puerto Rican
Spanish?
(iv) Would these zigzagging patterns show up in the same way in
variables at different stages of change? For instance, how would the
waxing and waning of gender differences pattern in variables that are
new and vigorous versus those that are nearly completed?
SOME ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS
The three questions in the first set are directly answerable within
the framework of the hypothesis. On the assumption that age and gender
segregation are more strongly practiced or enforced during the teenage
years and during the post-workplace years, the greater degree of
difference between females and males in these groups, relative to the
middle age groups, follows from this separation. During the working
years of the middle age groups, age separation and, consequently,
gender separation are relaxed. Thus, the reduction in degree of
difference stems from increased cross-age and cross-gender interaction.
With increased cross-gender interaction comes convergence between
female and male speakers. This convergence, in quantitative terms, is
revealed in the decreased degree of difference between females and
males of the middle age groups.
Any exploration of the second set of questions falls outside the
predictions made by the original working hypothesis. Therefore, my
answers will, of necessity, be speculative. I begin with the small
degree of difference between the preteen girls and boys, contrary to my
prediction. First, note that although the degree of difference is
relatively small, statistical gender differences among these children
do emerge. This should not surprise us, given the findings of Fischer 1958, Meditch
1975, and Ladegaard & Bleses 2003.
However, research by Roberts 1996 on
preschool children demonstrates that, early on, children do not
directly acquire the gendered patterns of variation that characterize
later age groups. For instance, Roberts found that for English (ing),
there were no significant differences between the genders (1996:162). For (-t,d) deletion, contrary to
expectations, the girls showed a greater probability of deleting than
the boys (p. 116). Therefore, the very early gendered variable behavior
of children may not initially match the gendered variable behavior of
teenagers or adults. The children must acquire these behaviors and, like
all acquisition, this occurs in stages. Yet such acquisition is not the
only type of acquisition that is occurring for preteens. As Guy & Boyd 1990 and Kerswill
1996 also illustrate, children are simultaneously busy acquiring
internal grammatical constraints on variation, the acquisition of which
may be constrained by critical-period issues in ways that the acquisition
of gender constraints on variation are not. Apart from grammatical
constraints, children may also be acquiring the social meanings
associated with sociolinguistic variables. In Ladegaard & Bleses's
study of 4- to 6-year-old speakers of Danish, they suggested that children
this young “are unaware of the social connotations” (2003:228) of sociolinguistic variables. Hence, young
children, unlike all other age groups, are engaged in the simultaneous
acquisition of multiple types of constraints on variation, one of which is
gender. And, with respect to gender, there are also many other things to
learn in addition to gendered variation (Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet 2003:15–32; Fausto-Sterling 2000:243–55). If some things must be learned
before others, owing to limited mental resources, cognitive development,
biological programming, or attention to other aspects of learning, it may
simply be that certain gender constraints on variation are not fully
learned until the later years of childhood. Hence, the smaller degree of
difference between boys and girls, relative to other age groups, could be
interpreted as a function of their stage in the acquisition of gendered
variation.
Next, we turn to the question of why the degree of difference between
girls and boys expands as we go from preteens to teenagers. One may
initially identify this expanding degree of difference as a function of
continuing acquisition of gendered variation. This is true, yet
incomplete because it fails to answer why the increase is so sharp in
two of the three variables. Thorne has observed that as children leave
the preteen period and become teenagers, the process of transition is
“uneven and fluctuating, the focus of negotiation and occasional
conflict” (1993:154). Moreover, as children
become teenagers, they will increasingly engage in what Thorne calls
“borderwork” or “interaction based on and even
strengthening - gender boundaries” (p. 64). The frequency of such
interaction, which goes to the strengthening of gender boundaries,
would increase if such gender boundaries were important. Eckert has
claimed that teenagers “are at a life stage in which the issue of
gender roles becomes crucial” (1989:257).
If this is true, and if borderwork is one place where the construction of
gender boundaries and gender roles is worked out, then we would expect more
of it. Also, as pointed out by Larson & Richards (1991:295), gender segregation decreases in the teen
years, thereby providing more opportunities for borderwork.
Now, as Thorne also proposed, among preteens on the playground, such
borderwork can often “carry extra perceptual weight because they
are marked by conflict, intense emotions, and the expression of forbidden
desires” (1993:85). One element of human
behavior that could contribute “extra perceptual weight” is
extra variation or, more precisely, an extra degree of difference in
patterns of variation, which Speech Accommodation theorists would call
“divergence” (Beebe & Giles
1984:8). The extra perceptual weight and the presence of
divergence may be inferred from the fact that the widest degree of
statistically marked gender differentiation is found among the
teens.
In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that incidents of
borderwork, like other social interactions, may have both frontstage
and backstage dimensions. Here I borrow from Goffman's (1959:112) original use of the term
“backstage.” Frontstage borderwork would include those
moments when cross-gender interaction actually occurs. Backstage
borderwork would occur when individuals discuss and rehearse, with
friends, their experiences of crossing the gender divide. Given that
discussions and rehearsals with friends, at this point, usually means
friends of the same gender, we see that the extra perceptual work of
borderwork may extend from the talk-in-interaction that constitutes the
borderwork to talk-in-interaction about the borderwork. This is merely
a technical way of noting that children will interact with members of
the opposite sex and then may intensely discuss their experiences of a
specific individual or of a generic set, either truthfully or not, with
friends of their own sex. In either case, the enactment of gender
identities emerges. Also, the backstage discussions of borderwork would
seem, of necessity, to involve both convergence among same-gender
friends and constructed moments of divergence in which the original
borderwork is recalled or reconstructed. Notice that this account of
the sharp degree of difference between teenage girls and boys draws on
a few key elements: the continuing presence of gender and age
segregation in the teen years, which may contribute to same-gender
convergence; and the increasing crossing of the gender divide through
borderwork, which may contribute to cross-gender divergence.
Eisikovits's (1987) study of Sydney
adolescents is relevant here. The girls converged toward Eisikovits,
the female interviewer, whereas the boys diverged.
In brief summary, I suggest that the increased degree of difference
between teenage female and male speakers here is a consequence of the
following factors. They are entering a final stage of language
acquisition, part of which involves fine-tuning the acquisition of
gendered variation. As they do, they also engage more frequently in the
perceptually heightened acts of borderwork and backstage discussions of
borderwork at a point in life when gender identity acquires an acute
importance. This degree of heightened difference also occurs at a time
of what Chambers terms “adolescent linguistic extremism”
(1995: 184). In effect, the teenage years appear
to be a period of relatively heightened sensitivity to symbolic displays
of self. These are also the years when the most advanced variants of
linguistic changes in progress may be most frequently expressed (Guy 1990). Labov reports teenage peaks in the use
of advanced variants for many, though not all, of the vocalic variables
in the process of change (2001:458–59) as
well as those for nonstandard variants of such stable variables as (dh)
and (neg) (pp. 102, 110–11). Among these speakers of Puerto Rican
Spanish, we find a teenage peak15
for
direct quotation strategies (
Cameron 2000) but
not for intervocalic (d) and word-final (s). Thus, the heightened degree
of gender difference may also be a function of a general linguistic
experimentation in the teen years. If so, teenagers straightforwardly
illustrate one of the generally accepted propositions about gender that
we stated earlier. Gender, as a social category of experience, action,
and opportunity, is not clearly isolable from other social categories.
In the teen years, gender expression is not clearly isolable from the
experimentation associated with “adolescent linguistic
extremism.”
The ideas put forth here may lead to an inference, the content of
which I would like to identify and then modify. In order for extra
perceptual weight to be assigned, speakers must have linguistic objects
onto which perception can latch. This is similar to the assertion I
made earlier, inferred from the work of Barrett
1999, Liang 1999, and McCloskey 1999, that difference among the genders
may be drawn on by social actors for social constructions, to the
extent that awareness of difference exists – or, if not accurate
awareness, at least a belief that difference exists and that certain
linguistic forms are associated with this difference.16
My point here is that we may feel aware of
differences between females and males, and we may consciously and
strategically use these perceived differences as part of our gender
toolbox (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2003:305).
Yet the content of this awareness can be inaccurate or false. See Trudgill 1983 for an illustration of how perception
and production may not match reality in the Beatles' early singing
pronunciation of syllable-final English (r).
In variationist
terms, the types of variables that speakers would seem capable of
drawing on for social constructions would be those variables of which
they are sufficiently aware. These would have to be, given what we know
about variables, either stereotypes or markers where both types of
variables show sensitivity to both stylistic and social stratification
(Cameron
2000:260;
Labov
1994:78). Indicators, which do not show clear (or any) stylistic
patterning, would be excluded from this type of social construction.
Nonetheless, it is factually wrong to assert that only markers or
stereotypes are drawn on for social constructions.
17 The three Puerto Rican variables discussed here,
intervocalic (d), word-final (s), and direct quotation strategies, are
all markers. The direct quotation strategies, however, are not clearly
markers for the entire San Juan community; the data suggest indicator
status for adults but marker status for children (Cameron 2000:274–75). For stylistic information on
intervocalic (d), see Cedergren (1973:100).
In Hindle's (1979) study of the
situated patterns of vowel variation in the speech of Carol Myers, it
was among female friends playing cards that Myers showed the most
advanced variants of vowels undergoing change in progress in the
Philadelphia vowel system. Moreover, many of these vowels may best be
termed “indicators” because they show little to no
stylistic sensitivity in the Labovian sense of style. Therefore, in
keeping with these findings, I propose that variably informed social
constructions of gender do not draw only on sociolinguistic variables
that are associated with performative or speaker-design style shifting,
in the sense of Schilling-Estes 1998. Because
some aspects of the constructions involve variables that are below the
level of consciousness and are not subject to style shifting, not all
variationist construction of gender is conscious, nor clearly a
function of intention, nor clearly subject to overt speaker control.
This also follows from our earlier assumption that convergence among
same-gender groups entails socially situated probability matching,
which may involve both conscious monitoring and inter-speaker and
intra-speaker priming or perseveration effects. Recall that Chang et al. 2000 suggest that the priming or
perseveration effects may result in implicit learning, which they
identify as the “incidental learning of complex, abstract
relations during the performance of a task” (p. 200). The complex
and abstract relations relevant to our purpose here would involve a
matching of frequency or probabilities of variants of sociolinguistic
variables relative to a socially situated task. The task is the
construction and display of gender identity or affiliation during
same-gender interactions in which friendship is also constructed and
negotiated. In short, individuals will acquire patterns of covariation
between variant frequency or probability, and gender construction and
friendship construction. Such covariation learning is one type of
implicit learning identified by Seger (1994:174), and, like other types of implicit
learning, the learner need not be conscious of the content of
covariation, even though the resulting behavior is systematic.
Therefore, it follows that indicators may be used for social
constructions of gender because they show systematic covariation even
in the absence of speaker's awareness.
OTHER STUDIES: PARALLEL, PARTIALLY
PARALLEL, OR NOT PARALLEL
Earlier, I posed two questions. I repeat them here: Do these
zigzagging patterns show up in variables from other languages and
communities as well as in other variables of Puerto Rican Spanish?
Would these zigzagging patterns show up in the same way in variables at
different stages of change? The answers include a resounding
“yes” and a resounding “no.” The parallels
often are not complete, because the age groupings reported across
studies do not always directly match the age groupings we have provided
for the speakers from San Juan. Recall that the Puerto Rican lifespan
that we are working with contains at least the following three points
of transition: preteen to teenager, teenager to middle age groups, and
middle age groups to the oldest groups.
One striking parallel of an increased degree of difference between
females and males as one travels from preteens to teenagers is provided
by Eisikovits 1998 in her study of Australian
adolescents. In this case, the transition is more accurately one from
early teen to middle teen years. Eisikovits reports on three variables
in this variety of English: nonstandard past tense forms, multiple
negation, and invariable don't. The children are
classified as female or male and are further divided into two age
groups. The younger group averaged 13 years and 11 months, the older
group averaged 16 years and 1 month. The older group also consisted of
a few children who had initially been interviewed for the younger
group. Thus, a degree of developmental data is involved. Of the three
variables, two showed an increasing degree of difference between the
female and male speakers with the transition from the younger to the
older group. For multiple negation, the younger group difference is 1.8
frequency points, and the older group, 22.4. For invariable
don't, the younger females and males differ by 11.9
points, whereas in the older group they differ by 45.2 points. This
parallels the Puerto Rican data. However, for the variable of
nonstandard past tense forms, we find a reverse pattern: The younger
females and males differ by 13.9 points, compared to the older children
who differ by 5 points. This suggests that such patterns depend, to an
unspecified extent, on the type of sociolinguistic variable involved.
One difference between the nonstandard past tense forms and the other
two variables is that among the younger group, females show a higher
frequency of use than males. This is reversed dramatically by the older
group. For the variables of multiple negation and invariable
don't, males show a higher frequency of nonstandard use
in both the younger and older groups.
A pattern quite similar to the findings of Eisikovits is reported by
Labov (2001:267–69, Figure 8.3) for the
stable Philadelphia English variable of (dh). Labov provides data for the
age groups 8–12, 13–15, 16, 17–19, and 20–29. As
one reads the graph of regression coefficients for female and male speakers,
the degree of difference is small between the two youngest groups. It
increases among the 16-year-olds, and then even more among the 17- to
19-year-olds. In the next group, 20–29, the degree of difference
diminishes relative to the teenagers but is still slightly larger than the
two youngest groups. This is a straightforward parallel to the Puerto Rican
patterns as we go from the preteens to the teens and then to the group
20–39.
Another parallel of the transition from preteens to teenagers is
found in the work of Silva-Corvalán
1981 on Chilean Spanish. Specifically, she investigates a
syntactic variable which involves repetition or not of object clitics
within a finite verb phrase. For instance, variation could occur
between Se la estoy pasando ‘I am giving it to
him’ or Se la estoy pasandosela. The clitic pronouns
se and la may be marked once, as in the first
example, or twice, as in the second. Across four age groups,
Silva-Corvalán reported the following degrees of difference in
the frequencies of clitic duplication for female and male speakers.18
The numbers I use here were given to me by
Carmen Silva-Corvalán by e-mail. The data presented in her 1981 article depict them in a graph without directly
reporting the numbers. Gracias, Carmen.
Between age 4
and 6, there is but 1 frequency point of difference. Among teens aged
15–17, the degree of difference increases sharply to 27 points. In
the next group of speakers, aged 30–45, the degree of difference
drops sharply to only 2 points. In the oldest group, aged 50 and higher,
the degree of difference lifts very slightly to 4 points. As with Eisikovits
and Labov on (dh), we find an increase in degree of difference as we travel
from the preteen or early teen children to teenagers. As with the
Puerto Rican data and Labov on (dh), subsequent to the teenage years
there is a drop in the degree of difference. Unlike the Puerto Rican
data, the upswing of degree of difference between the oldest and the
middle age groups is small and insignificant. As such, this provides a
parallel with the Puerto Rican transitions from preteen to teenager to
middle age, but not to the oldest group.
Another parallel, this one covering teenagers to the elderly, is
found in Holmquist's (1985) study of
vowel raising in a Spanish village. The variable is word-final (o) in
such words as pozo ‘well’ that may variably raise
to [u]. Owing to the scalar quality of such raising,
Holmquist uses index values to calculate the mean for the closure value
of word-final (o). Although the age groupings differ from those I have
reported for San Juan, we find a roughly similar dip in the middle
years, after the teens and early 20s, with a rather dramatic increase
in degree of difference among the oldest groups. Basing my analysis on
Holmquist's Table 4 (1985:199) I find
the following degrees of difference. Among the age group 13–24,
the degree of point difference in the mean closure value for (o) is 54
index points. Among the females and males aged 25–49, this
difference drops sharply to 2 points. Between females and males aged
50–74, the difference increases to 30 points. Finally, in the
oldest group, 75 years or older, females and males differ by the
largest margin, 74 points. Thus, I find a pattern that parallels the
Puerto Rican pattern across the post-adolescent lifespan, with one
difference. The difference between Holmquist's findings and those
I reported for the Puerto Rican community is the greater degree of
difference among the oldest groups. What is missing, of course, is a
preteen group and a teenage group separate from those in their early
20s. This collapsing of the teens with speakers in their early 20s may
have obscured the degree of difference between teenage girls and boys.
Nonetheless, a general parallel of the post-adolescent lifespan does
emerge. Moreover, the formal patterning of these differences is the
predicted irregular
-shaped
pattern of gender divergences across the lifespan.
Next, I turn to another partial parallel, derived from
Lippi-Green's (1989) investigation of
the alternation between
and [a] in a dialect of Austrian German. This particular vowel
alternation shows signs of a change in progress, with the direction of
change being from
.
Lippi-Green (1989:223, Table
2) organizes her speakers into female and male categories, and
further into four age groups. For each gender by age category, she reports
the frequency of innovative variant use. Among the age group 17–20,
we find a degree of difference between females and males of 13.7
frequency points. This drops sharply in the next age group,
23–30, where the degree of difference is but 1.1. The degree of
difference increases to 7.6 among those aged 35–46. So far, we
find a clear parallel to the Puerto Rican patterns. However, among the
oldest group, aged 51–79, the degree of difference drops to a
mere .9. So again, we find a partial parallel to the Puerto Rican data.
The partial parallel includes the transition from the teen years to the
next age group, with a beginning rise in the age group that follows.
The difference is found in the oldest group.
Finally, we turn to Labov's (2001)
very complete study of Philadelphia English vowels. Labov provides data
on vowels in various stages of change across a finely calibrated age
continuum.19
The graphs for these vowels
in Labov 2001 do not directly supply the
actual values in numerical form. Therefore, my analysis is based on
close inspection of the graphs themselves. The reader is referred to
the cited pages to see if my interpretation of the graphs is
correct.
The vowels that concern us come from three types:
New and vigorous changes in progress: (aw), p. 304;
(eyC), p. 306; and (ay0), pp. 317, 461.
Mid-range changes in progress: (owF), p. 310; (owC), p. 311;
(uwF), p. 312; and (uwC), p. 313.
Nearly completed changes:
,
p. 310.
The age continuum used for the vowels consists of the following groups:
Under 20 / 20–29 / 30–39 /
40–49 / 50–59 / 60+
The under 20 group consists of children aged 8–18. This
collapsing may cause problems for the analysis in that it averages out
the differences that obtain between the preteens and teenagers,
possibly diminishing the degree of difference between females and males
relative to subsequent age groups.
Based on the Puerto Rican patterns, broadly speaking, here is what we
could predict. Across the lifespan, we will find the irregular
-shaped
curve of the degree of difference between females and males. The under
20 group will show a greater degree of female/male difference
relative to subsequent age groups between, at least, 20 and 49. In the
later portion of this continuum, the degree of difference may increase
slowly. In the oldest group, 60+, we will find a greater degree of
difference than that which holds between females and males in the
middle age groups.
Because the data provided on the vowels involve regression analysis,
both expected values and regression lines are provided. Across all
vowels, if we base our analysis on the slope of the regression line for
females and males across the lifespan, by and large, the degree of
difference between females and males for all age groups is roughly the
same. For the variables (eyC) (p. 306), the degree of difference
increases very slightly with age. For (owF) (p. 310), the degree of
difference sharply increases with age. For (ay0), a male-dominated
change, the degree of difference decreases with age. The regression
line analysis provides clear support for the claim that changes in
progress show a monotonic increase across age groups even as the
different genders proceed at different rates. The monotonicity of age
occurs at the same time that the change in progress across social
classes reveals a curvilinear pattern (p. 303). However, my analysis is
not based on regression lines. When we turn to the expected values, a
different portrait emerges.
For all three of the new and vigorous changes, we initially find a
smaller degree of difference among the under 20 group than in the next
age group, 20–29 (Labov 2001:304, 306,
317) . Subsequent to this, difference in values waxes and wanes in
patterns that do not follow the expected dip in the middle age groups
with an increase in the oldest group. Labov also provides a reanalysis
of (ay0) (p. 461, Figure 14.11) in which he extends the analysis by
subdividing the under 20 group into under 13 and 13–16, then regroups
as 17–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60+. In this
analysis, the under 13 group shows a greater degree of difference between
the genders than do all subsequent groups until 60+. The degree of
difference in the oldest group appears to be similar to that of the
youngest group. Starting in the age groups 40–49 and older, each
group shows a slight increase in the degree of difference. Thus, we find a
-shaped
curve in the degree of difference between females and males across the
lifespan, with one difference when compared to the Puerto Rican pattern.
The greatest degree of difference is exactly where our original hypothesis
of gender segregation predicted, among the preteens and not the teens.
There is also a curious parallel between the early lifespan sections of
this variable and the variable of nonstandard past tense forms reported
by Eisikovits (1998:44). For both (ay0) and
the nonstandard past tense forms, in the youngest age group, females
lead the males. In the next age group, 13–16 for (ay0) and 16
years for the nonstandard past tense forms, males lead females. Thus,
Labov's reanalysis of (ay0) provides partial replication of the
Puerto Rican data. The oldest group shows a greater degree of
difference between females and males than do the middle age groups, as
predicted. However, the peak of differences occurs among the preteens,
not the teens.
For the mid-range changes in progress, we find partial replication of
the Puerto Rican pattern at the beginning, but not the end of the
lifespan. As one goes from the under 20 group to 20–29, the
degree of difference between female and male speakers decreases. After
20–29, the degree of difference shows slightly different patterns
for two sets of variables. For (owF) and (owC), the degree of
difference increases up to the oldest group, where it decreases
slightly, as we also saw in the data from Lippi-Green 1989. For (uwF) and (uwC), the degree of difference
remains roughly the same for the middle age groups, with a slight
decrease again in the oldest group. Thus, a
-shaped
pattern of degrees of difference occurs across the lifespan but is
contradicted, or stopped, at the oldest group.
For the nearly completed change in progress of
,
we find a partial replication of the Puerto Rican patterns at the end,
but not the beginning of the lifespan (Labov
2001:310). The degree of difference among the 20–29 group
increases considerably relative to the under 20 group. The degree of
difference diminishes between ages 30 and 59 and then increases among
the 60+ group, such that the degree of difference among the oldest
group is greater than the degree of difference found among the
immediately preceding middle age groups, 30–59.
Though we do not find complete parallels with the Puerto Rican data,
the data provided by Labov do offer partial parallels. Among the new
and vigorous changes, we fail to find parallels in the variables of
(aw) and (eyC). The variable of (ay0) shows a parallel at the end of
the lifespan, with a peak of difference also occurring in the youngest
group. Among the mid-range and nearly completed changes we find partial
parallels, with the mid-range paralleling the beginning and the nearly
completed changes paralleling the end of the lifespan pattern found for
the three Puerto Rican variables.
The overall picture that results from reviewing the work of
Eisikovits, Silva-Corvalán, Holmquist, Lippi-Green, and Labov is
one of partial parallels, some more complete than others, and some
outright contradictions.
20 Because our
focus is on the intersection of aging and gendering, I do not review
here the potentially relevant work of Macaulay
1977 on Glasgow English. Macaulay reports frequency values for
one sociolinguistic variable and index values for four others across
sets of Glasgow speakers grouped as adults, 15-year-olds, and
10-year-olds. These age groups are further classed according to gender
and then according to four class levels. Working through his data
suggests that the general patterns we have established of fluctuating
degrees of difference between females and males across the lifespan may
not occur for all social classes nor for all types of sociolinguistic
variables. However, aside from Macaulay, I cannot find data sets in the
variationist literature that represent the three-way intersection of
age with gender with social Class. Thus, I postpone such work for
future research.
Some of these divergences appear to result
from the type of variables involved. This is clearest in the work of
Labov. For those vocalic variables that are mid-range or nearly
completed changes, and for one of the new and vigorous changes, we find
partial parallels to the Puerto Rican patterns. For two changes that
are new and vigorous, we do not find parallels. In effect, though with
some degree of variance, this suggests that a variable involved in
change will be available for differing degrees of gender expression
depending on where it is in the time course of change. Eckert (
1989:262) reports a similar interaction between the
time course of change and a gender effect in her study of the Northern
Cities chain shift in the speech of suburban Detroit teenagers. For the
newer variables of (e) and (uh), no significant gender constraint is
found. For the mid range and older variables of
,
a significant gender constraint is found.
Overall, more parallels are found for the earlier parts of the
lifespan than for the later parts. Parallels to the transitions from
preteen to teens to individuals between 20 and 40 emerge in Eisikovits,
Silva-Corvalán, Holmquist, Lippi-Green and Labov's
discussion of stable (dh) as well as the set of mid-range changes.
Parallels to the transitions from the middle of the lifespan to the
oldest stage are found in Holmquist and in Labov's new and
vigorous change of (ay0) and in the nearly completed change of
,
but not in Silva-Corvalán, Lippi-Green, nor
Labov's mid-range changes. Given the range of these findings, I am
in a position to make two cautious generalizations.
First, the overall Puerto Rican patterns for intervocalic (d),
word-final (s), and direct quotation strategies are not universal
patterns that apply to all communities and all sociolinguistic
variables. Where similarities with other communities and variables
occur, the similarity may more likely occur in the earlier parts of the
lifespan than in the later parts of the lifespan. This will include an
increase in the degree of gender differentiation among the teenagers
relative to preteens.
Second, I noted at the outset that gender is not clearly isolable
from other social categories. To make such a claim entails that gender
expression and experience either mediates or is mediated by other
social categories. Given the range of my findings here across different
sociolinguistic variables, I may add that gender expression is also
mediated by the sociolinguistic variables that enable this expression.
In short, the manner, relevance, and salience of gender differences are
mediated not solely by other social categories but also by the
linguistic means available to speakers in their communities. We have
some sense for what types of variables enable this expression, but it
seems quite clear that we have much to learn about this. For one
additional illustration of a type of enabling and constraining
sociolinguistic variable, perhaps close in effect to the nearly
completed change in progress of
in Labov (2001:310), I turn to the work of
Lizardi 1993, Clarke
1990, and Milroy & Milroy 1978.
ANOTHER PATTERN, ANOTHER TYPE OF VARIABLE
Labov anticipates an important qualification of the monotonic age
function of changes in progress. He writes: “In chapter 14
… it will become apparent that monotonic age functions are in
fact impossible, and that every change must show a decline among
younger speakers to some extent” (2001:311).
A handful of changes, at times identified as a loss or recession of form,
rule, or constraint, support Labov's point here. For instance,
Chambers & Trudgill (1980:94) review the
distribution of Norwich (ir) by age and style. In this case, a
“particular relic form” or local pronunciation of the vowel
of bird, further, fern is diminishing. Among the oldest group
depicted, 70 and above, we find clear evidence of style shifting
between the local relic form and Received Pronunciation-like
pronunciation. As one travels from the oldest to the youngest groups,
the frequency of the local relic pronunciation, and the presence of
stylistic variation, drops to nearly nothing.
However, Chambers & Trudgill do not report figures for
female and male speakers separately. Lizardi (1993:85) does provide figures for female
and male speakers, across the lifespan, for a sociolinguistic variable
in Puerto Rican Spanish which shows a similar decline in use in
apparent time. As one goes from the oldest to the youngest, not only
does the frequency of the original variant decrease, so does the degree
of difference between females and males diminish to nearly nothing
among preteens and teenagers.
Lizardi investigates the variable position of expressed pronominal
and lexical noun phrase subjects within questions introduced by Spanish
wh-questions. Specifically, the alternation is between
preverbal and postverbal subject positions when the
wh-question word is an argument of the verb. Thus, in a
question like ¿Qué tú dijiste?
‘What did you say?’, the subject pronoun tú
occurs preverbally even though the interrogative wh-word
Qué is an argument of the verb decir. By
combining the frequency of preverbal expressed subject noun phrases,
pronominal or otherwise, with the frequency of null subjects in these
wh-questions, and then contrasting this overall frequency of
occurrence against the frequency of postverbal subject noun phrases,
Lizardi is able to trace a change across the generations. The change
emerges as a decreasing frequency of postverbal expressed subject noun
phrases and an increasing frequency of preverbal and null expressed
subject noun phrases within the frame of wh-questions.
Overall, for speakers under age 50, Lizardi (1993:80) reports a frequency of postverbal subjects
in wh-questions of 10%. For speakers over age 50, this
frequency is 28%. In turn, Lizardi (1993: 85)
presents comparative frequencies, in graph form, for female and male
speakers across the following age groups: 3–18 years,
19–35, 36–49, and 50 and higher. Judging from the graph
information, the degree of difference between female and male speakers
for each group is approximately the following. Among the group
3–18 years of age, there is no difference at all. Among the group
19–35, one finds 2 points of difference. Among the group
36–49, females and males are separated by 3 points of difference.
But in the oldest group, 50 and higher, females and males show 17
points of difference. Thus, we find not only a decline among young
speakers of postverbal subject placement, but across the lifespan we
also find a parallel loss of the degree of difference between female
and male speakers for this sociolinguistic variable.
Similar patterns are reported in two different studies, Clarke 1990 and Milroy & Milroy 1978. Clarke provides data that indicate the
ongoing loss of monophthongal (o) in the English of St. John's,
Newfoundland. She gives data for four age groups: 15–19,
20–34, 35–54, and 55 and higher (1990:115). A comparison of the degree of difference
between males and females in the oldest age group with that in the youngest
shows that, whereas 22 frequency points separate the females and males in
the oldest group, among the teenagers we find but 2 frequency points
separating the sexes. The Milroys present data from a study of Belfast
English focusing on the progressive loss of the dentalilty of (t) either in
word-initial clusters with [r], as in train, or elsewhere
in words but close to [r], as in water. They depict a
degree of difference between female and male speakers in two age
groups: 42–55 and 18–25 (1978:36).
Within the older group, the frequency difference between females and males
for the recession of dentality of (t) is approximately 40 points. Within
the younger group, there is no difference. Like that of Lizardi, the work
of Clarke and of the Milroys points to communities in which an older group
of females and males distinguished themselves through sociolinguistic
variation in ways not accessible to the females and males of the younger
generations.
These studies, then, clearly contradict the finding of a teenage peak
in degree of difference between females and males. Unlike the other
studies I have reviewed, the variables here are rather
straightforwardly characterized as involving a loss of form, rule, or
constraint in which the loss has come to a close, ending in stability.
At the point of stability, we find very little, if any, degree of
difference between females and males, even as a slight degree of
variation remains.
It is worth pointing out one contrast between the acquired stability
of these losses of form, rule, or constraint and such stable
sociolinguistic variables as intervocalic (d) and word-final (s) in
Puerto Rican Spanish. These losses result in an absence or a massive
reduction of options for speakers. If no options exist for the
speakers, no gender can be constructed. Stable variables, which show no
sign of change across apparent time, provide options for speakers.
Given that gender differences were once expressed through these
variables, we find more evidence to support our previous generalization
that the manner, relevance, and salience of gender expression is
mediated not solely by other social categories but also by the
linguistic means available to speakers in their communities. Moreover,
as the linguistic means change over time, the linguistic means taken up
or available for gender expression will change as well. Thus, the
linguistic manner of gender expression may be said to vary not solely
across the time-bounded moments of talk-in-interaction nor solely
across the time-bounded lifespan, but also diachronically as language
changes over multiple lifetimes.
A SECOND RETURN TO THE HYPOTHESIS
At this point, we have reviewed research from Spanish, English, and
German. We have looked at variables that clearly are stable, including
Puerto Rican intervocalic (d) and word-final (s), English multiple
negation, invariable don't, and word-initial (dh). We
have looked at variables that are perhaps undergoing change, including
Puerto Rican direct quotation strategies, Spanish word-final (o)
raising, Austrian German change of
to [a], and the Chilean Spanish variable of clitic duplication.
These changes, however, are not identified as to their points in the
process of change. For variables with that degree of analysis, we turned
to Labov's studies of Philadelphia vowels that are new, mid-range,
and nearing completion. Finally, we looked at variables that appear to
be in the endpoints of a change involving the loss of form, rule or
constraint, such as Puerto Rican fronting of subject noun phrases in
wh-questions, and the English loss of monophthongal (o) or the
recession of the dentality of (t).
Where does this leave us in regard to the original working
hypothesis? With respect to the first three Puerto Rican variables, I
accepted that waxing and waning of degrees of difference between
females and males would occur across the lifespan. This is supported
throughout most, if not all, of the variables I have looked at.
However, the hypothesized correlation between degree of gender and age
segregation and degree of difference between female/male values for
sociolinguistic variables clearly is untenable for some variables. For
stable variables, it may be the case that, by and large, the
correlation may be maintained, as discussed earlier for the first three
Puerto Rican variables. But, when we turn to changes in progress, the
hypothesis is more difficult to maintain. Two of the new and vigorous
changes do not show any clear parallels to the original Puerto Rican
patterns for which the hypothesis provides some account. The mid-range
changes show partial overlaps at the beginning of the lifespan but not
the end, and the nearly completed changes, or changes involving a loss
of form or rule, show partial overlap at the end of the lifespan but
not the beginning. For these variables, such as Northern Cities English
or Puerto Rican subject fronting in wh-questions, it may be
that the degree of difference between females and males in the oldest
group does result, partially, from gender segregation at that time of
life. However, the variable is clearly unavailable for gender constructions
in the youngest group, ages 3–18, where gender segregation and
separation is most pronounced. Thus, the hypothesis fails where we most
expect it to work. But it fails precisely for a type of sociolinguistic
variable that involves a loss of options. Options are necessary for gender
constructions to emerge. Therefore, these variables are unavailable as
resources for gender construction for younger generations of speakers.
If this is so, when and where does the hypothesis seem to apply?
Tentatively, it appears that the hypothesis applies to stable variation
and unstable variation of the mid-range to nearly completed changes.
For mid-range changes, the first half of life is expected to show
evidence of the effect of gender segregation. For nearly completed
changes, the effect is seen in the second half of life. However, there
will be exceptions to these effects. In short, the effects, like the
objects they influence, are subject to biases or constraints.21
That the effects of gender segregation or
separation are subject to biases or constraints also supports the
proposal that same-gender probabilistic convergence is a form of
implicit learning. Such learning, according to Seger (1994:181–83), is also subject to biases and
constraints. Indeed, there are parallels here among implicit learning,
priming or perseveration, and sociolinguistic variation. They all
involve statistical behavior, though implicit learning need not
completely be conceived in this fashion. Moreover, the statistical
behavior shows constraints, or what are referred to as
“biases” or “dissociations” in the
psycholinguistic literature.
They apply not absolutely and
uniformly, but statistically. Ultimately, future research may seek to
falsify or refine the hypothesis provided here. At this point, it does
provide some coverage, a framework for explanation, and a basis for
prediction, but it is clearly not a watertight, absolutist
framework.
CONCLUSION
Variationist approaches to gender identity have been criticized in
social constructionist terms for disregarding the situated, socially
constructed, and fluid nature of gender expression, as well as for
taking difference between male and female speakers as primary (Ehrlich 1997). However, by focusing on degrees of
difference between males and females at different stages of life, I
have revealed striking, systematic zigzagging in degree of gender
differences across the lifespan. Where a social constructionist
approach would focus on situations as contexts, I have taken different
stages of life, loosely indicated by chronological age, as contexts.
The zigzagging patterns suggest that gender expression is fluid not
only within the situated, co-constructed, and bounded moments of
talk-in-interaction, but also across different life stages and, in the
case of diachronic change, across lifetimes. Hence, gendering and aging
may be said to co-articulate, even as they co-constrain. But it is not
enough to say that gender and age mutually influence each other. Among
the many influences that may be cited, I would add here the effects of
gender segregation as it is mediated by language acquisition,
borderwork between the genders, and access to or participation in the
multi-age workplace. Moreover, gender segregation may be either
mediated or nullified by the types of sociolinguistic variables that
are drawn upon in the multifaceted act of gender construction. In
effect, we may say that although language enables gender expression, it
simultaneously constrains it, a concept in line with Giddens's
(1984:172–74) restatement of
Durkheim's “social facts” as involving both
“constraint” and “enablement.” This last point,
indeed, may be made only by a variationist study that does attend to
issues of gender difference and differences of linguistic form.
