Gender stereotypes in the language of Be my knife by David Grossman

1860–7330/10/0030–0553 Text & Talk 30–5(2010),pp.553–570Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/TEXT.2010.027©WalterdeGruyter

Gender stereotypes in the language of Be my knife by David Grossman

MALKA MUCHNIK

Abstract

Research on Hebrew and other languages points to a stereotype-based view of gender identities as reflected in language. Some stereotypes related to use of the language and gender reveal that women are more conservative than men and use a more standard version of language. One of the stereotypical claims, which is not always borne out by empirical research, relates to the use of nor-mative and prestigious forms versus nonstandard and vernacular ones. The present article focuses on Bemyknife (1998), a novel written by the highly acclaimed Israeli author, David Grossman. The book is a classic example of the perpetuation of gender stereotypes, where the author makes clear a distinc-tion between the linguistic features of the novel’s main characters, a man and a woman. Not only are the characters themselves portrayed stereotypically, but the linguistic features the author attributes them are determined by gender. While the woman uses prestigious, standard and precise language, both in morpho-phonemic terms and in terms of syntax and discourse, the man gener-ally uses a nonstandard vernacular. This reflects the prejudices Israeli society holds with respect to gender; language and literature are merely the means to emphasize this.

Keywords: gender stereotypes; linguistic features; Hebrew literature; David Grossman.

1. Introduction

Studies on different languages, among them Hebrew, have found that astereotype-basedviewofgenderidentitiesisreflectedinbothspokenandwrit-ten language.Some research on this topic pointed to supposedly biologicallinguisticgenderdifferences,butmostof thesestudieshavebeencriticized,and their interpretations are considered inaccurate. Some of the seemingly

554 Malka Muchnik

unequivocalfindingsongenderdifferencesmighthavestrengthenedstereo-typicalviewsofgenderfeaturesasdichotomous.TheaimofthepresentarticleistodescribehowaHebrewwriterdepicted

genderdifferencesinamanandawoman’swrittenlanguagebyusingstereo-typicallinguisticforms.ItwillfocusonBe my knife,anovelwrittenbythehighlyacclaimedIsraeliauthor,DavidGrossman.Be my knifeisthenameoftheEnglishtranslation,thoughtheEnglishtitlegiveninsidetheHebrewver-sionisWords into flesh.Thebookisaclassicexampleofhowliteraturecan“contribute”totheperpetuationofsexualstereotypes.Thenoveltellsthestoryofaplatonicrelationshipbetweenamanandawomanwhoareeachmarriedtosomeoneelse.Bymutualagreement,therelationshipisplayedoutonlythroughcorrespondence.Thefirstpartofthebookismadeupoftheletterswrittenbytheman,Yair;thesecondpartcontainstheletterswrittenbythewoman,Mir-iam.Thefinalsectioncontainsanimaginarydialoguebetweenthetwo.Primaryvariationiststudiesclaimedtohavefoundcleardifferencesbetween

men’sandwomen’slanguage.Whilenonstandarduseoflanguagewasassoci-atedwithmen,standardlanguagewasrelatedtowomen,whowerealsosaidtopreferprestigiouslinguisticfeatures(Labov1966,1990;Trudgill1972,1974).Bycontrast,Fasold(1972,1990)andNichols(1983)claimthatithasnotbeenproven thatwomenaremoreconservative thanmennor that theyaremoresensitivetoprestigioustypesoflanguage.Theyfurtheraddthatinothercasestheoppositewasfound,namelythatmenaremoreconservativeandwomenaremore innovative in theiruseof language.These studies,originallycon-ducted for the analysis of language change,weremodified or reinterpretedlater.JamesandDrakich(1993)assertthattheuseofprestigiouslinguisticforms

attributedtowomenisrelatedtotheeconomicopportunitiestheyhaveandthekindoflanguagetowhichtheyareexposedbecauseofthesecircumstances.AsJames(1996)demonstrates,therearemanycontradictoryresultsregardinglin-guisticvariablesattributedtomenorwomen.Whilesomestudiesreportthatmenusemorenonstandardlinguisticfeaturesthanwomen,otherstudieshavenotfoundsuchdifferences,andyetothershavefoundtheopposite.Theincon-sistentfindingsclearlyshowthattheseempiricalresultshavebeenmisinter-pretedbecausenotallsocial,culturalandcontextualconditionsandpersonalmotivationshavebeentakenintoconsideration.Jamesconcludesthatamongworking-classwesterncommunities,marketforcesandsocialnetworksplayanimportantroleinwomen’suseoflinguisticallyprestigiousforms.Accordingtodominancetheories,sincewomenhavelessaccesstopower

thanmen,theymusttakeadvantageofthelanguageassymboliccapital,andthismayexplaintheprestigiousformswomenuse.Categoriesofwomen’sormen’slanguage,aswellaspowerfulorprestigiousspeech,areculturallycon-structedinsocialgroups,andtheychangethroughouthistory.Theenactment

Gender stereotypes in Hebrew 555

ofoppositionsliketoughnessinmalespeechincontrastwithgentilityandhighcultureinfemalespeechstrengthensandreproducesit(Gal1995).Asshownin research conducted by Dubois and Horvath (2000), gender differencesclaimedtobefoundinstudiesaboutlanguagechangewerenotaccurate.Theydemonstratethatgenderdoesnotalwaysplayanimportantroleinlinguisticdifferences,sinceinthecourseoftimemenandwomenmaymoveindifferentdirections.InDuboisandHorvath’sstudy,youngmenusedsymboliccapital,whilewomendidnotneedthis,sincetheirsocialrolehadchanged,andtheirresponsibilityforeducatingchildreninthetraditionallanguagewasnolongerimportant.Since linguisticpatternsmaychangewith time, it isnotpossibletoassertwhichlinguisticforms,whetherstandardorprestigious,willbeusedby each gender more prevalently. Rather than gender, other important andcomplexsocio-historicalandeconomiccategorieswere found tobe respon-sibleforlanguageuseandchange.Changesoccurringalonggenerationsareconsistentwithconstructionistviewsofgender,asstatedbyCameron(2003b).Ifgendermaybedifferentlyexpressedacrossculturesandthroughtime,onecannotdetermineauniformanduniversalcharacteristicofmaleandfemalebehavior.Following Eckert (1989, 2000) as well as Eckert and McConnell-Ginet

(2003), I propose that linguistic variations should be explained as a choicemadeforsocialandsymbolicpractice,anditseemsthatmorewomenthanmendependonsymboliccapitalasameansofidentityrepresentation.Standardorvernacularlinguisticvariationsarenotonlyassociatedwithideologiesrelatedtoparticularhistories,butalsowithdifferences inknowledgeandauthority.Sincestandardlanguageisrelatedtosocialelites,itisalsoassociatedwithre-finedbehavior,whilenonstandardlanguageisassociatedwithroughness.ThiscanexplainwhyinGrosman’snovelstandardlanguageisstereotypicallyat-tributedtothewoman,whereasthenonstandardvariationisattributedtotheman.AsGalandIrvine(1995)state,socialcategories,includinggender,arepartly constructed and reproduced through symbolic devices and everydaypractices,whichcreateboundariesbetweenthem.Theyshowhowasupposedrelationbetweenspeakersandlinguisticvarietyiscreated,aswellashowide-ologiesfunctionassymbolsandgeneratelinguisticstereotypes.According to post-structuralist perspectives, language is constitutive of

power,identityandsocialorganization.Womensometimesuselinguisticfea-turestoachievesocialstatusdeniedtothemwithregardtoemploymentop-portunities.Mengaintheirstatusinthemarketplaceineconomicterms,whilewomenhavetoearnitthroughasymbolickindofcapital,andlanguageisameansforthispurpose.AspointedoutbyRomaine(2003),thesocialexpecta-tionthatwomenusemorestandardorprestigiouslanguagethanmenispara-doxical,sinceinmostsocietieshigherstatusandpowerisattributedtomen.AnotherparadoxistheonestatedbyCameron(2003a) — ontheonehandwe

556 Malka Muchnik

trytoshowthegapbetweensexistrepresentationsandreality,butontheotherhandwe criticize those representations because theymay serve as amodelforpeople’sbehavior,implyingthatrepresentationmayreallyaffectbehavior.Althoughthismaybetrue,itseemsthatifwedonotrevealculturalrepresenta-tions,wecannotexpectthemtochange.Whetherdiscussingsocialstereotypesorempiricalfindings,whatisparticu-

larlyinterestingingenderstudiesisnotthedifferencesinforms,butthediffer-encesrelatedtotheroleoflanguagewithinagivensocialcontext,althoughsuchdifferencesaremostlyfolkloristicandnotreal.Representationalstereo-typing practice involves simplification, reduction, and naturalization. Suchstereotypes are (re)produced in different practices of representation, andamongtheminliterature(Hall1997,Talbot2003).InmystudyonIsraelislangexpressions(Muchnik2007),Ifoundsemantic

distinctionsbasedonstereotypes.ThestudyexaminedtheDictionary of Israeli slang(Rosenthal2005)fortermsmarkedonlyforonegenderorparalleltermsappearingformenandwomen,butdifferingintheirmeaning.Farmoretermswerefoundtorelatetowomenthantomen,andmostfeminineentrieshadanegativeconnotation,whilemasculineentrieshadapositiveconnotation.Thecommon denominator of terms attributed tomen referred to their physicalstrengthandheroism,suchasgever la‘inyan (‘atalentedandimpressivemale’),yatsa gever(‘passedatoughtest’).Instead,termsattributedtowomenmostlyincludedphysicalappearanceandsexualbehavior,withaderisivetonebehindthem,likeshafa(‘attractivewoman’),kusit(‘anattractiveyoungwoman,usu-allywithpronouncedsexualappearanceandbehavior’[fromtheArabickus,‘woman’ssexualorgan’]),musit(‘ayoungattractivewomanwhoradiatesre-finedsexuality,basedonkusit’),ptsatsat min(‘anespeciallyattractivewoman’[lit.‘asexbomb’]).(Allthemeaningsintheexamplesabovearetranslationsoftheoriginalexplanationinthedictionary;commentsinsquarebracketsaremine.)Interestingly,whenparallelformswerefound,adismissivetonewasadded to the expressions referringor relating towomen, and the samewasfoundbyLivnat(2006)intheHebrewMicrosoftWordThesaurus.Forexam-ple, she found thatwhile themasculinewordmexashefwasonlyviewedas‘magician’,fortheparallelfeminineformmaxshefa derisivemeaningswereadded — mirsha‘at (‘shrew’)andklavte(‘bitch’).Differentsocialnormsregardinggendermaybemanifestedinliterarylan-

guage,asliteraturefrequentlymagnifiessocialstereotypes.Forexample,Mills(1995)found,inherresearchonthewritingofBarbaraTaylorBradford,thatmale and female characters are attributed different behavior,mostly stereo-typed — menareactiveandwomenarepassive.Millssuggeststhatthisdoesnotimplyadifferentstyleaccordingtothewriter’sgender,butratheranover-generalization.Thisbecomesevidentwhenexaminingthenoveldiscussedinthepresentarticle,aswillbeshowninwhatfollows.


Thecharacters inGrossman’snovelarepresented inastereotypical fash-ion — themanownsabusiness,andthewomanisateacher.Weknowwhatthewomanlookslike,asthemanhasseenher.Butshehasneverseenhimandthroughout the entire book he is never described physically. Furthermore,basedsolelyonacursoryglance,themangivesadetaileddescriptionnotonlyof thewoman’s appearance, body and clothing, but of hermovements andfacialexpressions.Basedonthisalone,hethendrawsconclusionsabouthercharacterandfeelings.Whileheknowsheraddressandwheresheworksandevenusesittosendhisletters,hisfullname,age,address,professionandplaceofworkareonly revealed inhisfinal letter. Inhisfirst letter,he introduceshimselfasadedicatedfather,thoughitlaterturnsoutthatthisisnotthecaseandthatinrealityonlysheisadedicatedmotherwhoisconcernednotonlyaboutherson,butalsoabouthis.Thedifferencesbetweenthesexesaspre-sentedinthebookdonotonlyfeatureprominentlyin thedescriptionof thecharacters,theirnatureandbehavior,butalsointheirdifferentuseoflanguage.

2. Gender differences as reflected in language

TheIsraelistereotypesofmenandwomenarereflectedinliteraryandjournal-isticwriting,aspointedbyAriel(1988).Shefoundthatinprestigiousnews-papers,aswellaspopularmagazines,menarepresentedfirstbytheirprofes-sion,thenbytheirname,dependency,othercharacteristics,andonlyattheendbytheirsex,whereaswomenarepresentedbytheirdependency,thensex,pro-fession,name,andothercharacteristics.Arielpointsoutthatliterarytextsrefermuchmoreoftentomen’sprofessionthantowomen’sprofession,andfemalesarecharacterizedbymorepersonaltraits,especiallyaspartofafamily.Almosttwiceasmanywomenasmenweredescribedastotheirappearances,includ-ingphysicaldescriptionandclothes.InastudyconductedbyArielandGuiora(1992)onthe languageofHebrewliteratureof the1930s, itwasfoundthatmalewritersfrequentlyresortedtostereotypicaldescriptionsoffemalecharac-ters.SimilarfindingswerereceiveduponexaminationofnewliteraryworksbyauthorssuchasAbrahamB.Yehoshua,AmosOz,andMeirShalev.Wecouldexpectliterarywritingtoreflectsocialchangesthatwehavewit-

nessedinrecentyearsinwesternsocietiesregardinggenderissuesandtofindfewerstereotypicaldescriptions.However, in thepresentarticleIwillshowthatstereotypesfoundinpastgenerationsofHebrewliteraturearestillpresentin current literarywork.As stated previously, this articlewill focus on thenovelBe my knife.TheexamplesquotedbelowarefromtheoriginalHebrewbook(Grossman1998)andtheEnglishtranslation(Grossman2001).Yair,theheroofthenovel,revealsanawarenessofgender-specificspeech

styles,whenherelatesthefollowingtoachildhoodfriend:

558 Malka Muchnik

(1) Pitaxnu signon dibur zugi veyahir uvote, safa gavrit me’od hayta lanu... (Grossman1998:131)

‘We developed the arrogant, bold speaking patterns of a couple — weusedverymanly language ...’(Grossman2001:133)

Thesexofthespeakersguidesnotonlytheirlinguisticchoices,butalsothesubjectsofdiscussionand typesof social activity that arepresented stereo-typicallybyYair.Hereishow“typical”menaredescribed:(2) Be’emet, lama at lo gever?! Ze haya poter hamon be‘ayot: pgisha pa‘am

bishvu‘aim-shlosha be’eize bet-kafe o stekiya. Yordim ‘al kama birot, me-dabrim ‘al ziunim, ‘asakim, politika, bimei shishi axarei hatsohorayim misxak kaduregel...(Grossman1998:133–134)

‘Honestly, why aren’t you a man?!Thatwould have solved somanyproblems: meeting every two or three weeks in some coffee-shop orsteakhouse, throwingbackbeers, talkingaboutfucking,business,poli-tics;goingtoasoccergame...’(Grossman2001:136)

Inboth the examplesprovidedabove, the author emphasizes the styleofspeechusedbymenasbeingcrudeandrelatesthistotheirtypicalactivities,whichincludetopicsofconversationthatdifferfromthosetypicalforwomen(Weil1983).Oneofthemostcommondescriptionsofmalespeechinlinguisticresearchistheiruseofnonstandardlanguage.AccordingtoCameron(1995,1996), there is nothing negative about the use of nonstandard dialects; theproblemrelatestothebiaseswithregardtothisspeech,anditisclearthatitreflectssocialnormsandgenderstereotypesinagivensociety.Gender identity in Israeli society isundoubtedly influencedby itsmilita-

rizednature,asshownbySasson-Levy(2006),andthisisanimportantaspectofchildren’sandadolescents’socialization.Althoughmenandwomenserveinthearmy,menareexpectedtoacttoughandperformheroicroles,whilewomenaresupposedtobehavegentlyandinamotherlyway.Thisperceptionstemsfromhistoricalpatriarchalideologies(Bernstein1992),andalthoughtheorigi-nal Zionist ideology sought gender equality, this was not really achieved(Weiss2003).Identitycanbeperceivedinthelanguageand,inversely,linguis-tic uses contribute to the construction of gender- differentiated identities(Katriel1986,1991;Lefkowitz1995).Interestinggrammaticaldevicesregard-inggenderidentityinHebrewliteratureandintimatetalkwerefoundbyTobin(2001).Femaleswouldsometimesswitchgenderanduseunexpectedmascu-lineformswhenaddressingotherfemales.Heexplains thisasawayofex-pressing affection, intimacy and solidarity. In a study on “troubled talk” inIsrael,TobinandSternPerez(2009)showhowmentrytoconvinceothersoftheirheroismandavoidanypossiblesignofweakness, thus reflecting theirperceptionsof thesurroundingsociety, theexpectationsof itsmembersandsocialapprovalofmachismo.


Variousresearchershavetriedtoexplainnonstandardspeechformsattrib-utedtomenandstandardformsattributedtowomenbasedontheirsocialsta-tus.Milroy(1980)asserts that this is related tosocialnetworksofmenandwomen. She postulates that men adopt the language characteristics of thegroupswithwhich theyworkasanexpressionofsolidarity. Inherstudyofcommunitiesmarkedbynonstandarduseoflanguage,mostofthemenworkedaslaborers,constructionworkersorminers,andthereforetheirlanguagewasclosertothevernacularacceptedinthatnetwork.Wecaninferfromthisthatprestige attributed to specificways of speakingmayvary according to net-worksandmarketplaces,butitmayalsovaryinthecourseoftime.Regardingwomen’slanguageasinfluencedbysocialnetworks,profession

andstatus,Nichols (1983) shows that the linguisticoptionsandchoices forAfro-AmericanwomenintheruralsouthoftheUnitedStatesareareflectionofsocio-economicfactors,astheyaregenerallyrestrictedtoworkingincertainprofessionsoutsidetheircommunity,suchassalesclerks,teachersandnurses.Thesekindsofoccupationsrequirestandardspeech,whichisinnovativeinthiscommunity.Theyalsoprovidewomenwithopportunitiestocommunicatewithpeople of a higher social status.However, the reason for their use ofmorestandardlanguageisnotbecause theyarewomen,butratherbecauseof theeconomicconditionswhichledthemtothissituation.Anotherexplanationofthedifferencesclaimedtobefoundbetweenthelin-

guisticfeaturesofmenandwomencouldberelatedtocommunitiesofprac-tice.According to this theory, theway inwhich things are done, includingwaysoftalking,emergeinjointactivitieswithinaggregatesofpeopleengagedin common endeavors (Lave andWenger 1991;Wenger 1998; Eckert andMcConnell-Ginet 1992a, 1992b, 2003). Through participation in differentcommunitiesofpractice,peopleconstructtheirplaceandrolesinthesociety.Ifgenderdifferencesexistintherolesplayedbythemembersofacommunityofpractice,itisalmostcertainthatdifferenceswillalsobefoundintheiruseoflanguage.However,sinceeverypersonrelatestodifferentcommunitiesofprac-tice,weshouldnotmakegeneralizationsaboutspecificwaysofusinglanguage.Inherstudyofteenagers,Eisikovits(1987)showedthatgirlstendtoadopt

thestandardandprestigiousspeechofsocialgroupsoutsidetheonetowhichtheybelong.Boys,bycontrast, tendtopreservetheirnonstandardspeechtostrengthenthetoughmanlyimageacceptedintheirgroup,asameansofrebel-lingagainsttheestablishment.Theconsciousnessoflinguisticnormsincreasesasteenagersmatureintoadulthood.Eckert(1989)maintainsthatwomen’sse-lectionofprestigiouslanguageisattributabletothefactthattheyaregenerallytreatedwithlessrespectthanmen,andhavelessopportunitytomakeanim-pact on society.As away to gain the same respectmen enjoy,women areforcedtouseprestigiouslanguageassymboliccapital.Thischoicemaystemfromthewaysocietytreatswomenandovertimegender-specificspeechstyles

560 Malka Muchnik

maybecomemoreentrenchedinthelanguage,eventoanexaggeratedextent.Nonetheless,Eckertemphasizesthatthissymbolicusemayvaryaccordingtocircumstancesandtothespeechcommunity,andthereisnouniformfemalespeechstyle.Stigmatizedfemaleprestigiouswaysofspeakingdonothavetooriginatein

women’spreference,butitmayalsobethatbecausewomenusetheseforms,theyareperceivedasmoreprestigious,assuggestedbyMilroyetal.(1994),whostudiedvariantsofEnglishpronunciation.ThiscanalsoexplainchangesinpronunciationledbywomeninNewZealand.Inthiscasetoo,whatwasfirstconsidered to be a non-prestigious use, gained prestige in society (Holmes1995).BelowIwillshowthatthelanguageofthefemalecharacterdepictedinthenovelBe my knifeishighlystigmatizedasbeing“toonormative”ascom-paredwiththatofthemalecharacter.

3. Morpho-phonemic differences in Grossman’s novel

DavidGrossmanisundoubtedlyawareofthenatureofhischaractersinBe my knife andthelanguagehehasthemspeak.Stein(2003,2006)foundthatGross-man’swritingismarkedbyheavyuseofmeta-language.Variouscommentsbythecharactersaboutthetraitsofmenandwomenandtheirspeechtestifytothestereotypicalmannerinwhichthewomanispresentedinthenovel.Amongthemostprominentcharacteristicsofthiswomanisthenormativeandprestigioususeofuniquelanguage.Thus,forexample,theman,Yair,writes:

(3) Einex sovelet et hapina . . . vekaxa himshaxt leyadot bi ‘od lefaxot shlo-sha ‘eineni’ mexoxiyim, bekol shel mora ‘im tisroket banana, aval pit’om ra‘adu lax hasfataim vebarax lax ‘ani lo’ katan veporea‘ xok(Grossman1998:26)1

‘Youdonot likethecorner...andinthismanneryoucontinuetostonemethroughatleastanotherthreecorseted“Idonots”inthevoiceofa teacher with a banana-shaped hairdo — butsuddenlyyourlipstrembledandalittle“Idon’t”escaped...’(Grossman2001:21–22)

DifferencesinnormsrelatedtoagiveneraandthewayinwhichtheyarereflectedinliteraturearewellknowninHebrewandhavebeendescribedatlength byBen-Shahar (1994) andMuchnik (2003). In light of the fact thatwomenaremoreconservativethanmenintheiruseoflanguage,itcouldbeexpectedthatwomenwoulduseolderexpressions.However,inrealitywomenmaysometimesbenotonlylessconservativebutevenmoreinnovativethanmen.Similarly,insomesocialcontextswomenmayusemorenon-prestigious

1 Underliningintheexamplesisnotinoriginalnovelbuthasbeenaddedbyauthorforemphasis.


andnonstandardlanguagethanmen,asshownbyCoates(2004),butexistingstigmaspreservesocialperceptionsandmagnifythem.Thestereotypicalper-ceptionofwomen ismetaphoricallypresented in thenovel,as illustrated inExample3above,whereprestigewordsarerelatedto“ateacherwithabanana-shapedhairdo”andhernormativeexpressionsaredescribedas“corseted”.AnanalysisofthelanguageusedbyYairandMiriamshowsthatGrossman

indeedattributed theuseofhigh-prestigewords to thewoman, and theuseof vernacular to the man.A study of the language of Hebrew journalism(Muchnik1994)foundasimilartrend.Thoughveryfewlinguisticdifferenceswerefoundbetweenmaleandfemalejournalists,oneofthemwasthatfemalewritersmadefrequentuseofwordsbelongingtoahighregister,whilemalewritersmadeheavyuseofslang.Theexplanationforthisseemstobethatthewritersaccommodatetosocialexpectations,sincethemostsalientfindingsinthisresearchwererelatedtothematicfeaturesandtoreaders’gender.Thus,itmaybethatGrossmantriedtorepresentwomen’sactualuseoflanguage,al-thoughthereasonforthisuseoflanguageismorelikelytobelinkedtosocialexpectations.Table1showsaselectionofcomparablewordsusedbyYairandMiriam.

Thelinguisticdistinctionbetweenthemisbasedonregisterandpracticesofagivenperiod.

Table1showsthatwhileYairprefersthewordswhy,now,watch andsay,Miriamgenerallyselectstheequivalentswherefore,presently,observeandtell.Thedifferencebetweenthesepairsofwordsisquiteclear:thefirstarecom-monlyusedineverydayvernacular,whiletheothersarefoundsolelyinhigh-registerandliterarylanguage.ItappearsthatGrossmandeliberatelyusesthesedifferent forms of speech for theman or the women, not only because heattributesthemtoaspecificgender,butalsobecausetheyareassociatedwithacertainera.WhiletheliteraryhighformsaretypicalofoldHebrew,thever-nacularformsaretypicalofmodernHebrew.Aswewillseefurther,Miriamis

Table1. Comparison of high register / vernacular words

Word Meaning Register Yair Miriam

lama ‘why’ Vernacular 56 10madua‘ ‘wherefore’ High 3 19 ‘axshav ‘now’ Vernacular 22 6ka‘et ‘presently’ High 79 114lehistakel ‘watch’ Vernacular 27 1lehabit ‘observe’ High 19 21lehagid ‘say’ Vernacular 41 6lomar ‘tell’ High 3 14

562 Malka Muchnik

depictedinthisnovelasanold-fashionedwoman,andtheseformsreinforcethisfeeling.Grossman’scharactersmakenumerouscommentsintheirlettersaboutthe

languagetheyuse.MiriamnotesthedifferencebetweenherlanguageandthatofYair.Inoneofherletters,shewritesthefollowing:

(4) Tagid (samta lev eize tsemed mufla anaxnu? ani tamid omeret ‘tagid’, veata omer ‘tishme‘i’) ...(Grossman1998:216–217)

‘Tellme(haveyounoticedwhatawonderfulcoupleweare?Ialwayssay“Tellme”andyoualwayssay“Listen”)...’(Grossman2001:226)

Infact,thisturnsouttobeincorrect.Inmostplacesinthebook,itisthemanwhowrites“tellme”and“listen”.Uponanin-depthexamination,itwasfoundthattheuseofimperativeforms(actuallyfutureconstructionsusedastheim-perativeinvernacularHebrew)wasfargreaterinYair’slanguage,ascanbeseeninTable2.Asidefromageneralsummaryoftheuseoftheimperative(inthefirstrow),Table2providesuniqueformsusedrepeatedlybyYair,butrarelybyMiriam.(Suffixesinbracketsareaddedtothefeminineform.)

It is possible that themale hero’s significant use of the forms presentedaboveisattributabletothefactthattheyarenonstandardgrammaticalforms,acceptableprimarilyinspokenHebrew.Bat-El(2002)notesthatwhentrun-cated(normative)imperativesarefoundincolloquialspeech,speakersidentifythemasnotbelongingtotheregister.AlthoughBolozky(2009)pointsoutthatasignificantnumberofbothimperativeforms,normativeandcolloquial,areused inboth registers, it appears thatcolloquial formsaredeliberatelyusedinYair’slanguage.Bycontrast,thesecolloquialformsarescarcelyfoundinMiriam’slanguage,butthereasonforthismaybethatsheuseslessimpera-tiveformsoverall.A greater use of imperative forms in males’ language as compared to

females’languageisreflectedinliterature,aswasfoundbyYemini(2003)inastudyofthelanguageusedbymaleandfemalepoetsinmodernHebrew.Itwasclaimedthatavastuseofimperativeswasfoundinmales’language,asop-

Table2. Distribution of imperatives

Form Meaning Yair Miriam

Totalforms Imperatives 274 34tagid(i) ‘tellme’ 38 5tishma‘(ei) ‘listen’ 23 3tir’e(i) ‘look’ 28 5teta’er(ari) ‘imagine’ 13 0


posedtofemales’who,itwasclaimed,uselessimperativesandprefersofterexpressions(Tannen1994;Chen1996).Asinothercases,thisusemayalsooriginateinsocialexpectationstowhichspeakersandwritersaccommodate.If,infact,thereisagenderdifferenceintheuseofimperatives,thiscouldbeexplainedasaconsequenceofchildren’ssocialization.Blank-Greif(1980)re-ported that,whenapproaching their children, fathersused imperative formswhilemotherstendedtousemoreindirectforms.MuchnikandStavans(2007,2009)foundthatfathersusedmoreimperativesthanmotherswhentellingsto-riestotheirchildren,buttheyexplainitasadifferenceinstyle.Theformsusedbymotherswerenotrealimperatives,butratherstimulatorsaimedatencour-agingchildrentofollowtheeventsortodrawthechildren’sattentiontothetaskathand.Bycontrast,fathers’imperativescamealongwithaclearandac-curateguidancetotheevents.Theattitudetowardlanguagenorms,theirchangethroughtimeandtheiruse

bythemanorthewomaninthisnovelareevidentinaphonologicalfeaturerepresentedintheHebreworthography,/s/versus/z/.TheEnglishtranslationreflects this in thepairParice /Paris,buthasnoparallel forms tomuzika /musikafoundintheHebrewtext.Inexample(5)wecanseethatwhenYairreferstoMiriam,hefirstusestheregularformascribedtohiminthenovel,andthenaddsaformthatthewriterassociateswiththewoman.Thiscouldbein-terpretedasawaytoaccommodatetoMiriam’slanguage,butalsoasawaytomockherlanguage,whichYairconsiderstobetoonormativeandstrict.

(5) Ulai ze kara keshemiriam nas‘a lePariz, leParis (Grossman1998:151) ‘MaybeithappenedwhenMiriamwenttoParice — no,toParis’(Gross-

man2001:155)

Bothforms,ParizandParis,areusedinModernspokenHebrew,buttheformParis isveryinfrequentinthewrittenlanguage.Grossmanascribesthisform to thewoman, and this is reinforcedby anotherwordusing the samephonologicalalternatives — muzika(‘music’)asopposedtomusika.Example6istakenfromthelettersbyYair.

(6) Sha’alt eizo muzika ani shomea‘ . . . ke’ilu muvan me’elav shetamid melava oti muzika. . .ani lo me’od muzikali, ani, leda‘ati, adam dismuzi ...(Grossman1998:47)

‘YouaskedmewhatkindofmusicIlistento...asifyouassumedthatIamalwayssurroundedbymusic...I’mnotverymusical.Iam,inmyopinion,dysmusical...’(Grossman2001:44)

Examples7–9demonstratetheformmusika,whichisattributedtoMiriam,asitappearsonlyinherletters.ItisinterestingtonotethecommentmadebyYairbetweenbrackets(feminine?),whichstrengthensthefeelingthattheword

564 Malka Muchnik

musikaisperceivedasafemaleusage.Theworditselfhasagrammaticalfem-ininegenderinHebrew,andthismayalsohavehadaninfluence.

(7) . . . kax shetamid tihiye sharui betox musika (nashit?) shetetsaltsel vetit‘anbel svivxa (Grossman1998:232)

‘...sothatyouwillalwaysbesurroundedbymusic(feminine?)thatwillringandswinglikeapenduluminyou’(Grossman2001:243)

(8) Xaval she’i efshar lishmoa‘ musika ka‘et(Grossman1998:240) ‘WhatapityIcan’tlistentomusicrightnow’(Grossman2001:252)(9) Bareka‘ shama‘ti kolot shel kama anashim. musika shel reshet gimel

(Grossman1998:252) ‘...andheardafewvoicesinthebackgroundandmusicfromtheradio’

(Grossman2001:265)

It is worth noting that the form used inYair’s letters is alwaysmuzika,whereasinMiriam’sletterstheonlyformfoundismusika.TheAcademyoftheHebrewLanguagehasneverdeterminedwhichoftheseformsisthenorm,andtherecommendationistowritethewordaccordingtoitspronunciation.Bothformsareusedinthespokenandwrittenlanguage,andnoresearchhasbeenconductedtodeterminewhichoneisconsideredmoreprestigious,orwhethertheyaregender-related.Theformmusikaappearstobeolder,andindeeditisfound in old dictionaries,while newer dictionarieswritemuzika.The sameopinionwasreportedinarandomsurveyIconductedamongnativespeakersconcerningthepronunciationoftheword,whilenogenderdifferenceswerefound.However,itseemsthatGrossmanpreferstouseolderformsasfarasthewoman’slanguageisconcerned.OtherdifferencesappeartoberelatedtoHebrewlanguagenormsinagiven

period,andnotnecessarilytothesexofthespeakers.Grossmanhimselfdepictsthewoman as preferring older forms to newer ones, andStein (2003: 253)found in the same novel that it is generally Yair who is innovative withwords,andnotMiriam.ThisbecomesevenmorepronouncedintwocommentsmadebyYair,andrelatedtotheuniqueuseMiriammakesofold-fashionedlanguage:

(10) “Don žuaniyut atsmit pnimit”?! bixlal, yesh lax lif‘amim bituyim anaxro-puritaniyim ka’ele she’efshar lamut, pele shelo katavt “don džuan”!(Grossman1998:72)

‘An“internalDonJuancomplex”?You,ingeneral,usesuchanachro-puritan expressionsIcoulddie.I’mshockedyoudidn’twrite“LeDonduJuan”!’(Grossman2001:71)

(11) Vehapa‘am halaxti ktsat sholal axarei haxagigiyut hanimletset shelax, yesh lax milim, bexayai, kmo mimasexet shel shnot haxamishim . . .(Grossman1998:194)


‘This time I allowed myself to be swept away by your high-flown sentimentality — youusewords,Iswear,thatarelikethosecommunityceremoniesfrom the fifties ...’(Grossman2001:201)

ItwasinterestingtofindthatthiswasindeedhowtheEnglishtranslationofthebook,publishedintheUnitedKingdomin2001,ispresented.Whilethecover of the originalHebrewversionhad a picture byFrancescoClementeshowingtwoarmsholdingeachother,theEnglishversionshowsawoman’spicturethatreallylooksasifitcameoutofthefifties.Thus,modernandold-fashionedstylesaregenderedconceptsreflectedinthisnovel.

4. Syntax and discourse features

Theuseofold-fashionedforms,asreferredtobyYairinExamples10and11above,arerelatedtothewoman’slanguagebecausetheyareconsideredtobemoreprestigious.Bycontrast,authorGrossmanhasYair,hismaleprotagonist,speak a nonstandard vernacularHebrew.One feature ofYair’s nonstandardlanguageistheuseofsyntacticformsthatomitinformation,which,inkeepingwiththefindingsofotherstudies,issupposedtobeadifferentiatorbetweenmaleandfemalediscourse.PhilipsandReynolds(1987)claimthatmenaremorelikelythanwomentoomitsubjectpronounsandtheauxiliaryverbsto haveandto be,particularlyinfirstpersonsingular.Theresearchersstressthatthe omitted elements do not add information and are therefore perceivedbymen to be unnecessary.By contrast,women tend tomake heavyuse ofpronouns,particularly in thefirstperson,asameansofexpressingpersonalinvolvement,aswasfoundinHebrewjournalisticlanguage(Muchnik1994)aswellasinEnglishfictionandnonfiction(Argamonetal.2003).However,weshouldnotacceptthisasageneralfact,sincepro-dropconstructionsareoftenusedinspokenHebrew,anditmaybethatthisisdonebybothmaleandfemalespeakers.InGrossman’snovel,Be my knife,nofewerthan61instanceswerefoundin

whichthemanomittedthesubject,whileonlysevensuchinstanceswerefoundinthewoman’sspeech.ItisinterestingtonotethatinthesecasestheEnglishtranslators(bothfemale)didnotuse incompletesentencesas in theoriginalversion,eitherbecausetheydidnotperceivethatthishadbeendoneintention-ally,orbecausetheytriedtousenormativestructures.Thefollowingareex-amplesofthisinYair’sletters(theonlyEnglishexceptionisExample15).ThistypeofsentencewasneverfoundinMiriam’slanguage.(Translators’additionsarepresentedinsquarebrackets;underlinedwordsaretheoriginalwordsthatstartedthesentences.)

566 Malka Muchnik

(12) Yoda‘at al ma ani medaber?(Grossman1998:69) ‘[Doyou]knowwhatI’mtalkingabout?’(Grossman2001:66)(13) Rotse ledaber.(Grossman1998:110) ‘[I] wanttotalk.’(Grossman2001:111)(14) Lo mevin otax.(Grossman1998:126) [I] don’tunderstandyou...’(Grossman2001:128)(15) Xayav latset liknot mashehu.(Grossman1998:187) ‘Havetogooutbuy–something.’(Grossman2001:187)(16) Mishtadel lo lakum.(Grossman1998:179) ‘[I]trynottostandup.’(Grossman2001:184)(17) ‘Od lo pataxti, lo mesugal. poxed shelo uxal la‘amod . . . gam ktsat

xoshesh mima sheyesh bo . . . lo yodea‘ im ani mesugal la‘amod ...(Grossman1998:185)

‘[I]haven’topened ityet. [I] can’t. [I’m]afraid Iwillnotbeable tostand....[I’m]alsoalittleafraidofwhatisinside....[I]don’tthink myselfcapableofhandling...’(Grossman2001:191)

AnotherfeaturedifferentiatingthelanguageofMiriamandYairinGross-man’snovelisthestructureofthediscourse,andthis,too,isrelatedtoomis-sions.Miriam’slettersarewellstructured,withsmoothtransitionsfromoneparagraphtothenext,orasYairstatesit,“inyourprecisespeech”(Grossman2001:174).Bycontrast,Yair’s lettersaremarkedbya lackofcohesionbe-tweensentencesandparagraphs.Theopeningsentencesofhislettersarepar-ticularly surprising and reflect associative thought patterns linking them tosomeeventortoanotherletter.Thesentencesbelowappearimmediatelyafterthedate,withoutanysalutation.(18) Aval ex afgish otanu?(Grossman1998:20) ‘ButhowwillIbringustogether,tomeet?’(Grossman2001:15)(19) Ken, betax, yekara sheli, nehederet, bexol libi, ma at xoshevet ...

(Grossman1998:29) ‘Yes,ofcourse,mydear,mymarvel,withallmyheart,whatdoyou

think?’(Grossman2001:25)(20) Tosefet ktana, bexol zot:(Grossman1998:46) ‘Onelittleaddition,eventhough:...’(Grossman2001:42)(21) Exad mixuts lator:(Grossman1998:60) ‘Oneoutofturn:’(Grossman2001:57)(22) Aval ma im ani lo ra’ui lematana kol kax nediva?(Grossman1998:139) ‘ButwhatifIdon’tdeservesuchagenerousgift?’(Grossman2001:142)Theexamplesabove,andnumerousothersinthisbook,indicateadifferent

typeofstructureintheletterwritingofthemanandthatofthewoman.Clearly,thisnovelreflectsastereotypicalviewofbothsexes,presenteddifferentlybothintermsoftheirnatureandacts,andintermsoftheiruseoflanguage.


5. Summary

ThisarticlehasshownthatDavidGrossman’slanguageinBe my knifeisfilledwithstereotypicalgender-relatedcomments.Notonlyarethecharactersthem-selvesportrayedstereotypically,butthelanguagetheauthorhasthemuseisdeterminedbygender.Furthermore,itisclearthatGrossmanadaptedthelan-guagetosuitthecharactershecreated.Whilethewomanusesprestigiousandnormative language,both inmorpho-phonemicand in syntaxanddiscourseterms,themanusesanonstandardvernacular.Itappearsthatthisisdonedelib-erately,asthistypeoflanguagefitsthestereotypicalviewsofgenderpervasivethroughoutthebook.Thefindings reflect social prejudiceswith respect togender, and empha-

size them.The problem is that these supposed characteristics ofmen’s andwomen’slanguagearetakentobeaclearsocialnorm.AsTalbot(1998:26)putsit:“Roughnessandtoughnessareacceptableinmen,butnotconsideredtobedesirablefemininecharacteristics.Inwomen,refinementandsophisticationaremuchpreferred.”Thedangeristhatlanguageandliteraturenotonlyreflectgenderdivisionsinsociety,butmayalsocreateandreinforcethem.Sincelan-guagepracticesenactidentityandencodelayersofculturalideologies,linguis-ticelementsusedbywritersinabiasedwaymayconvey,legitimizeandrepro-ducesocialnorms.

References

Argamon,S.,M.Koppel,J.Fine&A.Shimon.2003.Gender,genre,andwritingstyleinformalwrittentexts.Text23(3).321–346.

Ariel,M.1988.FemaleandmalestereotypesinIsraeliliteratureandmedia:evidencefromintro-ductorypatterns.Language & Communication8(1).43–68.

Ariel,M.&R.Guiora.1992.Theroleofwomeninlinguisticandnarrativechange:astudyoftheHebrewpre-stateliterature.Journal of Narrative and Life History2.309–332.

Bat-El,O.2002.TruetruncationincolloquialHebrewimperatives.Language78(4).651–683.Ben-Shahar,R.1994.ThedevelopmentofthedialoguelanguageinIsraelinarrativefiction:prin-cipalstages.InD.Laor(ed.),Sadan: studies in Hebrew Literature,217–240.Tel-Aviv:Univer-sityPublishingProjects.

Bernstein,D.(ed.).1992.Pioneers and homemakers: Jewish women in pre-state Israel.NewYork:SunyPress.

Blank-Greif,E.1980.Sexdifferencesinparent-childconversation.Women’s Studies International Quarterly3.253–259.

Bolozky,S.2009.ColloquialHebrewimperativesrevisited.Language Sciences31.136–143.Cameron,D.1995.Verbal hygiene.London:Routledge.Cameron,D.1996.Thelanguage-genderinterface:challengingco-optation.InV.Bergvall,J.Bing&A.Freed (eds.),Rethinking language and gender research, 31–53.London&NewYork:Longman.

568 Malka Muchnik

Cameron,D.2003a.Genderandlanguageideologies.InJ.Holmes&M.Meyerhoff(eds.),The handbook of language and gender,447–467.Oxford:Blackwell.

Cameron,D.2003b.Genderissuesinlanguagechange.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics23.187–201.

Chen,H. 1996. Cross cultural comparison of English andChinesemetapragmatics in refusal.Indiana:IndianaUniversityunpublishedPh.D.dissertation.

Coates,J.2004.Women, men and language. London:Longman.Dubois,S.&B.Horvath.2000.Whenthemusicchanges,youchangetoo:genderandlanguagechangeinCajunEnglish.Language Variation and Change11(3).287–313.

Eckert,P.1989.Thewholewoman:sexandgenderdifferencesinvariation.Language Variation and Change1.245–268.

Eckert,P.2000.Linguistic variation as social practice: the linguistic construction of social mean-ing in Belten High.Oxford:Blackwell.

Eckert,P.&S.McConnell-Ginet.1992a.Communitiesofpractice:wherelanguage,genderandpoweralllive.InK.Hall,M.Bucholtz&B.Moonwomon(eds.),Locating power: papers from the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference,89–99.Berkeley,CA:BerkeleyWomenandLanguageGroup.

Eckert,P.&S.McConnell-Ginet.1992b.Thinkpracticallyandlooklocally:languageandgenderascommunity-basedpractice.Annual Review of Anthropology21.461–490.

Eckert,P.&S.McConnell-Ginet.2003.Language and gender.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Eisikovits,E.1987.Sexdifferencesininter-groupandintra-groupinteractionamongadolescents.InA.Pauwels(ed.),Women and language in Australian and New Zealand society,45–58.Syd-ney:AustralianProfessionalPublications.

Fasold,R.1972.Tense marking in Black English: a linguistic and social analysis. WashingtonDC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.

Fasold,R.1990.The sociology of language.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Gal,S.1995.Language,genderandpower:ananthropologicalreview.InK.Hall&M.Bucholtz(eds.),Gender articulated: language and the socially constructed self, 169–182.NewYork:Routledge.

Gal,S.&J.Irvine.1995.Theboundariesoflanguageanddisciplines:howideologiesconstructdifference.Social Research62.967–1001.

Grossman,D. 1998.Shetihi Li Hasakin [Bemy knife /Words into flesh].Tel-Aviv:HakibutzHameuhad.

Grossman,D.2001.Be my knife.TranslatedbyV.Almog&M.Gurantz.London:Bloomsbury.Hall,S.1997.Thespectacleofthe“Other”.InS.Hall(ed.),Representation: cultural representa-

tions and signifying practices,223–290.London:SageHolmes,J.1995.GlottalstopsinNewZealandEnglish:ananalysisofvariantsofwordfinal/t/.

Linguistics33.433–463.James,D.1996.Women,menandprestigespeechforms:acriticalreview.InV.Bergvall,J.Bing&A.Freed(eds.),Rethinking language and gender research,98–125.LondonandNewYork:Longman.

James,D.&J.Drakich.1993.Understandinggenderdifferencesinamountoftalk:acriticalre-viewofresearch.InD.Tannen(ed.),Gender and conversational interaction,381–312.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Katriel,T.1986.Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Katriel,T.1991.Communal webs: communication and culture in contemporary Israel. Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Labov,W.1966.The social stratification of English in New York City.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.


Labov,W.1990.Theintersectionofsexandsocialclassinthecourseoflinguisticchange.Lan-guage Variation and Change2.205–254.

Lave,J.&E.Wenger1991.Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lefkowitz,D.1995.LanguageandthenegotiationofsocialidentitiesinanIsraelicity. Austin:UniversityofTexasunpublishedPh.D.dissertation.

Livnat,Z.2006.Genderon-lineinHebrew:newtechnology,oldlanguage.InE.Thüne,S.Leon-ardi&C.Bazzanella(eds.),Gender, language and new literacy,169–181.LondonandNewYork:Continuum.

Mills,S.1995.Feminist stylistics.London:Routledge.Milroy,L.1980.Language and social networks.Oxford:BlackwellMilroy,J.,L.Milroy&S.Hartley.1994.LocalandsupralocalchangeinBritishEnglish:thecaseofglottalization.English World-Wide 15.1–34.

Muchnik,M.1994.Ha’im leshon ha’itona’iyot shona milshon ha’itona’im?[Isthelanguageoffemalejournalistsdifferentfromthelanguageofmalejournalists?]Patuah2.17–35.

Muchnik,M.2003.Lashon, Hevra ve-Tarbut[Language,cultureandsociety].Tel-Aviv:TheOpenUniversityofIsrael.

Muchnik,M.2007.GenderdifferencesassocialmessagesinHebrewslangexpressions.Cahiers de Linguistique Analogique4.327–347.

Muchnik,M.&A.Stavans.2007.Tellingthesamestory:hisorherstyle.InJ.Santaemilia(eds.),International perspectives on gender and language, 318–332.Valencia:UniversitatdeValencia.

Muchnik,M.&A.Stavans.2009.Telling the same story toyour child:mothers’versus fathers’storytellinginteractions.Women and Language 32(1).60–69.

Nichols,P.1983.LinguisticoptionsandchoicesforBlackwomenintheruralSouth.InB.Thorne,C.Kramarae&N.Henley(eds.),Language, gender and society,54–68.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Philips,S.&A.Reynolds. 1987.The interactionof variable syntax anddiscourse structure inwomen’sandmen’sspeech.InS.Philips,S.Steele&C.Tanz(eds.),Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective,71–94.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Romaine,S.2003.Variationinlanguageandgender.InJ.Holmes&M.Meyerhoff(eds.),The handbook of language and gender, 98–118.Oxford:Blackwell.

Rosenthal,R.2005.Milon ha-Sleng ha-Makif[DictionaryofIsraelislang].Jerusalem:Keter.Sasson-Levy,O.2006.Zehuyot be-Madim: Gavriyut ve-Nashiyut ba-Tsava ha-Isra’eli[Identitiesinuniform:masculinitiesandfemininitiesintheIsraelimilitary].Jerusalem:Magnes.

Stein, E. 2003. Meta-lashon basifrut ha‘ivrit haxadasha [Meta-language in Modern Hebrewliterature].Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityunpublishedPh.D.dissertation.

Stein, E. 2006. “Oy. The oyness of life”: Ledarko shel Grossman bitsirat tachdishim meta- leshoniyim [“Oy.Theoynessof life”:meta-linguisticneologisms inGrossman’swriting]. InR.Ben-Shahar&G.Toury(eds.),Hebrew — a living language, vol. IV,453–468.TelAviv:ThePorterInstitute.

Talbot,M.1998.Language and gender: an introduction.Cambridge:PolityPress.Talbot,M.2003.Genderstereotypes:reproductionandchallenge.InJ.Holmes&M.Meyerhoff(eds.),The handbook of language and gender,468–486.Oxford:Blackwell.

Tannen,D.1994.Talking from 9 to 5: how women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit and what gets done at work.NewYork:Morrow.

Tobin,Y.2001.GenderswitchinModernHebrew.InM.Hellinger&H.Bußmann(eds.),Gender across languages, vol. 1,177–198. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Tobin,Y.&A.SternPerez.2009.Linguisticsignsystemsindicatingproximityandremotenessin the ‘troubled talk’ of Israeli bus driverswho experienced terror attacks. Israel Studies in Language and Society2(2).144–168.

570 Malka Muchnik

Trudgill,P.1972.Sex,covertprestigeandlinguisticchangeintheurbanBritishEnglishofNor-wich.Language and Society1.179–195.

Trudgill,P.1974.The social differentiation of English in Norwich.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress.

Weil,S.1983.WomenandlanguageinIsrael.International Journal of the Sociology of Language 41.77–91.

Weiss,M.2003.The chosen body: engendering the Israeli body. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Wenger,E.1998.Communities of practice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Yemini,B.2003.Kavei lashon yichudiyim limshorerot behashva’a limshorerim bedoro shel Shlon-

sky [Unique features ofwomen poets as compared tomen poets of Shlonskys generation].Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityunpublishedPh.D.dissertation.

MalkaMuchnikisaseniorlecturerandheadoftheDepartmentofHebrewandSemiticLanguagesatBar-IlanUniversityinIsrael.SheisauthorofLanguage, culture and society,publishedbytheOpenUniversityinIsrael(inHebrew).SheistheformerpresidentoftheIsraeliAssociationfortheStudyofLanguageandSociety,andisthefounderandeditorofthejournalIsrael Studies in Lan-guage and Society.Addressforcorrespondence:DepartmentofHebrewandSemiticLanguages,Bar-IlanUniversity,52900Ramat-Gan,Israel<[email protected]>.

Gender stereotypes in the language of Be my knife by David Grossman

Documents

Transcript of Gender stereotypes in the language of Be my knife by David Grossman