Thompson 1

Sociolinguistic Report

Gender Dynamics in a Mother-Son Conversation

Ashley Thompson

April 11, 2012

Linguistic Anthropology

Thompson 2

Introduction

This report will explore and analyse data gathered from a recorded cross-sex conversation

between immediate kin – a mother and son. For the purposes of this report, close attention will

be paid to simultaneous speech, shifting intonation and pitch, and backchannel cues.

Uncovering these aspects of conversation will guide my critical analysis of gender in

communication from a sociolinguistic perspective. Throughout the recorded conversation, the

topic is largely of family, veering off only slightly near the end. The conversation can be

separated into a beginning, middle, and end as each portion of time begets slightly different

data. After the first 10 minutes, for example, the female speaker uses less rapid pitch changes

and less rising intonation, but begins to employ them again near the end. There is also

significantly less instances of simultaneous speech in the last 10 to 15 minutes of the

conversation, suggesting that turn-taking rules took time to develop along with the rapport.

Overall, the recorded data provides insight into how women and men are socialized to interact

in gendered ways, even with immediate kin, reflecting women’s general subordination in

Anglophone societies.

Ethnography

The participants of this two-person conversation consist of a mother and her adult son.

Their names have been changed to maintain their privacy. This interaction was recorded with

the informed permission of the two participants. Audrey is in her early fifties and Louis is in his

early twenties. The family is of the upper-middle socioeconomic class.

Thompson 3

The setting in which this conversation occurs is one that is familiar and comfortable for the

speakers; this is clear from their casual sitting positions. Louis is sitting cross-legged and with

his hands clasped in his lap while Audrey has her knees bent and legs out to her side, a hand

holding onto her ankle. Both are sitting at a close distance on a couch in the family living room.

The camera is resting on a coffee table, mounted on a small tripod facing them. Louis has been

instructed to turn the camera on when they felt ready to begin the conversation as I would not

be present during their meeting. The recording lasted approximately 36 minutes and 8 seconds.

It took place around 8pm on a Friday in mid March, 2012. For practical purposes, the report will

focus on specific segments of the recording, examining those which provide the most useful

data related to simultaneous speech, shifting intonation and pitch, and backchannel cues. The

first 10 minutes of the conversation features more shared interaction as most of the

conversation is dominated by Audrey.

At the beginning of the conversation, Louis tells Audrey that he would like to ask her a few

questions about his family and their heritage, a topic that Audrey accepts graciously. During this

early time, both Audrey and Louis are fidgeting with their fingers, as if feeling uneasy with being

on camera. Louis continues to inquire about his grandmother’s heritage and upbringing early on

in the conversation. Audrey says “ok” several times while Louis speaks, rather than waiting for

his turn to end or for him to pause. Interestingly, when he first inquires about her mother,

Audrey utters “ok” again, but this time she draws out the sounds and uses rising intonation at

the end so that it is heard as, “oh! kaaay?” This change in pitch and use of rising intonation

suggests that she is happy about the topic selection. Louis’ introduction of topic immediately

creates ease with Audrey and her fidgeting hands begin to relax more. Early in the

Thompson 4

conversation, from the beginning to the 10 minute mark, intonation shifts and simultaneous

speech are most evident.

Two particular occasions of simultaneous speech within the early portions of the recording

contain significant findings. The first occurs in the first minute of the conversation, when it is

being initiated and the two participants are both eager to speak. Audrey utters a statement but

pauses to think before finishing it. During this pause, however, she retains eye-contact with

Louis, possibly demonstrating that she plans to finish her utterance. Louis, aware of this pause

in conversation, attempts to fill the silence. Unfortunately, he does so only to begin speaking at

the same time as Audrey, creating an overlap in speech. The significance, however, is not in the

overlap itself but in how the overlap is addressed by Audrey. As soon as Louis apologizes for

beginning his utterance at the same time, Audrey responds, “No, no” and gestures for him to

continue speaking. If she did anticipate finishing her statement then this would have begun as

an overlap and turned into an interruption. This is because an interruption is the stopping or

altering the course of a speaker’s turn by another person. This is precisely what occurs between

Audrey and Louis, albeit without malicious intent. The second occasion involves Audrey

attempting to interrupt Louis, but unlike the first instance, this form of simultaneous speech

has a different outcome.

In this second example of simultaneous speech, Louis poses question regarding the

stigmatization of Métis people. During his question, Audrey attempts to interrupt his turn and

begin speaking on his last point. Louis, however, is not finished his utterance and so he

continues to speak despite her attempt. In the first occasion of an interruption, Audrey allows

Louis to speak even though it is still her turn. This is outcome is reversed in the second

Thompson 5

occasion, as Louis prevents Audrey from taking his turn. Such interruptions and overlaps are

forms of simultaneous speech and seem to appear more in the first and last portions of the

conversation.

The total number of overlaps and interruptions uncovered in four segments spanning 10

minutes each are illustrated in the following table:

Total occurrences of simultaneous speech

Speakers Interruptions Overlaps

Audrey 1 6

Louis 2 21

As this table illustrates, the actual number of interruptions throughout the conversation

are few overall. The disparity in the number of overlaps between Audrey and Louis is likely due

to the fact that Audrey takes on the role of speaker more often. Furthermore, interruptions

occur early on in the conversation and are nearly extinct after the first 10 minutes. However,

several times throughout the recording, Louis and Audrey both begin speaking at the same time

or overlap. The most common overlap involves Louis completing Audrey’s sentences; offering a

possible word or string of words during Audrey’s turn as speaker. Other portions of the

conversation show Louis uttering words before Audrey’s turn is complete, as well.

Thompson 6

The following is an example of such overlapping on the part of Louis:

Audrey: So, my uncle boss, who was…my mom’s uncle… my great uncle…

Louis: *Yeah

Audrey: He was…he was a senator…

Louis: *He’s in the book

Audrey: Yeah…He’s uncle Albert…he was always boss

* denotes simultaneous speech Rising intonation and pitch changes also become evident in specific portions of the

conversation, usually by way of Audrey. Louis, in contrast, speaks with stable intonation and

pitch and does not change in pitch or volume in any significant way. In her early responses to

Louis, Audrey uses a lot of rising intonation at the end of her statements, making them sound

more like questions than declarations. An example of this occurs at the 54 second point with

Audrey remarking on her family: “Once they came to Saskatchewan, they identified themselves

as French more than Métis.” The word “Métis” is given a rising intonation at the end, changing

the declarative into a question–Métis? After the first 10 minutes, Audrey uses significantly less

changes in her pitch, possibly indicating that she is more relaxed and enjoying the topic of

conversation. Her pitch only begins to shift again near the end of the recording, around the 20

minute point. In addition to the shifting intonation and pitch evident in the recording, the use

of backchannel cues is also important.

Backchannel cues are verbal or non-verbal signals that can be inserted mid-turn or at the

end of a turn by a listener to illustrate interest. Backchannel cues are used by both participants,

Thompson 7

but since Audrey takes on the role of speaker more often, comparing the instances in a table

would not be useful. However, it is constructive to remark on the timing of cues, whether or

not they are inserted mid-turn or at the end of a turn. In this conversation, Louis speaks of a

memory of something his grandmother said at Christmas and as he speaks, Audrey nods her

head and uses the verbal cue “yep.” She inserts this blend of verbal and non-verbal cues mid-

turn, while Louis is speaking. Louis also uses backchannel cues in the conversation, inserting a

large majority of them at the end of Audrey’s turn or during a pause in speech.

When Audrey is speaking about her mother’s background and upbringing, she leaves several

small pauses between words. Louis fills these pauses with backchannel cues and supportive

statements such as, “I know” or “yes.” Louis also asks questions about the topic when Audrey

pauses in her speech or ends her turn to demonstrate his interest and desire for her to

continue. Overall, Audrey employs the most mid-turn backchannel cues in the first portion of

the conversation while Louis inserts the majority of his cues at the end or within the pauses of

Audrey’s turn.

The conversation only begins to waiver near the 21 minute point as it is the first time that

Audrey acknowledges the camera. Audrey does so when she mentions something her sister

“should have done” in the conversation. After she says this, she quickly adds - while waving and

looking into the camera - “shouldn’t be saying that.” Further, nearing the 22 minute mark, she

checks her watch for the first time while asking, “What else?” This is followed by Louis quickly

offering a new topic. After this topic is complete, approaching the 25 minute point in the

conversation, Audrey breaks her gaze once more; looking down at her while Louis maintains

eye-contact.

Thompson 8

Ethnographic Analysis

The conversation overall is one that is connected and intimate. Both participants, a

mother and son, show interest throughout and put much effort in keeping the conversation

flowing. Louis offers many topics related to family and Audrey accepts all of them. Futher, Louis

demonstrates that he has a lot of respect for his mother, giving her a chance to speak and, for

the most part, saving his points until her turn is complete. Issues related to gender become very

clear, however, upon witnessing the instances of simultaneous speech, shifting pitch and

intonation, and backchannel cues in this conversation.

In the first ethnographic example of simultaneous speech in the conversation, where an

overlap becomes an interruption, gendered dynamics can be examined. Audrey’s gesture for

Louis to continue speaking despite her loss of turn is in line with male dominance and male

entitlement to the power to speak. Although Louis is not malicious in his attempt to end her

statement, Audrey’s turn is interrupted. This is clear, too, from the fact that Audrey begins

speaking again on the same topic after Louis finishes with using her turn. Research examining

interruptions in cross-sex conversation reveals that men are more likely to interrupt women

and speak more often overall. A study conducted by Zimmerman and West (1975:115),

involving 31 conversations in a variety of contexts, found that interruptions increased in cross-

sex conversations with men committing overlaps and interruptions 98-100% of the time.

Often from an early age, men are taught that they have more rights to speak and be

heard than women. With this training, they often demonstrate an entitlement to dominate

conversations with the opposite sex into adulthood. Women, on the other hand, are socialized

Thompson 9

to be self-sacrificing; accommodating the needs of men at the expense of their own.

Furthermore, women are less likely to be taken seriously by men due to the shifting intonation

and pitch that many women are encouraged to utilize at an early age. Such shifts are perceived

as “feminine” and therefore, abhorrent.

The shifting pitch and intonation are most evidently employed by Audrey during the

beginning and end portions of the conversation. Near the beginning of the conversation,

Audrey uses a lot of rising intonation, causing her statements to be heard as questions. This rise

in intonation and shift in pitch is a gendered phenomenon in Anglophone societies. Women are

taught at young age to alter their voice as they speak, often causing them to sound higher in

pitch and less stable in intonation. Lakoff (1973:46) affirms that such socialization in girlhood

leads to sexist linguistic and social expectations in womanhood, “because of the way she

speaks, the little girl-now grown to womanhood-will be accused of being unable to speak

precisely or to express herself forcefully.”

Since women and girls have less social power, they are often taught to avoid

confrontation and conflict at all costs, particularly when interacting with the opposite sex. By

making statements sound more like questions, the speaker is not heard as being affirmative or

contentious. In contrast, declarative statements that are stably intonated are often heard to be

affirmative and associated with masculinity. These statements are heard as self-assured,

rational and level-headed. Men who do employ rising intonation are heard as “feminine” which

is perceived, in our patriarchal society, to be undesirable. Moreover, if a woman speaks with

relatively unchanging pitch and stable intonation, she will be heard as “masculine” and will thus

pose a threat to deeply entrenched gender roles. However, since women are also raised to be

Thompson 10

agreeable and compliant in English-speaking societies, they are heard as being less sure of

themselves and their convictions when they speak (Lakoff 1973:55–56). Women do have many

valuable and intelligent things to say, but due to the historical silencing of women’s voices, such

socialized linguistic habits have become gender norms. Nevertheless, the backchannel cues

used in this conversation also perpetuate the gender stereotypes found in many English cross-

sex conversations.

Research retrieved from hundreds of hours of recorded conversations involving three

cross-sex couples found that women were more inclined to insert backchannel cues throughout

the speaker’s turn rather than at the end. Backchannel cues are mechanisms used by a listener

to demonstrate that they are interested in the conversation and want the speaker to continue

(Fishman 1978:402). This is exhibited in the conversation between Audrey and Louis. Audrey

constantly gives support throughout Louis’ turn, using verbal and non-verbal backchannel cues.

Conversely, Louis waits for Audrey’s turn to finish or pause before adding backchannel cues.

Audrey’s insertion of cues mid-turn reflects the stereotype that women put more work into

conversation. Women are expected to exhibit constant interest in what men say as well as

maintain the interest of the male listener. Further, women bear the burden of being silenced in

cross-sex conversations, often through simultaneous speech in the form of overlaps and

interruptions.

Since the conversation is between a mother and her son, though, there is the issue of

respect and authority to consider as part of the context. At the end of the conversation, for

example, Audrey looks at her watch and utters “what else?” while Louis maintains constant

eye-contact. Perhaps this refusal to break his gaze is revealing of respect within the mother-son

Thompson 11

context. With her role as parent, Louis may view Audrey as being a figure of certain authority,

one warranting his respect. Her role as Louis’ mother may allow her to break her gaze without

the same fear of consequences faced in other contexts. However, gender dynamics still take

place throughout the conversation, confirming that they may persist even between cross-sex

participants whom share a mutual respect.

Critical Evaluation

The approach of recording a cross-sex conversation to analyse gender dynamics is one

that is enduring but incredibly useful. This approach, when applied to sociolinguistics, allows

researchers to witness an every-day conversation and examine the contents of that

conversation in relation to gender, class, age, and/or ethnicity. Since the conversation is

recorded, it can be analysed very closely and can be useful for examining verbal and non-verbal

cues. Nevertheless, there are some limitations in employing this method. One limitation is the

actual camera used to record – some participants take longer to warm up to being filmed, and

the impacts can vary based on who the participants are and the setting in which they are

speaking. Once the initial uneasiness subsides, however, the rapport-stage is usually reached. A

limitation in this project specifically was the lack of shared interaction between the

participants. A large portion of the conversation was dominated by one speaker, making it

difficult at times to select significant pieces of conversation for analysis. Nevertheless, one

cannot control the natural flow of conversation between two people that know each other very

well.

Another struggle with this project concerns simultaneous speech and the separating of

interruptions from overlaps. An interruption is generally perceived as something that is

Thompson 12

confrontational and intentional; however, in this conversation the interruptions did not seem to

be malicious but rather minor violations. Perhaps if Louis spoke more in the conversation, the

data would be stronger in terms of revealing simultaneous speech, but that is not necessarily

true. Since Louis and Audrey are immediate kin, the instances of overlaps and interruptions

may be less significant than if the conversation took place between a cross-sex pair of friends or

romantic partners. Nevertheless, the data provided an insight into how gender dynamics

transpire within a mother-son conversation in a relatively comfortable and familiar setting.

Conclusion

This paper has explored gender from a sociolinguistic perspective; using data gathered

from a recorded cross-sex conversation between a mother and son. This paper focused

specifically on incidents of simultaneous speech, shifting intonation and pitch, as well as

backchannel cues and their relation to gender. Discrepancies that were revealed in each of

these linguistic mechanisms may be attributed to deeply ingrained gender roles and women’s

lack of social power; however, it is essential to remember that there are always exceptions.

The importance of gender was also considered in relation to the context and relationship of

participants in this conversation. For instance, Audrey’s social role as Louis’ mother provided

insight into how gender may influence parent-child interaction.

This method of sociolinguistic research was useful and relatively simple as it used the

rawest form of data; an actual conversation. Obtaining data through using such a method

requires little to no time or expense. Choosing what data to analyse, conversely, can be a

prolonged and sometimes exhaustive process. Nevertheless, the research provided

sociolinguistic evidence regarding the existence of gender norms in communication.

Thompson 13

Overall, both participants appeared to enjoy each other’s company and the topic of

conversation, demonstrating a respect for the rules of conversation and the wellbeing of the

other person.

Thompson 14

References Cited

Fishman, Pamela M.

1978 Interaction: The Work Women Do. Social Problems 25(4):397-406.

Lakoff, Robin

1973 Language and Woman’s Place. Language and Society 2(1):45-80.

Zimmerman, Don H. and Candace West

1975 Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation. In Language and Sex: Difference

and Dominance, Robert J . DiPietro, William Frawley, Alfred Barrie Thorne, and Nancy

Henley, eds. Pp. 105-129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.