elevators essay

Berteaux 1

Kelsey Berteaux

Prof. Baker Smemoe

ELANG 468, sec 001

13 December 2011

Gender Roles in Speech and Silence

Introduction

Gendered language has become a deeply mined researched field since the feminist movements

in the 1970s. Accordingly, much work has been done to discover the speech differences between

men and women, as well as how these differences might affect us socially (Lakoff 2004, Tannen

2001). However, the use of silence versus speech between genders has little research evidence to

date. This study aims to determine if gender plays a role in a person’s choice to speak or remain

silent.

Specifically, this study evaluates how men and women react in a regularly occurring social

situation where silence and speech are present: using an elevator. Previous work in elevator

studies have focused on aspects other than gender when looking into what people say in

elevators, like Peter Ubel’s 1995 study of occupation and how that affects elevator talk. Other

studies on silence, like Michal Ephratt’s work this year, do not incorporate gender. Does gender

play a role in speech and silence? If so, will men or women fill a speech gap more frequently?

My research attempts to answer these questions.

Literature Review

The field of gender and language has been well-researched ever since Robin Lakoff’s landmark

1970 publication of Language and Women’s Place. She asserted that because women have been

denied access to power in society, they use different linguistic strategies to express and secure

Berteaux 2

their social status. This concept was corroborated by many other gender language researchers,

including Ronald Wardhaugh in 1986, and again by Deborah Tannen in 1994 (reprinted in

2001).

Specifically, studies have shown that women tend towards negative politeness (things like

showing deference and apologizing) far more than their male counterparts (Holmes, 1995).

Pragmatically, this places women in much more facilitative in their role in conversation. They

often focus on personal involvement and solidarity while conversing, as discussed by Susan Gal,

1991, and later shown by Terttu Nevalainen, 2004. This tendency to act as a sort of social glue

implicates that women take on specific role in conversation of easing tensions which may

plausibly include filling silences.

Concerning the different types of silences in conversation and how such speech voids

can convey various meanings, Michale Ephratt’s work (2011) delves into what he terms an

“empty pause” or “empty speech gap.” This silence is what most people refer to as an “awkward

silence,” or one where most people feel compelled to fill the silence with some sort of speech,

even if it is only to articulate “empty speech,” or speech without any discernable purpose except

filling silence. This is what most people think of as “small talk,” or talk whose purpose is solely

to ease a social tension. Historically, women are stereotypically thought of as being more to

using small talk as a social device (Kramer 1977, Gal 1991).

Awkward silences exist most commonly between strangers, especially when we are

forced into close quarters with someone we do not know. The proximity makes us feel like we

need to fill the empty speech gap in order to ease tension. Some work has been done to

evidence the importance of perceived gender-based stereotypes in these types of interactions

with strangers. It has been posited that, in order to relieve social tension, people will naturally

Berteaux 3

assume a linguistic role based on their perception of gender and language (Kramer 1977). In

other words, in instances where strangers interact, for example at a grocery checkout, people will

exhibit more stereotypical “gendered” speech traits than they would in normal conversation in

order to relieve the pressure of the stranger interraction. Commonly perceived stereotypes,

according to Kramer, include that girls are “more social” than boys, and thus more prone to idle

chatter, and that women will attempt to alleviate social stresses linguistically. Their language is

more “friendly,” “gossipy,” “trivial,” and “polite” when compared with stereotypically male

language (156-57). Strangers, Kramer also discusses, exert more stereotyping pressure than

others because they have no personal basis for interacting, so they rely on stereotypes to frame

their interactions. Essentially, stranger must rely on general categories instead of on individual

characteristics, and people tend to fill this expectation.

These categorical stereotypes and their function between strangers is confirmed by in Susan

Gal’s work in 1991; she states that a similar set of stereotypes about gendered language features

provide the expectations and ideas against which speakers are routinely judged (179). Gal also

confirms Kramer’s theory of using gender roles to structure discourse, stating that for certain speech

forms, people are prone to “enact, consciously or not, men’s and women’s contrasting values or

interactional goals” and that these goals “organize social institutions” (182, 184). Essentially, in

situations like stranger interaction, people will, whether they are aware of it or not, take on a gender

role in conversation as part of an effort to create structure and meaning in unusual or uncomfortable

situations. This frame of additionally gendered speech situations (interactions between strangers) is

the perfect place to study if men’s or women’s speech will exhibit a certain characteristic, like the use

of speech versus silence.

Berteaux 4

Previous studies about the speech patterns between strangers, like the hospital elevator

study conducted by Peter Ubel, et al (2011), yielded interesting results about the inappropriate

and abnormal conversations that occur in elevators. Peter Ubel and his team focused primarily

on the occupation of the conversational participants and how that affected the recorded speech.

But according to most gender language research, the power inherent in gendered language is also

a factor in the conversational phenomenon between persons in elevators that Ubel’s team did

not fully consider.

I will further explore the theory of gendered language and how men and women may

differ in pragmatic politeness by either filling or leaving a speech gap. Assuming that interactions

with strangers are when we exhibit the most gendered characteristics, are women thus more

likely to act as a conversational lubricant and fill an awkward silence than men are? Based on the

gender studies and perceptions of silence outlined in the research, I propose that women will

create “small talk” to ease the social tension more often than their male counterparts. This

should occur because, even in instances where a woman might have a more dominant language

approach, she should in theory try to ease the pressure of the awkward social interaction with a

stranger while taking on stereotypically “feminine” traits. Does this include diffusing social

tension by filling an empty speech gap with empty speech, also known as small talk?

To test this hypothesis, I created a research project wherein I collected data from more

than one hundred elevator interactions. I have subsequently analyzed the results and drawn my

conclusions from that data in the ensuing report.

Methodology

This purpose of this field study was to observe strangers and how they interact with the

researcher or other persons in elevators based on their gender. Because of the areas studied

Berteaux 5

(mostly Brigham Young University campus and a Salt Lake City office building), the age of

subjects studied ranged from under 10 to mid 60s, but most subjects were either in their 20s or

40s. The study was conducted in Utah, with most of the data coming from locations in Provo,

Utah. Other data points were gathered in the business district of Salt Lake City, Utah, and a few

were also collected from in Layton, Utah. Researchers were both male and female to avoid

creating a gender bias in the produced speech. It could be that men are more likely to strike up a

conversation with a woman, for example, but that is outside the scope of this study.

To collect a data point, each researcher would enter an elevator with at least one other

person and then move to the center of the room. They would not select a floor but allow for the

stranger(s) to choose a destination. At the commencement of the ride or immediately prior, the

researcher would attempt to make eye contact with and smile at others in the elevator. This was

done to create an awkward feeling between the two persons and hopefully spur speech. At no

point in time did the researchers ever initiate a spoken conversation with the observed subjects.

Once they reached the desired floor, the researcher would get off the elevator and wait on that

floor for another person to come and use the elevator. Note also that any instances where the

researcher knew the person in the elevator were discarded from the data, as the goal is to

observe the interaction between strangers. Researchers were responsible for collecting the

following data from each person they observed:

Figure 1: Sample Researcher Form

City Setting # in group Gender

Approx Age Smile Silent Speech Topic/Notes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 – For this study, either Layton, Provo, or Salt Lake City (SLC) 2 – A general description of the type of building (ex. Hospital) 3 – The number of people who knew each other before entering the elevator 4 – The gender of the person observed (each individual got their own entry, regardless of if they entered as a group) 5 – A researcher’s best estimate of the general age of the person; written like -20s to mean lower twenties, or +40s to mean upper forties, etc.

Berteaux 6

Figure 1: Sample Researcher Form (continued) 6 – Whether or not the subject returned the smile. Y means yes, N means eye contact made, but the smile was not returned, and n/a means the

researcher was unable to make eye contact 7 – If the subject was silent for the duration of the ride, or if they produced speech (see 8) 8 – The type of speech produced, either: Small talk, Ask about floor, Continuing group conversation (from before entering elevator), Other, and

the Closed Doors Phenomenon (see below for more on this) 9 – If the subject produced speech, what was the topic of conversation? Also, this field could be used for miscellaneous notes.

During data collection, the researchers noted a particular phenomenon revolving around

the silence of groups who entered the elevator. Groups would be talking amongst themselves

while waiting for the elevator and continue chatting all the way up until the elevator doors

closed. At that point, the entire group would cease speaking until they got off at their desired

floor, when the conversation would immediate begin again. This we labeled the “closed doors

phenomenon” and recorded it as a type of silence in the elevator, since technically, any of the

members of the group could have chosen to break the silence and speak to the researcher

regardless of their group status.

In total, 102 separate elevator rides were observed, totaling 144 subjects studied. For a

complete listing of data collected, refer to the Appendix. Because there was an uneven

distribution between the number of males and females observed, data was analyzed according to

the percentages of event occurrences. A stats program (from GraphPad Software, Inc.) was also

used to determine if there was any statistically significant difference between genders based on a

summary of the data points collected.

Results

Does gender play a role in speech versus silence?

The most basic question asked in this study was about whether or not there exists any gendered

difference at all between men and women in filling an empty speech gap. A summary of the data

is included. See Figures 2, 3, & 4.

Berteaux 7

Figure 2: Total incidents of speech versus silence by gender

Total Silence Speech

Males 82 50 32 (61%) (39%)

Females 62 39 23

(63%) (37%)

Figure 3: Types of silence broken down by gender

Total Empty Speech Gap

Closed Doors Phenomenon

Males 50 35 15

(70%) (30%) Females 39 21 18

(54%) (46%)

Figure 4: Types of speech broken down by gender

Total Small Talk Ask about floor

Other Group Conversation

Males 32 2 3 5 22

(2%) (4%) (6%) (27%) Females 23 2 5 4 12

(3%) (8%) (6%) (19%)

A careful study of the data reveals no statistical difference in any category studied

between males and females. Both groups were essentially equally as likely to remain silent or

speak to a stranger in an elevator. Males and females were also equally likely to smile at

researchers who made eye contact. In addition, they were equally as likely to, when they spoke,

strike up a conversation (small talk) or make a standard response asking the researcher about

which floor they desired. In group conversation we see the largest variant between genders, with

men more likely to continue a conversation into an elevator, but again, the number of results in

that category is insufficient to make a statistically significant statement regarding the tendencies

of one gender over another. An interesting data quirk worthy of note is that of all the groups

observed, including all male, all female, and mixed gender groups, not one member of groups

Berteaux 8

that exhibited the “Closed Doors Phenomenon” ever broke the silence of the elevator, be they

male or female.

Other interesting trends found in the data that are not related to gender include that

older persons are apparently more prone to continuing group conversation (and not exhibiting

the Closed Doors Phenomenon). This was true both of office workers in Salt Lake City and

college professors on the university campus. Note as well that people in general are most likely

to talk in an elevator when they are part of a group that was speaking before the elevator arrived,

or in the case of single riders, if they are on a cell phone.

Without any statistically significant results, my study does not make a contribution to

gendered language theory by adding a stipulation about gendered use of silence. Instead, it

would appear that use of silence and speech is a similarity of speech between English-speaking

adults. It does not need to be considered in current gender language theory. This also means that

Ephratt’s 2011 discussion of linguistic speech and silence is complete without a consideration

for gender variables. Silence and speech are separate linguistic factors that does not require

gender be taken into account.

Do men or women fill a speech gap more frequently?

Originally I hypothesized that women would fill an empty speech gap more than men would.

This idea was based on the two theories that (1) women are perceived as being more prone to

act in the interest of harmony and that (2) when interacting with strangers, we often

subconsciously exhibit gender stereotypes.

As discussed previously, no significant gender difference was found in any of the areas

studied. This could have several implications based on the underlying assumptions that this

study made:

Berteaux 9

1. Women’s speech may not be characterized (either in actuality or in stereotypes) by a

tendency to ease social tensions. This could disprove some aspects of gendered

speech theory if it can be more specifically proven.

2a. Gender stereotypes may not be elicited between strangers at all.

2b. Gender stereotypes may be reduced during stranger interaction.

More specific and focused study is needed before any sort of conclusive results, even a result of

a zero difference in use of silence between genders, can be confidently asserted.

Conclusion

The results from my study were disappointingly inconclusive. However, I admit several flaws

and limitations to the data I collected. I based my hypothesis around Kramer’s idea that

interactions between strangers are the most indicative of gender stereotyped speech. While some

follow-up work has been done regarding Kramer’s ideas, they are far from accepted fact, and

more research may be called for to review the effects that gender stereotyping might or might

not have on stranger interaction. As far as this study goes, my results show Kramer’s ideas to be

unfounded.

A secondary concern I have with my study is the location of the observations. All of the

subjects studied were in Utah, and a large portion of those were on Brigham Young University

campus. Because of the large Mormon population in the area, my results may be atypical for the

nation at large, and further research may be warranted in other geographic regions in order to

confirm my results, that men and women are extraordinarily similar in their linguistic use of

speech and silence as opposed to other gendered language differences (Lackoff 2004, Tannen

2001).

Berteaux 10

Works Cited

Ephratt, Michal. “Linguistic, Paralinguistic and Extralinguistic Speech And Silence.” Journal Of

Pragmatics. 43.9 (2011): 2286-2307. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Gal, Susan. Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern

Era. ”Between Speech and Silence: The Problematics of Research on Language and

Gender.” Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. 175-203. Print.

Holmes, Janet. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman, 1995.

Kramer, Cheris. “Perceptions of Female and Male Speech.” Language & Speech. 20.2 (1977): 151-

161. Print.

Lakoff, Robin. Language and Women's Place Revisited. Revised and Expanded ed. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Nevalainen, Terttu. “Language and Woman's Place in Earlier English.” Journal of English

Linguistics. 30.2 (2002): 181. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

Tannen, Deborah. Talking from 9 to 5; how women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard,

who gets credit, and who gets done at work. New York: Quill HarperCollins, 2001.

Ubel, Peter, et al. “Elevator Talk: Observational Study of Inappropriate Comments in a Public

Space.” American Journal of Medicine. 99.2 (1995): 190-194. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell, 1986. Print.

Berteaux 11

Appendix: Raw Data

City Setting # in group

Gender Approx Age

Smile Silent Speech Topic/Notes

1 SLC Office Building 1 M 30s Y Y ---

2 SLC Office Building 2 M 40s N N Continue group conv.

Discussing office projects

M -50s N N Continue group conv.


3 SLC Office Building 2 M +30s Y N Continue group conv.

Discussing lunch plans

M 40S n/a N Continue group conv.


4 SLC Office Building 1 M 50s Y Y ---

5 SLC Office Building 1 F +30s N N Ask about floor

6 SLC Office Building 1 M 40s Y N Small talk

7 SLC Office Building 2 M 40s n/a N Continue group conv.

Discussing coworker

M +40s n/a N Continue group conv.

Discussing coworker

8 SLC Office Building 3 M 40s Y N Continue group conv.


M 40s N N Continue group conv.


M -30s Y N Continue group conv.


9 SLC Office Building 2 M 40s Y N Continue group conv.


F 40s n/a N Continue group conv.


10 SLC Office Building 1 M -40s N Y ---

11 SLC Office Building 1 M 30s N Y ---

12 SLC Office Building 1 F -30s Y N Ask about floor

13 SLC Office Building 1 M 40s N Y ---

14 SLC Office Building 2 M -40s Y N Continue group conv.

Sports talk

M +40s n/a N Continue group conv.

Sports talk

15 SLC Office Building 1 M -40s N Y ---

16 SLC Office Building 1 M +40s N Y ---

17 SLC Office Building 1 F 50s Y N Small talk

18 SLC Office Building 3 M -40s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

M -40s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

M -40s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

19 SLC Office Building 1 M +50s N N Continue group conv.

Talking on a cell phone

20 SLC Office Building 1 M -50s N N Small talk Ask about department & projects

21 SLC Office Building 2 F 40s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

Berteaux 12

F +30s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

22 SLC Office Building 1 F 30s N N Ask about floor

23 SLC Office Building 1 M -40s Y N Other (see notes)

Mumbling about the floor he wanted, but nothing directed to the researcher

24 SLC Office Building 1 M -40s Y Y ---

25 SLC Temple Square (Parking Structure)

5 M -40s Y N Other (see notes)

Family group: Adults trying to corral children--Apologizing to others in elevator

F +30s Y N Other (see notes)

M 7 Y N Other (see notes)

Chatting/asking questions

F 5 Y N Other (see notes)

Chatting/asking questions

F 60s Y N Other (see notes)

Probably grandmother


2 M 30s Y Y ---

F +30s Y Y ---


2 M -50s Y N Continue group conv.

Discussing family members

F -50s Y N Continue group conv.

Discussing family members


1 M 20s Y N Ask about floor

29 Provo BYU Campus: HBLL

2 M 20s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

M +20s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon


2 M +20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

F 20s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon


1 F -20s N Y ---


1 M -20s Y N Other (see notes)

Attempted to flirt with researcher. ;-)


1 M +20s N Y ---


2 F 20s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

F 20s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon


1 M 40s N Y ---


2 F 20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

F -20s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

37 Provo BYU Campus: 2 F 40s n/a Y Closed doors

Berteaux 13

HBLL phenomenon



2 M -20s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon



1 F -30s Y Y ---


1 M -50s N Y ---

41 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M +20s Y Y ---

42 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M +20s N Y ---

43 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F 20s Y N Ask about floor

44 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -20s N N Continue group conv.


45 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M -20s Y N Continue group conv.


46 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -20s Y N Small talk Where are you coming from? (Class?)

47 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -20s N Y ---

48 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M 20s Y N Ask about floor

49 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 2 M +40s N N Continue group conv.

Discussing student research proposal

F 20s n/a N Continue group conv.

Discussing student research proposal

50 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -20s N Y ---

51 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -20s Y N Other (see notes)

Asked why I ride elevators so much

52 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F +40s Y N Ask about floor

53 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M +50s N N Other (see notes)

Talking to self, I think? Unless bluetooth

54 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M -20s Y Y ---

55 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 2 F 20s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

F 20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

56 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F 20s Y Y ---

57 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M +20s N Y ---

58 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 3 F 20s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

F 20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

F +20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

59 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 F -30s N N Continue group conv.


60 Provo BYU Campus: JFSB 1 M -30s Y Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

61 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 F 20s Y Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

Berteaux 14

62 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 F 20s Y Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

63 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M 20s Y Y ---

64 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 F -20s Y Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

65 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M +40s Y Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

66 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M 20s N Y --- Multiple groups got on at the same time

67 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 2 M -50s n/a N Continue group conv.

Discussing student grade

M +20s N N Continue group conv.

Discussing student grade

68 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M -40s Y N Ask about floor

69 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M +20s N Y ---

70 Provo BYU Campus: JKB 1 M +20s N Y ---

71 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 2 M +50s N N Continue group conv.

Discussing ORCA grants

M 20s N N Continue group conv.

Discussing ORCA grants

72 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 2 F 20s Y Y ---

M +20s Y Y ---

73 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 1 F -30s Y Y ---

74 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 1 F 20s N Y ---

75 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 1 M 20s N Y ---

76 Provo BYU Campus: JSB 1 M 20s Y Y ---

77 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 M 40s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

F -40s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

78 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 M +40s Y Y ---

79 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 4 F 40s Y N Continue group conv.


F 40s Y N Continue group conv.


M 9 n/a N Continue group conv.


F 5 n/a N Continue group conv.


80 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 M 40s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

M +40s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

81 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 F 30s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

M +30s N Y Closed doors phenomenon


83 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 F -20s N N Continue group conv.


84 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 F -20s Y Y ---

Berteaux 15

85 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 M 20s N Y ---


87 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 F +30s N Y ---

F +30s N Y ---

88 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 F 30s Y N Continue group conv.

Attempting to console child

F 6 n/a N Continue group conv.

Crying

89 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 F +20s Y Y ---

90 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 F 20s n/a Y ---

91 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 2 M +20s N Y Closed doors phenomenon

F 20s Y Y Closed doors phenomenon

92 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 M 20s Y Y ---

93 Provo BYU Campus: WSC 1 M -50s N Y ---

94 Layton CD Junior High 1 F 13 N Y ---

95 Layton CD Junior High 1 F 12 N Y --- Texting



98 Layton CD Junior High 1 M 14 N Y ---

99 Layton Davis Hospital 2 M -50s N Y ---

M +40s n/a Y ---

100 Layton Davis Hospital 3 M +40s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

M +30s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

M 40s n/a Y Closed doors phenomenon

101 Layton Davis Hospital 2 F 30s Y N Continue group conv.

Speaking in Spanish

M -40s N N Continue group conv.

Speaking in Spanish

102 Layton Davis Hospital 1 M +40s N Y ---