Extract 1:Introduction

In this essay I will explore small talk as a form of linguistic politeness and question the accuracy of the stereotypical association of small talk with women's speech. I will begin with an examination of politeness, in particular the model devised by Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]), and then move more specifically on to examining small talk in terms of both its link to gender and its importance socially and professionally. I will consider approaches to language and gender such as the difference approach evident in the work of Deborah Tannen (1991) and Janet Holmes (1995). The bulk of my essay, however, will constitute an account and critique of the more recent theories behind gender and small talk, particularly Sara Mills (2003) reaction to Holmes (1995) argument, and Mills (2003) own work in analysing gender in terms of performativity, and politeness in terms of Communities of Practice. I will further explore Holmes recent co-authored work (2003/2004/2005) on the significance of small talk in the workplace. This essay will thus illustrate the chronological development of sociolinguistic theories on politeness, small talk and gender, showing a definite shift in the approaches over time. I will conclude that small talk is of crucial importance in maintaining relationships not only socially but also in professional situations. Furthermore, in my research reading I have observed the problems with makinggender basedgeneralisations, and have thus come to the conclusion that theoretically we cannot draw solid conclusions about the different ways men and women speak. Instead we should view gender as a performance, and small talk as a form of gendered discourse which has been stereotypically associated with women by society. Individuals can thus make their own choice whether or not to linguistically enact these gender stereotypes.

Extract 2Conclusion

In conclusion, I have explored small talk as a form of politeness and questioned the validity of the stereotypical assumption that small talk is more characteristic of women's speech thanmen's. In trying to determine the truth of this statement I have encountered a huge amount of difficulties that particularly relate to the complexities surrounding gender. Furthermore, in examining small talk as a form of politeness I have found settling on a definition of politeness itself to also be problematic.Neverthelessfrom my research I have drawn several conclusions. From my more or less outright rejection of the difference approach to gender, this prevents me from drawing any solid conclusions regarding the difference in speech styles between men and women. Instead, by aligning myself with the performativity approach, I conceptualise small talk as a gendered discourse, which is stereotypically associated with women by society. Women can thus choose to perform this female identity linguistically if they want to. This is relevant to relational practice, as women managers can choose to use this stereotypically female linguistic device to improve workplace relations, but similarly though, men can also perform this identity if they want to.ThereforeI have explored small talk as a form of politeness and have concluded that it is not necessarily true that women engage in small talk more than men.

Source: Bayles, R. (2008-9) 'An investigation into politeness, small talk and gender.'Innervate:Leading Undergraduate Work in English Studies,1, 10-17. Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/08-09/0809baylesaninvestigationintopoliteness.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2012).

Question 1

Not yet answered

Marked out of 10.00

Flag question

Question text

Choose the correct answers below.

1. In the introduction, what tense is used to point ahead to the main considerations of the article?

Future continuous tense

Future perfect tense

Future simple tense

2. Inthe conclusion, what tense is mainly used to summarise and reflect on the main considerations of the article?

Present perfect tense

Past simple tense

Past continuous tense