Your lectures are helpful and inspiring. Thank you very much. It would be great if you could share in the video description your sources. I got really interested in reading the perception study on vowels as produced by heterosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
Thank you very much for this video (and all the others)! Just a little question: how can we know that, as you say (around 21:36), the pronoun shift from *ye* to *you* was initiated by women?
François Chrétien The evidence is from written personal letters. If you want to go to the source: Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: books.google.ch/books?id=PLpZAAAAMAAJ&lr=&as_brr=0&redir_esc=y
Thank you for sharing this information; it is very helpful, and there aren't many similar resources available! However, I would like to point out that there are quite a few problematic points and assumptions being made in this presentation that, once resolved, could really strengthen this discussion. Firstly, you talk about language and gender as "how do men and women talk differently," a perspective which comes from defining sex and gender in terms of a binary and erases the wide variation of alternative gender expressions. Further, though you had previously defined sex and gender as distinct variables, when you are speaking, you do not seem to be maintaining this distinction, and there are many instances in which it is important to specify whether you are talking about biological males or (self-identified) men, for example. Another issue I have is more with the way you frame the question "Can you hear if someone is gay?" One main problem I see here is that you are setting it up as "straight" and "other," which erases (at least) one important aspect of variation, bisexuality, with the assumption that the "gayness" is what is meaningful in this study of perception - which is actually something I could agree on, but I think it is important to clearly specify why you are framing the question that way. In the future, it may be really helpful to familiarize yourself more with the discussion of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and the like - if you have not done so already - and to clarify 1. some of the assumptions/framework you are working with as you did in the first slides and 2. why you have chosen to exclude or include certain parts of the greater range of variation. Again, thank you!
Michael Howell Thanks for your point, Michael! I don't hold a binary view of sex and gender. I use the introductory question about men and women as a starting point. There clearly are linguistic differences that correlate with socially constructed gender roles. That's where I start. You and I know that when you look deeper, things are more complicated than that, and the second half of the video goes into some detail about this. I've been wanting to make a separate video about LGBT language issues, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
It's nice of you to ask, but I think your professors will like it more if you cite from published books and articles. That said, I personally would give my students full credit for the following reference: Random, Guy. 2017. Some RU-vid video on XYZ. Planet earth: The Interwebs.
haha! i'd love to be one of your students! and usually i'd opt for published books and articles, but some of the points you made where spot on what I needed for my paper... oh well, tough life!
Young gay men are pretty likely to say "dude, I love you!' to their partners. Is it that difficult to fathom? Your binary logic of "romantic partner" requires a male vs. a female, I guess.
@@muratcomert8030 you are just not for science. You should carefully listen to how he presented it. The original comment almost sounded like you have taken the specific part and twisted the discourse. This tendency has been very prevalent these days with social media, but academics shouldn’t take things that way
@@tacoslover4765 He used what I believe a statement in a study by Mary Buscholz: "Men report that they use dude with women with whom they are close friends, but not with women with whom they are intimate." And he overgeneralized it as an indication of men's tendency to avoid using "dude" with their romantic partners, disregarding the fact that male-male couples may in fact act differently, as they have no gender difference. I don't know your level of familiarity with different types of gay men and their socialization patterns but take it from me that there is a huge group of very stereotypically masculine gay men who also like similar sexual/romantic partners. Supposing that just because there is a "partnership" going on, two iron-pumping, bald, tattooed, pierced biker hulks will talk to each other with "sweetheart, my pumpkin, or bae" kind of address is pretty naive. One doesn't have to be so stereotypically masculine either, as "dude" became more and more common in broader society younger (or even older) generations use the word as a filler, so between two male partners it is way more possible to hear the word. Did he mention any studies of that sort? No, and neither did you, so my criticism is valid. I am not saying he is homophobic or sexist per se, but yeah, on that one occasion he kind of slipped into that territory. Now, check your own assumptions about what counts as science, objectivity, interpreation of results, generalizability, ontology, epistemology, etc.
@@muratcomert8030 I guess your points coulda sounded somewhat valid if this was an academic journal or something and he was making definitive statements as you interpreted. He hedged that example in previous utterances as well. You should carefully read your previous comments and chill.
