Gender differences in Persian discourse markers

Archives Des Sciences Vol 65, No. 7;Jul 2012
203 ISSN 1661-464X
Gender and Discourse Difference: An Investigation of Discourse
Markers in Persian Male-Female Casual Conversation
Alami, M. (Corresponding Author)
English and Literature Department, Allame-Jafari Buiding,Tabriz Islamic Azad University Main
Campus, Tabriz, Iran, Mobile: 00989148980090, alami_m2001@yahoo.com
Maryam Sabbah
Instructional Technology and Multimedia Centre, University Sains Malaysia, Penang Malaysia,
11800, Mobile: 006012449726, maryam_sabbah1985@yahoo.com
Mohammad Iranmanesh
School of Management, University Sains Malaysia
Penang Malaysia, 11800 Mobile: 006010 890 5565, iranmanesh.mohamamd@gmail.com
Abstract
The present study is an attempt to investigate the discourse difference in cross-gender interactions between
Persian male/female speakers by focusing on the type, frequency of occurrence and function(s) of discourse
markers in oral discourse. Brinton’s (1996) binary classification is adopted as a theoretical framework in
defining the functions Persian DMs have at the interpersonal and textual levels. All together 34 tokens of
Persian DMs are identified and their functions are specified in this study among which na/na baba (no)
occupies the top rank in the frequency list. Another reading of the data pertains to the number and proportion
of DMs employed by Persian male/female speakers. As it is inferred, the ratio of discourse markers in the
women’s discourse is higher than the men’s (138 vs. 116). However, the results of the Chi-square test
(p=0.157>.05) indicates that it is not statistically significant. In terms of discourse markers usage for the
textual/interpersonal purposes, the qualitative and quantitative analyses yield significant gender differences
(P=0.02<.05). It indicates that Persian women are mainly concerned with their interpersonal needs whereas
men care for the textuality of their discourse. In sum, the difference between Persian men/women discourse
in terms of DMs usage is of functional type rather than quantity.
Keywords: gender-discourse markers; casual conversation; conversation analysis; textual function;
interpersonal function.
Introduction
Gender creeps in our day-to-day life so smoothly that we take it for granted and accept it as a natural part
of our lives, something that needs no explanation. It manifests in any subtle and trivial aspect of our
social life. The traces of gender could be found in any aspect of life, in our way of speaking, humour,

204 ISSN 1661-464X
conflict and so on. Language is considered as a fruitful resource for the manifestation of gender. Coates
(1993, p: 166) argues that ‘Learning to be male/female means among other things is learning to use
gender-appropriate language’. As we talk, we use linguistic resources to present ourselves as a particular
kind of person, to project on an attitude or stance, to affect our interlocutor and to change the flow of
talk. Hence any aspect of language like tone and the pitch of voice, choice of vocabulary, pronunciation
and even grammatical patterns can signal gendered aspects of the speaker’s self-presentation. In an
attempt to go beyond ‘folk linguistic’ assumptions about women’s and men’s linguistic behaviour, the
studies have focused on anything from different syntactical, phonological and lexical uses of language
(Trudgill, 1998) to such aspects of conversation analysis as topic control, interruption (West &
Zimmerman, 1983), minimal responses, tag question, hedges (Coates, 1993; Hillier, 2004; Maltz &
Broker,1982) and the manipulation of such linguistic features as Discourse Markers (Holmes 1995,
Erman 2001).
The emphasis on spoken language in the real-life contexts recently increased dramatically. As a result,
some of the features previously called ‘empty’, ‘superfluous’ and ‘redundant’ now are considered as a
crucial aspect of interpersonal communication. These linguistic elements called discourse markers
(henceforth DMs) have been of great interest to the researchers who are interested in studying situated
language.
Given the fact that the studies on the effect of gender on the linguistic behaviour of Persian speakers
mainly deals with such aspects of language as pronunciation (Asgari; 1996), the effect of gender on the
selection of lexical items (Farsian; 1999), gender and politeness (Amoli Mosavi; 1989), gender and
power (Mahdi Pour; 1999), the effect of gender on language learning (Rahmatian & Atrashi; 2007), the
interruption among Persian couples (Eftekhari; 1999) and Dabirmogadam’s (2002) comparative study
between ‘but’ from English and amma (but) from Persian, this study is motivated by the fact that DMs
are among those neglected areas in Persian language studies. Thus, the overarching goal of the present
study is to bridge the gap that exists with respect to the study of DMs in Persian male/female casual
conversations. Assuming that all languages make use of DMs or similar devices, the main concerns of
the present study are ‘what lexical items are used as DMs in spoken Persian and what functions they
have in general and in men’s/women’s discourse in particular. These are among the unexplored areas in
the Persian context that were investigated in the present study by conducting an empirical analysis of
DMs used by Persian male/female in casual talk.
Research Objectives
The current study pursues a four-fold purposes:
1. To develop an inventory of lexical items which function as DMs in Persian casual conversation.

205 ISSN 1661-464X
2. To investigate the discoursal functions of Persian DMs in two interpersonal and textual domains.
3. To examine the distribution of DMs used by male/female speakers in Persian casual conversation.
4. To specify the predominant discoursal functions of DMs in Persian male/female discourse.
Review of Related Literature
The last twenty years have observed an explosion of articles and books on DMs, representing different
theoretical frameworks and approaches towards them. The various terms used to call these features are
illustrative of the diversity of functions DMs perform in the discourse. There is no general agreement on
what to call these connectors. They have been studied by different researchers under different labels to
name a few: DMs (Schiffrin, 1987), Pragmatic Markers (Fraser, 1999; Brinton, 1996), Discourse
Connectives (Blakemore; 2002), Discourse Operators (Redeker, 1991). The present study opts for the
term ‘Discourse Marker’ (Schiffrin, 1987) to address these linguistic Cinderella. There is not only
disagreement on the labels used to call these linguistic elements but also little consensus among scholars
in what the class of DMs consists of. A comparison among the inventory of DMs suggested by
Stenstrom (1994), Schiffrin (1987) and Brinton (1996) is evidence. In sum, the difficulty of
discriminating DMs from non-DM linguistic elements, the indeterminacy of the meaning of DMs and
the multifunctionality of DMs are among the problems which seems prominent in the area of research on
DMs. Given that spontaneous talk is the most productive register for discourse marking expression, we
believe that the analysis of the naturally occurring conversations among Persian male/female speakers
would display the purposes for which DMs are employed by Persian men/women at the interpersonal
and textual levels.
Defining Features of Discourse Markers
Although DMs cover a wide range of items from a variety of grammatical classes such as adverbs
(frankly, well), lexical phrases (you know, I mean), conjunctions (but, since, and), filler words (oh), they
share such features as:
1. They are almost used in all languages (Lenk, 1998; Yilmaz, 2004).
2. They are syntactically independent (Schiffrin, 1987).
3. They are syntactically flexible, i.e. they may appear at the beginning, in the middle or at the end
of an utterance. This flexibility contributes to their enormous usefulness and high frequency in
discourse (Futji, 2001).
4. They do not affect the propositional meaning of utterance (Brinton, 1996; Schiffrin, 1987).
5. They make no contribution to the informational content of discourse.

206 ISSN 1661-464X
6. They deal with the pragmatic aspects of discourse (Andersen, 2001; Fraser, 1990; Yilmaz,
2004).
7. They are meaningful but non-truth conditional (Lam, 2008).
8. They are multifunctional (Fraser, 1990; Schiffrin, 1987; Yilmaz, 2004).
9. They are short, consisting of one to three syllables (Lenk, 1997).
Prevalent Functions of Discourse Markers
Discourse markers perform a variety of functions in discourse. Muller (2005, p: 9) refers to the most
common functions of DMs as: they are used to ‘initiate discourse, mark a boundary in discourse
(shift/partial shift in topic), preface a response or a reaction, serve as a filler or delaying tactic, aid the
speaker in holding the floor, effect an interaction or sharing between speaker-hearer, bracket the
discourse either cataphorically or anaphorically, mark either foreground or background information and
index propositional relations’. According to Croucher (2004, p: 40) DMs can fulfil two types of
functions: ‘formal and informal’. He suggests four ‘formal’ functions of DMs as: to indicate a turn in
conversation, identify a digression from the topic under discussion, share a speaker’s attitude/sentiment
and frame general conversation. The three ‘informal’ functions of DMs according to the Croucher’s
classification are: to fill pauses in conversation, act as nervous glitches in speech, and they are part of
our collective lexicon.
Gender and Discourse Marker Usage
Ostman’s earlier study on you know indicates that women tend to use this Pragmatic Particle more than
men (1983). The results of Holmes’ analysis over 200 instances of you know in New Zealand women’s
and men’s speech show that there is little difference in the overall distribution of this pragmatic particle
between females and males (105 females vs. 102 males). However, men and women used it for different
purposes. Women used you know significantly more in its ‘other-oriented positive politeness function’
(1995, p: 90). Erman (1992) describes the results of her study rather differently. In terms of speaker’s
gender, she finds that DMs are much frequent in same-sex as opposed to mixed-sex interactions.
According to her findings, women use y’know more often to organize discourse and for hesitation
whereas men use it more often for information decoding, turn regulation and for marking repair or
appeal. At a more general level, she observes that ‘men tend to use y’know for rhetorical purposes and
between incomplete propositions while women employ them more often for turn-holding purposes and
between complete propositions’ (ibid, p: 231). In a quantitative study Croucher (2004) examines the
relationship between the use of such DMs as um, uh, like and you know and the gender of the speaker in
extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. He concludes that the results of the study did not show a
significant difference between the frequencies of two of the DMs, um, uh employed by male/female

207 ISSN 1661-464X
speakers, i.e., these two markers were used equally by both genders. However, it shows a significant
gender difference in the usage of the other two DMs; like, you know, i.e., they were used more often by
females. A corpus-based study of six DMs; I mean, you know, you see, kind of, sort of and well
conducted by Vassilieva (2006), shows that the variation in DM use by women and men pertains to the
social class and age of the speaker. In almost all examined interactions by Vassilieve women and men
use DMs to express similar pragmatic functions, though sometimes there is difference in the frequency
of functions used by men and women. DMs are used to express hesitation and uncertainty in the speech
of both genders.
Brinton’s Theoretical Framework
Brinton’s two-fold approach, influenced by the Halliday’s (1994) triple metafunctions, classifies the
functions of DMs into a continuum from textual to interpersonal. From interpersonal perspective DMs
are seen as vehicle contributing to the establishment and maintenance of relationships between speaker
and hearer. They express the speaker’s attitudes, evaluations, judgments, expectations and demands as
well as the nature of the social exchange, the role of the speaker and the role assigned to the hearer
(Brinton, 1996). They are used as hedges to express uncertainty and as appeals to the hearer for
confirmation. They could be used as a response or reaction to the preceding utterance as well (Yilmaz,
2004). At textual level DMs signal ‘a sequential relationship between the current basic message and the
previous discourse’ (Fraser, 1990, p: 383). According to Brinton (1996) the need to initiate and close
discourse, to mark topic shifts, to indicate new and old information and to constrain the relevance of
adjoining utterances are part of the textual functions of DMs.
Research Methodology
To meet the objectives of the study, both qualitative and quantitative analysis were employed given the
fact that they are complementary to each other. Whereas the subjective nature of qualitative method
allowed for the detailed description of the data and an in-depth explanation of the functions DMs have in
Persian context, the quantitative analysis made possible the comparison of the frequently used DMs
between two gender groups to find out the similarities and differences as well as to check whether the
difference in the frequency of DMs in Persian male/female discourse (if any) is significant or is just due
to chance.
Working classification Model for Persian Discourse Markers
Given the fact that to approach the collected data without having any theoretical framework in mind is
undesirable and virtually impossible, Briton’s (1986) binary categorization of DMs functions was adopted in
the present study. In accordance with this approach, all the instances of Persian DMs occurred in the recorded

208 ISSN 1661-464X
conversation were categorized under two macro interpersonal and textual functions. Nevertheless, a range of
sub-functions (discussed below) had to be defined for Persian DMs on the basis of functions they had in the
analyzed corpus. The resulting scheme consists of six categories for the Persian DMs functions at the textual
level and seven categories for their functions at the interpersonal level. The proposed categorization was
developed on the basis of the functions Persian DMs display in discourse. The conceptual framework is used
to discuss the functions Persian DMs have at the macro and micro levels. Figure 1 illustrates the general
outline of the classification system developed to define the functions DMs fulfil in Persian men/women
discourse.
Please insert Figure 1 here
The proposed model compromises six functions for Persian DMs at the textual level and seven ones at
the interpersonal level. The micro functions are discussed in detail below.
Textual Micro Functions
1. Elaboration
2.
: It encompasses the reformulation/rephrasing of the preceding proposition,
speaker’s self-correction/self-editing and the clarification through exemplification or
explanation.
Topic Management
3.
: A blanket term used for topic initiation, topic shift, topic closure, floor
holding, turn initiation, turn keeping and turn yielding practices.
Create Coherence
4.
: A strategy the speaker manipulates to construct coherence among segments
of discourse at local, global or both levels through relations that DMs index.
Approximator
5.
: By breaking the line between past and present, DM approximates ‘event time’
and ‘discourse time’ (Schiffrin, 1987).
Add new information
6.
: DM helps the speaker to denote new information.
Contrast
Interpersonal Micro Functions
: DM guides the hearer to take the succeeding proposition as adversative to the
preceding one and/or to display a different facet of the phenomenon.
1. Attention-getting
2.
: The addressee-oriented strategy used to attract the attention of the partner by
highlighting some elements in the discourse.
Emphasis
3.
: Indicates the speaker’s inclination to emphasize on a specific segment in his/her
discourse.
Agreement
4.
: To show intimacy with the partner by agreeing on the discussed proposition.
Disagreement: To Signal partnership and engagement in interaction by occupying opposite
stand.

209 ISSN 1661-464X
5. Hedge/Mitigator
6.
: Helps the speaker to save the face for his/her partner in the face- threatening
speech act.
Tentativeness
7.
: It comprises the reservation, doubtfulness, hesitation and indecision practices
from the speaker.
Backchannel
Population
: As a reception marker, DM is used to provide the speaker with feedback and
index the listenership.
Following Biber et al.’s (1998) recommendation that for frequently occurring linguistic items a corpus of
2000 words would be sufficient, this study utilized a data pool comprising 14 excerpts, in total 5 hours
and 8 minutes recorded conversations among Persian male/female participants with a total 3105 words.
In order to facilitate the reading of the collected corpus, the excerpts and their features are displayed in
Table 1.
Please insert Table 1 here
The conversations were basically natural, real-life interactions collected by recording Persian speakers
conversing in informal situations. They have been transcribed in full adopting Eggins and Slade’s (1997)
transcription system. The range of conversations entails a various array of situations including;
conversation among immediate family members (e.g. wife and husband, mother and children), extended
family members (e.g., aunt and nephew) and close friends. The number of participants presented in each
conversation varied and ranged from two to six. The corpus consists of the audio-recorded conversations
among 21 Persian speakers, 12 men and 9 women. The participants’ age ranged from 25 to 64 years
with a mean of 33.8 years for the men and 38.8 years for the women. It would not be out of place to
mention that the nature of casual conversation does not allow any control on such variables as the age,
the educational background and the social status of the participants. However, the only controllable
variable, i. e., gender was taken care of in the current study.
The data collection started in the beginning of June 2010 and ended in November 2010. A personal
audio-recorder, walkman type was used for recording conversations. The recordings were done either by
the participants themselves or the researchers. Taking into account the ‘observer’s paradox’ (Labov,
1972, p: 113) and in order for the participants are not distracted by the presence of the researchers and
given that leaving the scene allows the participants to be at ease with each other, in those cases that the
researchers were present the attempt was to be less involved in the conversations. In order to maintain
the authenticity of the speech delivered by each participant, they were not informed what elements are
going to be studied in their speech. No topics, tasks or time limits were given prior to the recording to
maintain the authenticity of the conversations intact. The transcription phase was followed by the

210 ISSN 1661-464X
translation into English phase. The translation was neither word for word nor literal meaning of the
utterances. DMs have been italicized in both Persian transcriptions and English translations to make a
distinction between those lexical items that function as DM and those that do not meet the characteristics
of DMs. Furthermore for those Persian DMs with the corresponding English expressions the glosses are
provided within brackets.
Data Analysis
The present study sheds light on those still unexplored aspects of Persian language to illuminate the
functions DMs have in discourse. This is significant as the literature to date has been virtually silent
about the occurrence of DMs in the Persian context especially their function in male/female discourse. In
an attempt to account for the functional spectrum of Persian DMs the qualitative method which is
descriptive in nature was employed
Armed with information obtained from the qualitative analysis of the data, the DM frequency count was
carried out manually by the authors. A developed inventory of Persian DMs in the decreasing order of
occurrence is presented in Table 2.
Please insert table 2 here
Distribution of Persian Discourse Markers
The number of participants, the number of uttered words, total number of DMs in each gender group and
the obtained Mean for used DMs are presented in Table 3.
A number of observations can be made from Table 3 and Figures 2 and 3. The findings suggest that the
Persian men spoke more than the female speakers. Whereas Persian male speakers manipulated 1625 words
(52.33% of the total uttered words), the words uttered by the female speakers makes up 1480 (47.66% of the
total word count). Bearing in mind that the number of male participants (12) is more than female participants
(9) this insignificant difference sounds reasonable. Another reading of Table 3 refers to the number of DMs
used by Persian male/female speakers. The 116 DMs used by 12 male speakers soars up to 138 DMs in 9

211 ISSN 1661-464X
female speakers’ discourse. The estimated Mean for men is 9.6 vs. 15.3 for women. In order to investigate
whether the Mean difference between two gender groups is significant, a Chi-square test was run. The
obtained Probability value (alpha/significance level) is p= 0.157 which is higher than the critical point
(p=.157>.05) (Appendix II). Thus the result of the Chi-square test indicates the acceptance of the established
H0 for the present study, i. e., there is no relationship between the gender of the speaker and the number of
DMs. In other words, the use of DMs is not sensitive to the gender of the speaker. The findings of the current
study reinforce Holmes’s (1995) and Erman’s (1992) analysis of you know where no significant difference is
found in the overall distribution of this DM between the male and female speakers.
Functions of Persian Discourse markers at Textual Level
The cross-gender comparison of the employed Persian DMs for the textual purposes is discussed below.
It aims to find out whether Persian men employ DMs for the functions which are different from the
women’s, and what the predominant functions in the textual domain are.
As Table 4 and Figure 4 show the highest discrepancy at textual level is seen in the use of DMs to create
coherence among different segments of the discourse where the female speakers use DMs 8 times more
than the male speakers (89% vs. 11%). Whereas Persian female speakers are mainly concerned with
establishing and maintaining textual coherence of the discourse in progress, Persian male speakers
preferred to use DMs to ‘add new information’ (75% vs. 25%) and to display the diverse aspect of the
discussed propositions by showing contrast between two segments of discourse (67% vs. 33%). The
only point where the Persian male and female speakers’ use of DMs in the textual domain overlaps is
‘elaboration’. There is discrepancy in other functions and in the most cases male speakers surpass
women except for the use of DMs to create coherence in discourse.
Functions of Persian Discourse Markers at Interpersonal Level
The functions Persian DMs fulfil in the male/female discourse to meet their interpersonal needs are
presented in Table 5.

212 ISSN 1661-464X
A noteworthy feature of Table 5 and Figure 5 is the difference between two gender groups of participants in
terms of the use of DMs to show tentativeness and as backchannel signal. In other words, the highest
discrepancy pertains to the use of DMs to show the speaker’s hesitancy and as backchannel where in both
cases all the used DMs belong to the female speakers (100% vs. 0%). Given that backchannel as a valuable
mechanism contributes to the interactional level of communication, the high occurrence of DMs to fulfil this
function in the Persian women’s discourse indicates that they are more concerned with their interpersonal
needs, i.e., with ‘conveying metamessage’ (Tannen 1990) in order to establish and maintain social
relationships. The other reading of Table 5 and Figure 5 pertains to the fact that the Persian females use DMs
to signal their alignment/agreement with their partner(s) more frequent than the male speakers (75% vs.
25%). The obtained result is in line with Schleef’s acclaimed findings regarding the ‘higher use of agreement
and backchannel markers by women’ (2005, p: 180). The discrepancy between the two participant groups
again boils up in the use of DMs as mitigator/hedging device to save the face for the interlocutor (63% for
men vs. 37% for women).
Cross-gender Comparison of Persian Discourse Markers at Textual/Interpersonal Level
After having a comparative look at Persian male/female discourse in terms of the DM usage within the
textual domain (Table 5 ) and interpersonal domain (Table 6), the statistical tool of SPSS (version 16) is
used to compare the use of DMs in Persian male/female discourse between the textual and interpersonal
domains. Table 6 illustrates the total number of DMs used by each gender group to perform textual and
interpersonal functions.
Figure 6. illustrates the comparison of Persian DMs at the Interpersonal and Textual levels
The immediate reading of Table 6 and Figure 6 is that while the male speakers mainly concerned about the
textuality of the discourse (60 vs. 41), the female speakers favoured the use of DMs for interpersonal
functions (78 vs. 49). The results of the Chi-square test shows that there is a relationship between the gender
of the speaker and the use of DMs for the textual/interpersonal purposes (Chi-square with 1 degree of
freedom = 9.777, p = 0.002<0.05) In other words, the probability that the difference between the Persian
male/female speakers’ use of DMs to fulfil textual/interpersonal purposes is due to chance is 2% which is
statistically very low. To be more precise, the use of DMs for textual/interpersonal functions is sensitive to
the gender of the speaker and gender as a social factor affects the manipulation of DMs at the discourse level.

213 ISSN 1661-464X
Results of the Study
In their everyday interactions, Persian speakers use frequently and with ease such lexical items as; na/na
baba (no), bebin (look), aare (yeah), haalaa (now), vali (but), midoni (you know) and dige (no English
equivalent). However, when it comes to defining and specifying functions to them, they remain “Mystery
particles” (Longacre, 1976, p: 468). The present account of Persian DMs which is basically ‘analytical
description’ provides the reader with the knowledge about how DMs operate in actual usage. The findings
are built upon a 3105-word corpus including 14 audio-recorded conversations among 21 participants,
recorded over the period of 6 months. The aim was to record the speech that is as close as possible to the one
spoken in casual, informal settings. The recorded data are analyzed with a particular focus on DMs. All
together 34 tokens of Persian DMs with overall 254 occurrences are identified in the data among which na/na
baba (no) is the most frequency used DM with the total of 33 (12.84%) occurrences. Regarding the number
of words uttered by Persian speakers, the results of the word count show that men surpass women (1625 vs.
1480). The detected insignificant gender variation of the total number of words uttered by each gender group
is due to the number of male participants (12 men vs. 9 women). The other finding of the quantitative
analysis pertains to the number and proportion of DMs employed by Persian male/female speakers. As it is
inferred, the ratio of DMs in female speaker’s discourse is higher than that of male’s discourse (138 vs. 116).
This accounts for the female speakers’ inclination to employ DMs as helpful device in fulfilling their
communicative purposes. Indeed the female speakers’ close affinity with the interpersonal needs pertains to
the nature of the casual conversation where the establishment and maintenance of social relationships and the
presentation of personal attitudes are predominant and essential. The difference is less pronounced between
the total number of words used by the Persian male/female speakers and the number of DMs in each gender
group’s discourse which is validated by the results of the Chi-square test (p=0.157>.05). The statistically
insignificant difference in the frequency of DMs occurrence in the Persian male/female discourse indicates
that the use of DMs in discourse is not sensitive to the gender of the speaker. The results of the study are in
line with Erman’s (2001) and Holmes’ (1986) findings as they could find no correlation between the total
number of DMs and the gender of the speaker, however they could find some functional differences.
Likewise, the findings of Schleef (2005) reveal no correlation between the use of DMs and the gender of the
speaker. He, further, attributes the confusing findings regarding DMs variation by gender to the “contextual
constrains that govern the use of DMs” (ibid, p: 185). However, the results of the current study do not
support Brinton’s (1996) proposal because he considers DMs as gender specific linguistic elements and the
typical features of women’s speech. Furthermore, the findings of the present study counteract Croucher’s
results of the study. He concludes that there is a correlation between frequency of DMs usage and gender as
he asserts that “women more than men choose to use DMs” (Croucher 2004, p: 43). In similar vein, the
results of Winkler’s study on Limonese women show that women use DMs more frequently than men to
encourage the participation of others, to hedge an assertion and to signal a shared belief. She opines that the

214 ISSN 1661-464X
use of DMs contributes to “rising the sense of power and representing prestige for Limonese women” (2008,
p: 53). Likewise, Matei (2011, p: 213) believes that “the use of DMs is under the direct influence of gender”,
and “women use far more DMs than men” (p: 220), though there is not male-specific or female-specific
DMs. The results of study by Kim and Kang (2011, p: 31) on the relationship between gender and the usage
of DMs in spoken Korean do not back up the findings of this study when they assert that “women use more
DMs than men to gain time and do hesitation. Liao’s (2008) study on Chinese teaching assistants in the U.S.
shows gender differences in the use of DMs by non-native speakers which does not endorse the findings of
this study.
Being concerned about DMs functions and to see whether there is a significant difference between
Persian male/female speakers’ use of DMs to function at the interpersonal/textual levels, a cross-gender
comparison within textual and interpersonal domains were carried out. A preliminary observation of the
analysis reveals a considerable discrepancy between two gender groups in the interpersonal and textual
domains. Whereas Persian female speakers adhere to a greater extent to the interpersonal functions of
DMs to fulfil their interpersonal needs by establishing and maintaining social relationships, the male
speakers seem to be more concerned with the textual functions of DMs. Generally speaking, the
difference in DMs usage to accomplish different purposes is considered as an instance of gender-related
variation in the speech behaviour of Persian men and women.
The female’s preference to use DMs for interpersonal purposes is linked to their inclination to provide
the hearer with positive feedback which contributes to the maintenance of the conversation flow. On the
other hand, being tentative and “to adopt an unassertive style of communication, i.e., learning to denude
the statement of declarative force” as Dixson and Foster (1997, p: 90) opine is necessary in order to
become ‘feminine’ women in the male-dominated societies. Taking into consideration Schiffrin’s
statement that “conversation requires a delicate balance between the satisfaction of one’s own needs and
the satisfaction of other’s needs” (1987, p: 100), the Persian female speakers’ use of DMs as agreement
marker could be interpreted as a care for their interpersonal needs as well as “other’s needs” which is
considered as a value in Iranian’s culture where the modesty is the most highly valued virtue. Iranians
try to avoid self-promoting in interactions especially when they are among close friends and family
members.
Implications
Given the fact that the development of the structured corpus is a requirement for any given language, the
data collected for the present study could be used as a part of Persian Spoken Language Corpus (PSLC).
Inasmuch as Persian DMs have been absent in the dictionary entries and grammar books, the
pedagogical implication of this study would be for syllabus designers. They could corporate the findings

215 ISSN 1661-464X
in the content of textbooks by focusing on spoken discourse and the significance of DMs in fulfilling the
speakers’ intended meaning.
The collected data for the present study accounts for the norms for speaking among Persian speakers
which contributes to the sociolinguistic and anthropological aspects of Persian language.
Theoretically, the conceptualized framework proposed to define Persian DMs functions contributes to
the development of Brinton’s (1986) typology of DMs functions.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that DMs are extensively used in Persian oral interactions, there are few studies devoted to
the investigation of their discourse values in casual conversation. The main concern of the present study was
the phenomenon of the gender differentiation in terms of DMs usage in a variety of Persian language, i.e.,
Tehrani dialect. Given that a systematic treatment of DMs in Tehrani Persian is inadequate in modern Persian
linguistics and to bridge this gap the audio-recorded data comprising 14 face to face casual conversations
involving two-party and multi-party interactions among family members, acquaintances and close friends are
used to shed light on “frequently used” but “frequently unnoticed” (Yilmaz, 2004, p: 231) linguistic elements
and to highlight the role gender of the speaker plays in the use and interpretation of DMs. The findings of
the study contribute to the cross-gender understanding of DMs functions. The results of the present study
provide insights into the gender role that govern the use of DMs and explain the findings in terms of their
functional variation.
The results of the study show the sensitivity of the DMs usage to the speaker’s gender to fulfil different
functions. While the Persian male speakers mainly take care of textual functions of DMs, the female
speakers’ concern is their interpersonal needs. This difference could be discussed in several ways. It may be
due to the social status endowed to men in the Persian speech community where men are more exposed to
“public speaking” than women (Tannen, 1991). It may also be indicative of discomfort on the part of women
when they are in face to face interaction with men. In sum, the findings of the present study are consistent
with the findings of Holmes (1995) and Croucher (2004).
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic Markers of Sociolinguistic Variation: A relevance
theoretical approach to the language of adolescent. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D, Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language Structure and Use.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolden, G. (2008). Reopening Russian Conversations: The discourse particle-to and the negotiation of
interpersonal accountability in closings. Human Communication Research, 34, 99-136.

216 ISSN 1661-464X
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse functions. Berling and
New York: Mouto de Gruyter.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language: A sociolinguistic account of gender difference. 2nd
edition.
London and New York: Longman.
Croucher, S. M. (2004). Like, You Know, What I’m saying: A Study of Discourse Marker Frequency in
Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking. National Forensic Journal, 22 (2), 38-47.
Dabirmoghadam, M. (2002). Discourse Markers. Pazhuhesh-E- Zabanha-ye Khareji, 12, 55-76.
Dixon, J. A., & Foster, D. H. (1997). Gender and Hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal
of Psycholinguistics Research, 26 (1), 89-107.
Eggins, S. & D. Slade. (1997). Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Equinox.
Erman, B. (1992). Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction
Language Variation and Change. Language variation and Change, 4 (2), 217-234.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic Markers revisited with a focus on ‘you know’ in adult and adolescent talk.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (9), 1337-1359.
Fraser, B. (1990). An Approach to Discourse Marker. Journal of Pragmatic, 14, 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (7), 931-952.
Fujita, Y. (2001). Functions of discourse markers in Japanese. Texas Papers in Foreign
Language Education, 6 (1), 147-162.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hillier, H. (2004). Analyzing Real Texts. Research studies in Modern English Language. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of ‘you know’ in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society, 15 (1), 1-
22.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London and New York: Longman.
Kim, H., & Kang, B. (2011). Gender and usage of discourse markers in spoken Korean. Proceedings of the
16th
conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. 30-31.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lam, Ph.W-Y. (2008). Discourse Particles in an Intercultural Corpus of Spoken English. PhD Thesis. The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Lenk, U. (1997). Marking Discourse Coherence: functions of discourse markers in
English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30 (2), 245- 257.
Liao, S. (2008). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the U.S. Journal
of Pragmatics.1-16.
Longacre, R. E. (1976). 'Mystery' particles and affixes. In Salikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker and
Sanford B. Steever (eds.). Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society.
pp: 468-77. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Maltz, D., & Broker. R. (1982). A cultural approach to Male-Female Miscommunication. In Jenifer Coates
(eds.). Language and Gender. 417-434.
Matei, M. (2011). The influence of age and gender on the selection of discourse markers in casual
conversation. Philology and Cultural Studies, 4 (53), 213-220.
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ostman, J. O. (1983). You Know: A Discourse Functional Approach .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Parvaresh, V, Tavangar, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). General Extenders in
Persian Discourse: Frequency and Grammatical Distribution. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6 (3),
18-35.
Redeker, G. (1991). Review article: Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistic, 29 (6), 1139-
1172.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis.
Cambridge: CUP.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

217 ISSN 1661-464X
Schleef, E. (2005). Gender, Power, Discipline and context: Om the sociolinguistic variation of ‘okay’, ‘right’,
‘like’ and ‘you know’ in English academic course. Texas Linguistic Forum, 48, 177-186.
Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Balantine
Books.
Tannen, D. (1991). How to close the communication gap between men and women.
McCall’s , 118 (8), 99-102.
Trudgill, P. (1998). Sex and Covert Prestige. In: Jennifer Coats (eds) Language and Gender: A Reader.
Oxford, 21-28.
Vassilieva, N. (2006). I mean, You see, Kind of, Sort of, and well, a Corpus-Based Study of Discourse
Markers as used by Women and Men. Retrieved on June 20, 2009 from
http://www.duo.uio.mp/sok/
West, C., & Zimmerman. D. H. (1983). Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex Conversations
Between Unacquainted Persons. In Barrie Throne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley (eds.)
Language, Gender and Society. Cambridge, MA: New Bury House.
Winkler, E. G. (2008). A gender-based analysis of discourse markers in Limonese Creole. Linguistic
Explorations of Gender and Sexuality. SARGASSO, 53-72.
Yilmaz, E. (2004). A Practical Analysis of Turkish Discourse Markers: Yani, Iste and Sey. PhD Thesis.
Istanbul: Middle East Technical University.
‫ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﻪ‬ ،‫ﺍﻓﺘﺨﺎﺭﻱ‬)1378(‫ﺯﻭﺝ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻧﻮﺍﺩﮔﻲ‬ ‫ﮔﻔﺘﮕﻮﻫﺎﻱ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻗﻄﻊ‬ ،‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻫﺎﻱ‬,،‫ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﺤﻴﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﮐﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬‫ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ،‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
Eftekharian, M. (1999). Interruption among Persian couples. M.A. Thesis. Tehran: Institute of Humanities
Research and Cultural Studies.
‫ﺭﻭﺡ‬ ،‫ﺭﺣﻤﺘﻴﺎﻥ‬‌‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺣﺴﻴﻦ‬ ،‫ﺍﻁﺮﺷﻲ‬ ‫ﷲ؛‬)1386(‫ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺖ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬ ،‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ‬ ،‫ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬ ‫ﺩ‬‌‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﮋﻩ‬ ،‫ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﻴﺪ‬‌‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬‌‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‬ ،‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬55
Rahmatian, R., & M. H. Atrashi. (2007). The Effects of Gender on Language Learning. Journal of
Humanities, Linguistics, Special Issue 55: Shahid Beheshti University.
‫ﺑﻬﻨﺎﺯ‬ ،‫ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻱ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬)1368(‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ،‫ﺻﺎﺩﻗﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﺷﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﮐﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ،‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺖ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺩﺑﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‬ ،
‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ،‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬.
Amoli Mosavi, B. (1989). Gender and Politeness. M.A. Thesis, Tehran: University of Tehran.
،‫ﻋﺴﮕﺮﻱ‬‫ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﻪ‬)1375(,‫ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ‬‫ﺍﺭﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ،‫ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﺤﻴﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﮐﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ،‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺩﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺯﻧﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻔﻈﻲ‬ ‫ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻁﺒﺎﻁﺒﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ،‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
Asgari, M. (1996) .Male-Female pronunciation difference in Tehrani Dialect of Persian. M.A. Thesis.
Tehran: University of Tehran
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺿﺎ‬ ،‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻴﺎﻥ‬)1378(‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ،‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ،‫ﺍﻓﺨﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﮐﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ،‫ﻭﺍژﮔﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺖ‬ ،.
Farsian, M. R. (1999). Gender and Lexical Selection. M.A. Thesis, Tehran: University of Tehran.
‫ﻣﻬﺪ‬‫ﻣﺮﺟﺎﻥ‬ ،‫ﭘﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻱ‬)1378(‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺩﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺯﻧﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﺭﺕ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬ ،,،‫ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﺤﻴﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﮐﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻁﺒﺎﻁﺒﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬ ،‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
Mahdi Pour, M. (1999). Gender and Power. M.A. Thesis, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaii University.

218 ISSN 1661-464X
Figure 1: Developed Theoretical Framework for Persian DMs
DMs in Persian Male-Female CC
Macro- level Analysis
Discrimination of DMs:
Type
Specification of DMs:
Functions
Elaboration
Topic management
Distribution of DMs
in M/F discourse
Specification of DMs
functions in M/F
discourse
Disagreement
Agreement/
Emphasis
Attention getting
Add new
information
Interper-
sonal
functions
Textual
functions
Approximator
Tentativeness
Topic
Management
Create coherence
Contrast
Backchannel
Micro-level Analysis
Hedging/Mitigator

219 ISSN 1661-464X
Table1: Summary of recording excerpts
Corpus No. of Participants Male Female Age Setting Length of
conversation
Excerpt 1 2 1 1 <22-27> home 15 min.
Excerpt 2 5 2 3 <25-32> home 45 min.
Excerpt 3 2 1 1 <22-27> home 35 min.
Excerpt 4 4 2 2 <27-32> home 20 min.
Excerpt 5 3 2 1 <27-32> home 10 min.
Excerpt 6 4 2 2 <22-42> home 23 min.
Excerpt 7 3 1 2 <47-65> home 27 min.
Excerpt 8 5 2 3 <30-65> home 40 min.
Excerpt 9 2 1 1 <25-27> art exhibition 17 min.
Excerpt 10 6 2 4 <25-59> home 20 min.
Excerpt 11 2 1 1 <59-65> car 14 min.
Excerpt 12 2 1 1 <35-57> home 3 min.
Excerpt 13 6 3 3 <35-65> home 42 min.
Excerpt 14 4 1 3 <25-59> cafe 37 min.
Total 50 22 28 <22-65> ------ 348 min.
Table 2: Persian DMs According to the Frequency of Occurrence.
Discourse Marker English gloss f Ratio (%)
na/na baba no 33 12.99%
Dige no English
equivalent
30 11.81%
aare/ ba’ale yeah/yes 27 10.62%
yani/ yani chi
khob
it means
well
25 9.84%
vali
haalaa/alaan
but
now
13 5.11%
bebin/ nega kon look 12 4.72%
Aslant never/by no
means
10 3.93%
Ee no English
equivalent
8 3.14%
Ke no English
equivalent
7 2.75%
ba’ad then 6 2.36%
aakhe,
aahan
no English
equivalent
5 1.96%

220 ISSN 1661-464X
taze 4 1.57%
hmm,
vallah
midoni,
nemidonam/nemidonam chi
mage
no English
equivalent
you know
I don’t know
no English
equivalent
3 1.18%
chon
montaha
chiz/chiz bodesh
migam ke
because
but
no English
equivalent
I say(that)
2 0.78%
rasti
haan
hichi
chiye
masalan
fek kon
eeyva
eehe
oo
no English
equivalent
nothing
what is?
for example
you think
no English
equivalent
1 0.39%
Table 3: Total number of words and DMs used by Persian speakers
Gender No. of
Participants
No. of words No. of DM Mean
Male 12 1625 116 9.66
Female 9 1480 138 15.33
Total 21 3105 254 12.09

221 ISSN 1661-464X
Figure 2: Comparison of total uttered words and used DMs by each gender group
Figure 3: Cross-gender comparison of the number of participants and obtained Mean for
used DMs.
Table 4: Cross-gender comparison of DMs used in Textual Domain
Gender
Function
Male ratio Female ration Total
Elaboration 12 48% 13 52% 25
Topic
Management
35 61% 22 39% 57
Create
Coherence
1 11% 8 89% 9
Approximator 3 60% 2 40% 5
Add new
information
3 75% 1 25% 4
Contrast 6 67% 3 33% 9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Total Words No. of DMs
Male
Female
0
5
10
15
20
No. of participants Mean
Male
Female

222 ISSN 1661-464X
Figure 4: Cross-gender Comparison of DMs within Textual domain
Table 5: Cross-gender comparison of DMs used in Interpersonal Domain
Gender
Function
Male ratio Female ratio Total
Attention-
getting
7 54% 6 46% 13
Emphasis 16 41% 23 59% 39
Agreement 5 25% 15 75% 20
Disagreement 10 38% 16 62% 26
Hedge/Mitigator 3 37% 5 63% 8
Tentativeness 0 0% 3 100% 3
Backchannel 0 0% 10 100% 10
Figure 5: Cross-gender Comparison of DMs within Interpersonal domain
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Male
Female
0
5
10
15
20
25
Male
Female

223 ISSN 1661-464X
Table 6: Cross-gender comparison of DMs between Textual/Interpersonal levels
Gender Textual Interpersonal
Male 60 41
Female 49 78
Figure 6: Comparisons of DMs at Interpersonal and Textual levels
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Textual Interpersonal
Male
Female

Gender differences in Persian discourse markers

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Gender differences in Persian discourse markers

Similaire à Gender differences in Persian discourse markers (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Gender differences in Persian discourse markers