Conversational dominance and politeness strategy on a political discussion among peers

  • Vina Yuliana
Keywords: conversational dominance, politeness strategy, language and gender


This paper aims to explore the differences of female and male linguistic features analyzed using the conversational dominance analysis and the common politeness strategies when discussing Kabinet Indonesia Maju (Onward Indonesia Cabinet). The participants were a group of Master Degree students consisting of two male and two female students. The data was gathered by conducting a focus group discussion, then the verbal utterance was orthographically transcribed. The writer used quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse the data. The finding showed that other-oriented interruption was the most-occurred dominance, in which both male and female participants interrupted the conversation to exhibit the agreement, support the speakers, and reinforce the flow of the conversation. The female participants did self-oriented interruption more than male participants to ask questions. This finding conversed Lakoff (1973), Coates (1991), and West and Zimmerman (1987)’s female language features in which the female participants stood for their own opinion, shared their critic, gave suggestions, and asked questions. This study found that the participants showed mostly positive politeness strategy which they agreed to each other's statement, supported one another's idea, and contributed new topics to the discussion to maintain the discussion. This paper concluded that gender is not the only factor determining linguistics features and politeness strategy in this discussion among peers. The other possible influencing factors were the participants’ relationship closeness, different cultural backgrounds, topic mastery, and their equal education level.


Brown, P., & Lavinson, S. C. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D., McAlindern, F., & O'Leary, K. (1988). Lakoff in context: the social and linguistics functions of tag questions. In J. Coates, & D. Cameron, Women in their speech communities (pp. 74-93). New York: Longman Incs.
Campbell, R., & Winters, K. (2008). Understanding men's and women's political interests: Evidence from a study of gendered political attitudes. Journal of Elections, PublicOpinion and Parties, 18(1), 53-74.
Choucane, A. M. (2016). Gender language differences do men and women really speak differently? Global English-Oriented Research Journal (GEORJ), 2(2), 182-200.
Coates, J. (1991). Introduction. In J. Coates , & D. Cameron, Women in their speech communities (pp. 63-73). New York: Longman Inc.
Dhanesschaiyakupta, U., Sapabsri, O., Thep-Ackrapong, T., & Phimswat, O.-U. (2018). An Analysis of Gender and Status Affecting Conversational Interruptions. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 252-271.
Dunbar, N. E. (2015). A review of theoretical approaches to interpersonal power. The Review of Communication, 15(1), 1-18.
Faizah, I., & Kurniawan, E. (2016). A study of interruption and overlap in male-female conversations in the talk show Mata Najwa. Barista, 3(1), 25-36.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxon: Pearson Education Limited.
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. (2004). Gender and conversational dominance in Japanese conversation. Language in Society, 223-248.
Jennifer, C. (2004). Differing approaches to language and gender. New York: Routledge.
Joan, C. (2002). Pragmatic and discourse. London: Routledge.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merchant, K. (2012). How men and women differ: Gender differences. CMC Senior Theses.
Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 385-400.
Pakzadian, M., & Tootkaboni, A. A. (2018). The role of gender in converastional dominance: A study of EFL learners. Teacher Education & Development Research Article , 1-17.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine Books New York.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-151.
Wijayanto, T. (2014). Pragmatic analysis of politeness strategy in the coursebook Look Ahead 2 an English course for senior high school studens year XI. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
Abstract viewed = 53 times
PDF full text downloaded = 6 times