Talk:Gender paradox (sociolinguistics)

Comments on initial version of page

 * This page is really impressive. It's well-written, clear, and logically structured. You guys did a really good job. I just have one question: What is the current prevailing theory to explain the gender paradox? You mention two different possible theories but don't contextualize them within the field. Did one precede the other? Are both actively being researched now?  It would be helpful for someone coming to Wikipedia with no prior knowledge of the paradox to be able to come away with some idea of current movements in the field. Other than that, everything was very clear. Great work! Kdinatale (talk)


 * This is yet another great page! The structure of the page really facilitate easy understanding of the topic. I think the group has done a good job particularly in the Introduction and the Overview section. The first two sentence have already clarified what gender paradox is and provided sufficient background that would enhance understanding of following contents.
 * I learned a lot about gender paradox after reading the page. Yet, the first table comparing social status, gender, and style is not quite accessible. I understand that graphs and tables are always tricky because they could be complicated to explain only in words. I would definitely appreciate more detailed illustration of the meaning and significance of a particular percentage/index. I could understand the explanations that the group provided, but it is hard to match the conclusion with the pattern of data in the table. So, I would suggest the group elaborate on how the observation is made from the data available.
 * The group also did well in mentioning different views on gender paradox with an objective tone. I find the social capital explanation of women's motivation to change/conform particularly interesting. While the examples in this page are demonstrated in a succinct manner, I do feel some of them could use a little more clarification. For example, the Social Constructionist View is said to 'account for inconsistency in results between studies done in Western Cultures supporting the Gender Paradox and those done in Africa and Asia where the results are less conclusive.' I'm not sure how the distinction between gender and sex would relate to discrepancies in results from different cultures. Nevertheless, as we discussed in previous lectures, maybe it is more efficient to just make necessary reference through a hyperlink, which is exactly what this group has done. Overall, great job! --Danleiseveny (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really nice page! In general, I thought the page had a nice flow and the logic was easy to follow. The intro was great, going into just enough detail to thoroughly explain "gender paradox." Overview, Explanations, and Complications were all clearly written, went into good detail and effectively used examples. I found the Explanations section really fascinating.The only thing I would suggest is emphasizing the second paragraph under Robustness of Data. The info you're citing basically undermines the idea of gender paradox so it would be nice if that were addressed. I do understand how it might be difficult to address the issue more thoroughly without sounding biased but maybe you could find some debates on the topic and cite from there? Overall, this is a very lovely page. Yaylinguistics (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Great page! I thought everything was generally clear and concise.  A couple things: (1) Link the indexicality page since it's mentioned a few times in the Complications subsections. (2) Can you explain why the Shifting of Standard Forms example is a complication?  To me it seems like an example of the Changes from Above section and should belong there.  Otherwise, well done! Elizalinguistics (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent page. Excellent writing. Excellent organization. Very comprehensive. My roommate, who is generally unfamiliar with anything related to linguistics, skimmed through it and was able to explain it to me afterward. She was even able to include an example from her workplace. One quick note first, in the “Explanations” section, the very first sentence, did your group want to say “Sociolinguists have attempted..” or “Sociolinguistics has attempted...”? Second, like Kdinatale, I am also curious with regard to the context of the potential theories in the “Explanations” section. Are they competing theories? And, I am curious, in view of the Social Constructionist View of Gender (SCVG), did your group come across information that suggests a third potential theory based on the SCVG? In any case, thank you greatly for an excellent page! User: Cueva:anana  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cueva:anana (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done, gender paradox group! I really liked the categories you used to organize your page.  In general, I felt as if the article (especially its latter parts) had a speculative quality, which does make sense since the validities of the principles have been contested.  Here are some specific suggestions I can offer:
 * Consider providing a more thorough discussion of the examples in the "Changes from Above" sub-section; the other two seemed more in-depth, especially since a figure was included in each case.
 * "This principle gives the most general understanding of women’s treatment of linguistic variables, such that, when variables are not undergoing any change, women tend to prefer the standard form of the variable to the non-standard form." -- The "such that" made this sentence a bit awkward for me to read; I'm not sure that the transition between the two clauses is as smooth as it could be.
 * It is clear that the quotes at the beginning of each "Overview" sub-section were from Labov (since you specified that these principles were first observed through his research), but I think it would be more effective to use an in-text citation at the end of each of those sentences. That way, the quotes are cited, but you don't need to reference Labov over and over again (he was mentioned in the first sentence of the article).
 * "Sociolinguistics have attempted to discover a unified account and explanation for the gender paradox with varying levels of success." -- I might say "provide" instead of "discover". And did you mean "sociolinguists"?
 * "Chambers proposes that women command a greater range of variants and styles, 'even though gender roles are similar or identical.' This view is contradicted by the varying size of the 'gender gap,' and the fact that differences have not remained constant over time."  This bit of writing was a little unclear to me (e.g. differences between what? be specific).
 * "The notion that women’s speech is in fact the 'language of powerlessness' is supported by findings that some features of stereotypical women’s speech were also used by men when in a position of subverted power." -- Can you cite these findings/studies?
 * "Oftentimes, the female-led variants also correlate with social class age, and other large social categories, raising the methodological question of which social group the variant is actually indexing." -- "Social class age" feels like a bit of a ramble, and I think it might be helpful to specify what is meant by "other large social categories".
 * "Not all speech communities reflect the three principles that constitute the paradox." -- "Exemplify" might work better than "reflect".
 * I think it is "inherent to," as opposed to "inherent in"?
 * A hyper-link to "social constructionists" might be helpful since there is a hyper-link to "sociolinguistic".
 * I think it might be helpful to provide more context for the Palau example.
 * "Then sociolinguistics should instead be focusing on the third-party constraints that make the female gender so inclined." -- So inclined to do what?
 * I think that your material is solid, but some proofreading for little things (like punctuation, capitalization, diction, coherence) might benefit the article. I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with my number of comments... I got excited by the opportunity to help review tonight :)  Danielle.a.bells (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, is there any reason that you chose to rely on so much on quotes from Labov? Jtnh (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a wonderful page. The organization of the different sections is very easy to follow, and the content includes just enough detail. I think that the writing style would benefit from some revision though.
 * For instance, in the Changes from Above section, it would be great if there was some sort of transition between these two sentences: "These are language changes that individuals are generally conscious of. People are aware of the prestige associated with formal styles and thus are prone to hypercorrection..."
 * There are also instances where the flow of the article is cut off because the phrasing is a bit off, such as in the first sentence in the Shifting of Standard Forms section, "Variation among women could also be due to shifting Standard Forms."
 * Regarding the caption for the chart from the Trudgill study, the use of the terms "increases" and "decreases" is questionable; I can understand how formality can be like a quantity that increases or decreases, but I'm not sure if that works for socioeconomic class.

Great page! It is organized very well and the language is great.
 * I think you might have a small grammatical error in the quotation in your first sentence (it should probably be “sociolinguistic norms”). Also, the first sentence under “Explanations” should be “Sociolinguistics has” instead of “Sociolinguistics have.”
 * As we discussed in class, it is not necessary to have so many quotations since you can use references.
 * I would recommend deleting the first sentence of your “Complications” section. It seems a bit essayistic and unnecessary. AnnaCG93 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, I thought that the page was very well-written and easy to follow! I think the introduction would benefit if you guys restate the gender paradox in a simple sentence in addition to quoting Labov. I thought the section on explanations was really interesting! Are there only 2 or more? I think the introduction sentence here could be elaborated on a bit more. In the robustness of data section, I would list some examples. Also, some things to hyperlink: Penelope Eckert and Palau. Good job with putting in graphs of the data & overall great job! MildlyImpressed (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought this page was full of a lot of great information. However, it did feel more like an essay than a wikipedia page, even with all of the headings and subheadings. Instead of quoting the authors you can just paraphrase and footnote. It would make it a lot easier to understand and the page would flow more.Sydneyelder (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconding the paraphrasing and footnoting concern, and eckert and palau. Other than that, nice job explaining this paradox objectively. If ya'll could provide some data samples under robustness of data, that'd be great too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajaka (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Really good work! The page is very straightforward, easy to read, and has a lot of good content and details. I especially like the very first few sentences in which you give a really concise definition of what the gender paradox of sociolinguistics is. Firstly, as it says at the top of the page, the article is an orphan so you should probably create links to your page in other related pages to make it more accessible. As others have stated, there are a lot of quotations which would probably work better just being paraphrased.  I also noticed a couple of misplaced  commas, so maybe you should read through the page again and fine-tune the punctuation. Overall, it's a great page. EmmaKylie (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Great job on the organization and level of detail! The article reflects that a lot of research went into it. Perhaps you could add the date when the gender paradox was first discussed in the intro or Overview section? On a minor note, in Wikipedia, the headers for the sections should be uncapitalized ("Stable linguistic variables", "Change from above", etc.). I also noticed some terms are capitalized in the Complications section ("Sociolinguists", "Western Cultures", "Gender Paradox", "Standard Forms"). Drbazzi (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good job! Introduction is great, using Labov's own words to nail the definition down. Also, I appreciate how you mixed in examples when appropriate, instead of having an examples section (a personal preference of mine, especially as this concept is a little easier to understand after reading the definition than some other topics, so you won't have readers needing a specific section of examples to clarify the paradox.). Suggestions: Don't list the principles "first", "second", and "third" in the overview section (just a stylistic choice). Include a citation for the first paragraph in "Robustness of Data." Link to Wikipedia's "Sex and Gender Distinction" page when referencing it in your complications section. Jeffbutters (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * GvargasLing150 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Good page! I appreciate the use of graphs and charts to further illustrate what exactly the Gender Paradox is. I can only reiterate what others have said at this point by pointing out that this page is easy to understand, but that there are a few grammatical errors scattered throughout.


 * Great page. Definitely the introductory paragraph and overview portions laid a strong foundation, which made for a logical progression of ideas. I especially liked how the text was chunked out, so there was a small paragraph for each heading. The even distribution of text made for easier reading. The complications section seems a bit scattered, with four unrelated issues? There may be a better way to express this, or maybe prioritize which complications are more significant or relevant?Jenn.bi (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

2602:306:326F:A300:614F:E221:E8CB:DCCE (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really great page! Very concise and clear. I love all the data you have in the Complications section, and the sentence you have for each section that explains what the new section is about is a nice touch. Also it's really great that you've included links to key terms, which makes this page very user-friendly for non-linguists, in my opinion.
 * Small nitpicks: in the intro section at the top, does the description of the Gender paradox really need to be in quotes? I feel like it doesn't flow as smoothly if there are quotes, but as a whole, not that big of a deal. Another small thing: In the Changes from Above/Below section, the style seems kind of essay-ish? While it sounds great, it seems out of place in comparison to the quick/concise, punchy writing in other sections. But overall, great page! catclaw.nymf


 * I love how clear the presentation of the page is! Each section has a distinct "purpose" and very organized subsections. Well done! I like the length and amount of information given in the introduction paragraph. It is easy to read and understand. Here are some of my thoughts: maybe some parts where you mentioned William Labov and his findings, instead of using a narrative style (in which you explain "he suggests, asserts, or discovered..."), you could just say the findings and in-text cite Labov, in order to sound more focused on what your topic is instead of the importance of the person. This is just my opinion after we had mentioned it to another group in class. Other than that, it's a great!-- Crfrances (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general sentiment that this is a well done page: it is generally clear and concise, and it is quite well written. I think several commenters have made nice points regarding small and medium scale editing and organizational issues, and points that would benefit from clarification, including danielle.a.bells, Cueva:anana, Danleiseveny, and Jtnh. I agree with the point that several people have raised regarding the reliance on Labov's views: it would be nice to find other people who express similar views, and cite them. Likewise, I agree that the 'Robustness of the data' section could be expanded, and probably retitled. All-in-all, though, a very good job. Ldmanthroling (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Efgoodrich (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This page is very succinct and easy to understand. Really the only thing is that you should avoid in text citations and also that sources other than Labov would give the page more umph. Generally one of the easiest pages to read, though.


 * Very informative page. I just have a question about this sentence: "This finding is widespread across languages and can be seen in examples such as (r)-pronunciation in New York City, the reversal of the Parisian French chain shift, and entire language shifts, like that from Hungarian to German in Austria." What is meant by "entire language shifts, like that from Hungarian to German in Austria."? Where is the prestige factor that makes it a change from above? I just don´t understand the example. I guess it would be better to explain what is actually meant by that. People with little to no linguistic background will not understand what is meant by "examples such as (r)-pronunciation in New York City" either. So in my opinion the examples should be a little more detailed. Sahara2005 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your page is awesome. The final section of the page provides an excellent catalog of the factors that complicate the theory, and the multiplexity of the possible causes provides a speculative perspective that I truly appreciate. Warrenmcbieber (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The page is very well-written - clear, concise, and informative. Section headings are good, and progression of material on the page is logical and intuitive. M.karie (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Language shift from Hungarian to German in Austria?
"and entire language shifts, like that from Hungarian to German in Austria.[1]"

...what? Where in Austria is that supposed to have happened?

Hungarian was never spoken in most of the country. The Burgenland belonged to Hungary until 1921, but the great majority of the population is descended from German-speaking settlers put in this previously sparsely populated area in the Middle Ages by the kings of Hungary to have more taxpayers and perhaps defend the border. Most of the rest is descended from Croatian-speaking refugees from the Ottoman advance a few hundred years later and settled there by the kings of Hungary for the same reason; many of them still speak that language. There are one or two places in the Burgenland where Hungarian is spoken today; the ancestors of these people, too, were sent there by the kings of Hungary to defend the border.

The citation is just to Labov's book in general. Does it offer any specifics?

David Marjanović (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)