<%BANNER%>

Gender, Sex, and the Sociolinguistic Variable [-ing]

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021199/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender, Sex, and the Sociolinguistic Variable -ing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (57 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bittson, Genevieve
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bem, gender, language, scale, sex, sociolinguistics
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since its inception, the field of gender and language research has been dominated by studies focusing on binary gender. Although many linguists and other social scientist agree that sex is binary while gender is not, little experimental research has been conducted under the construct of non-binary gender. This focus on binary gender has lead to women?s language being perceived as subordinate to men's language, submissive in nature, and overall has polarized the genders. This study intends to reconceptualize gender and make a distinction between sex and gender in terms of linguistic data collection. Data was collected from twenty individuals, roughly half biological females and half biological males. Their speech was recorded during one-on-one interviews, personal data was collected about each individual, and each individual completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The speech data was examined and each individual was recorded as using the standard progressive verb ending realized with the velar nasal or the non-standard progressive verb ending realized with the alveolar nasal. The personal data collected determined an individual?s sex, either female or male, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory determined an individual's gender: feminine, masculine, or androgynous. No one-to-one correlation between gender and variable usage was found. Past research has claimed that women use more prestigious and standard forms of phonological variables while men use less prestigious and less standard forms of the same variables. This research shows that while all biological females tended to use the standard, velar form, not all men tended to use the nonstandard, alveolar form. In addition, the data showed that all sex-typed feminine and androgynous individuals used the standard, velar form regardless of biological sex, and all individuals who used the nonstandard, alveolar form were sex-typed masculine and biological males. The data also showed that not all sex-typed masculine individuals used the nonstandard form. While this research does not completely refute past gender and language research that claims that sex plays a role in determining how an individual will speak, it does show that the relationship between gender and language is more complex than the past research has suggested. The data collected in this study suggests that there is a correlation between sex, gender and language. Perhaps instead of focusing on one extralinguistic variable while conducting linguistic research, we should take into consideration how an individual's biological sex influences how that person may or may not portray her or himself in a society which tends to value sex-typing.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Genevieve Bittson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Blondeau, Helene.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021199:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021199/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender, Sex, and the Sociolinguistic Variable -ing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (57 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bittson, Genevieve
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bem, gender, language, scale, sex, sociolinguistics
Linguistics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Linguistics thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since its inception, the field of gender and language research has been dominated by studies focusing on binary gender. Although many linguists and other social scientist agree that sex is binary while gender is not, little experimental research has been conducted under the construct of non-binary gender. This focus on binary gender has lead to women?s language being perceived as subordinate to men's language, submissive in nature, and overall has polarized the genders. This study intends to reconceptualize gender and make a distinction between sex and gender in terms of linguistic data collection. Data was collected from twenty individuals, roughly half biological females and half biological males. Their speech was recorded during one-on-one interviews, personal data was collected about each individual, and each individual completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The speech data was examined and each individual was recorded as using the standard progressive verb ending realized with the velar nasal or the non-standard progressive verb ending realized with the alveolar nasal. The personal data collected determined an individual?s sex, either female or male, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory determined an individual's gender: feminine, masculine, or androgynous. No one-to-one correlation between gender and variable usage was found. Past research has claimed that women use more prestigious and standard forms of phonological variables while men use less prestigious and less standard forms of the same variables. This research shows that while all biological females tended to use the standard, velar form, not all men tended to use the nonstandard, alveolar form. In addition, the data showed that all sex-typed feminine and androgynous individuals used the standard, velar form regardless of biological sex, and all individuals who used the nonstandard, alveolar form were sex-typed masculine and biological males. The data also showed that not all sex-typed masculine individuals used the nonstandard form. While this research does not completely refute past gender and language research that claims that sex plays a role in determining how an individual will speak, it does show that the relationship between gender and language is more complex than the past research has suggested. The data collected in this study suggests that there is a correlation between sex, gender and language. Perhaps instead of focusing on one extralinguistic variable while conducting linguistic research, we should take into consideration how an individual's biological sex influences how that person may or may not portray her or himself in a society which tends to value sex-typing.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Genevieve Bittson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Blondeau, Helene.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021199:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





GENDER, SEX, AND THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIABLE [-ing]


By

GENEVIEVE BITTSON
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 Genevieve Bittson
































To mom, for her unwavering dedication









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my mother for her support and love. I would like to thank Jennifer L.

Shea for her advice and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Helene Blondeau for

introducing me to the topic of this thesis and her willingness to serve as chair. Finally, I would

like to thank Dr. Diana Boxer for her advice and support as a committee member for this thesis.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ................. ...............7................


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........8


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............10......... .....


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..........._..._ ...............12.......__......


Previous Binary Gender Research .............. ... ...............12......... .....
Methodology in Binary Gender Research .............. ...............12....
Findings in Binary Gender Research ........_................. ........._._ ....... 1
Modern Gender Research .............. .......... .............1
Methodology in Modern Gender Research .............. ...............16....
Findings in Modern Gender Research ........_................. ........._._ ....... 1
The Progressive Verb Ending [-Ig]................ ...............20
Exp ansi on s................. ...............21......... ....

3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............24....


Dependent Variable .............. ...............24....
Variable Context............... ...............24
Excluded Contexts ........_................. ..........._..........2

Independent Variables .............. ...............26....
Sex .............. ...............26....
G ender .............. ...............26....

Obj ectives ................. ...............27........ ......
Data ....__. ................. .......__. .........3
Participants .............. ...............3 1....
Speech Sampl es .............. ...............3 2....
Analytical Procedures ........._._.... ...............34....._.........
Dependent Variable .............. ...............3 4....
Independent Variable............... ...............34

4 RESULT S .............. ...............36....


Gender Categorization of the Sample ........._._.... ...............36....___.. ....
Variable Usage of [-Ig]1 and Gender .............. ...............39....
Variable Usage of [ -Ig] and Sex .............. ...............41....
Social Desirability .............. ...............43....












5 CONCLUSION............... ...............4


APPENDIX


A THE ADJECTIVES OF THE BSRI ............_ ....._. ._ ...............49....


B INFORMED CONSENT .........._...._ ...............50..._..._......


C BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE .............. ...............52....


D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..............._ ...............53......._......

LIST OF REFERENCES ..............._ ...............54......._......


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............57....











LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Participant information .............. ...............32....

3-2 Gender categorization ........... ..... ..... ...............35....

3-3 Social desirability categorization ........._...... ...............35._.._. .....

4-1 Sex-typed individuals according to the BSRI ....._._.__ ... ....___.. ....._._.........3

4-2 Androgynous individuals according to the BSRI .............. ...............38....

4-3 Variable usage by participant............... ..............3

4-4 Variable usage and gender categorization .............. ...............40....

4-5 Variable usage of [-Irj] and sex ...........__......___ ...............41..

4-6 Variable usage and social desirability............... ..............4









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Arts

GENDER, SEX, AND THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIABLE [-ing]

By

Genevieve Bittson

August 2007

Chair: Helene Blondeau
Major: Linguistics

Since its inception, the field of gender and language research has been dominated by

studies focusing on binary gender. Although many linguists and other social scientist agree that

sex is binary while gender is not, little experimental research has been conducted under the

construct of non-binary gender. This focus on binary gender has lead to women's language being

perceived as subordinate to men's language, submissive in nature, and overall has polarized the

genders.

This study intends to reconceptualize gender and make a distinction between sex and

gender in terms of linguistic data collection. Data was collected from twenty individuals, roughly

half biological females and half biological males. Their speech was recorded during one-on-one

interviews, personal data was collected about each individual, and each individual completed the

Bem Sex Role Inventory. The speech data was examined and each individual was recorded as

using the standard progressive verb ending realized with the velar nasal or the non-standard

progressive verb ending realized with the alveolar nasal. The personal data collected determined

an individual's sex, either female or male, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory determined an

individual's gender--feminine, masculine, or androgynous. No one-to-one correlation between

gender and variable usage was found.









Past research has claimed that women use more prestigious and standard forms of

phonological variables while men use less prestigious and less standard forms of the same

variables. This research shows that while all biological females tended to use the standard, velar

form, not all men tended to use the nonstandard, alveolar form. In addition, the data showed that

all sex-typed feminine and androgynous individuals used the standard, velar form regardless of

biological sex, and all individuals who used the nonstandard, alveolar form were sex-typed

masculine and biological males. The data also showed that not all sex-typed masculine

individuals used the nonstandard form.

While this research does not completely refute past gender and language research that

claims that sex plays a role in determining how an individual will speak, it does show that the

relationship between gender and language is more complex than the past research has suggested.

The data collected in this study suggests that there is a correlation between sex, gender and

language. Perhaps instead of focusing on one extralinguistic variable while conducting linguistic

research, we should take into consideration how an individual's biological sex influences how

that person may or may not portray her or himself in a society which tends to value sex-typing.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Much of the gender and language research conducted today focuses on differences between

the sexes, not differences between genders. In highlighting the differences between the way

individuals of different sexes use language, linguists are perpetuating the stereotype that the

differences between women and men are plentiful and that these differences are large and

meaningful. Arguably, research that focuses on similarities might not be as interesting to conduct

or to read about, but research like this is important so that the public receives an accurate

representation of what actually takes places between and among groups of people.

While this paper does not focus on similarities between the way different groups behave,

and instead highlights their differences, it is important to note before continuing on that more

similarities exist between these groups in regards to language use than do exist differences. With

this in mind, read on.

Approaching gender and language research from a perspective other than binary sex, a

gender model must be carefully chosen. Since many ideas have been proposed for

conceptualizing gender, yet they have been difficult to use in experimental linguistic research, it

is practical to use a model that has been tested in another field before, if at all possible. This

research has borrowed a gender model from the field of psychology know as the Bem Sex Role

Inventory. This model was proposed in the 1970s and has been tested and retested since that

time. It proposes that gender can be conceptualized based on sex-roles to which individuals

subscribe. The most noteworthy thing about this model is that biological gender is not used to

determine into which category an individual falls.

Using the Bem Sex Role Inventory as a starting point, an individual's use and variation of

the progressive verb ending [-ID]1 was collected and analyzed in relation to an individual's gender









as categorized by the model. As will be discussed in the following chapter, much of the past

literature and research in the field of gender and language has made certain assumptions about

how women and men use language. Since this is the first time this model has been used in the

field of linguistics, no hypotheses can be made regarding how individuals will perform

linguistically based on their gender categorization.

Beyond comparing each individual's use of the linguistic variable [-Irj] to her or his

gender as determined by the model, each individual's use of the variable will also be compared

to her or his biological sex. Since the model does not incorporate a person's sex into the model, a

separate analysis will be provided. Finally, the Bem Sex Role Inventory also provides a score for

an individual's self-reported social desirability ranking on a seven-point scale. Again, no

predictions will be made regarding how, if at all, an individual's social desirability is related to

her or his gender or use of the variable, but trends will be reported and discussed if found.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The first part of this literature review summarizes the methodology and findings of

gender research conducted under the binary model of gender. The second part summarizes the

methodology and findings of gender research conducted under models other than the binary

model of gender. The third part summarizes the research done on the linguistic variable [-Irj].

Finally, an explanation of how the current study complements and expands upon existing

literature is provided.

Previous Binary Gender Research

Many of the studies of gender and language have been conducted under the assumption

that gender correlates directly, if not exactly, with biological sex. Furthermore, nearly all of these

studies have focused on differences between the genders rather than similarities between them.

Not all of the studies done, particularly in recent years, have been conducted under the

assumption that gender is binary. These studies are discussed in the second part of this section.

First, it is necessary to examine previous studies' methodology and the subsequent results that

came from this type of methodological implementation.

Methodology in Binary Gender Research

In assuming that differences exist between the sexes or genders in regards to language

variation, a methodology for collecting gender and language data was constructed that exists

to this day. Most of the classic research conducted in sociolinguistics (Labov 1972, Trudgill

1974, Tannen 1990) has examined binary gender. That is, a direct correlation between what is

considered biological sex, female versus male, and gender, also female versus male.

Under this interpretation of gender, sex is defined as "either of the two maj or forms of

individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male










especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures," (Merriam-Webster 2005).

Gender is defined as "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with

one sex," (Merriam-Webster 2005). These definitions loosely translate into sex being a

biological construct and gender being a social construct, however, linguistic research reflects

little to no difference in distinguishing between these two categories. In subsequent sections of

this chapter, the above definition of sex will be challenged, specifically in relation to the idea that

many theorists believe that biologically there are not just two sexes, and that sex is not innate.

Another factor to consider when discussing the methodology behind gender and language

research is that much of this research is conducted while examining other independent variables

(Trudgill 1974). In sociolinguistics, gender is commonly tested along with age, race, and

socioeconomic status, to name a few. No evidence exists to suggest that language data collected

that examines differences in any of those three factors fits those factors into the binary model. At

one point in our society a great divide existed between the races (white versus non-white) and the

classes (upper versus lower class), but most people would think it absurd if research was

collected by lumping everyone in a community into two races or two classes. Why, then, do

people not find it absurd when we lump everyone into the categories of female or male, forcing

everyone into one, and conducting research that proposes to make predictions about an

individual's behavior based on these categories?

Researchers design experiments and write papers with the understanding that sex and

gender are not actually the same thing, yet propose little to no alternative to changing this

methodology.

Findings in Binary Gender Research

Binary gender research has shown that women tend to use more prestigious phonological

forms than men, who tend to use less prestigious forms than women (Fischer 1958, Labov 1972,









Tannen 1990, Trudgill 1974, Holmes 1998). In the oft cited Norwich study conducted by

Trudgill (1974), data suggests that women are more likely than women to use more prestigious

(read: standard) forms of a phonological variable than men. Similarly, a study conducted by

Labov (1972) found that not only did women use more prestigious phonological forms than men,

but women also insight linguistic change more than the men. The study also claims that men use

less polite lexical items in their speech compared to women (Labov 1972).

Other individuals have claimed other things about female and male language. In 1922

Jespersen concluded that women use more conservative language than men do. Though

Jespersen came to these conclusions nearly a century ago, it has established a trend in gender and

language research: assume that differences exist between female and male speech, look for

differences in female and male speech, and treat female speech as inferior.

One might consider the above findings slightly contradictory. While Holmes claims that

women insight linguistic change, Jesperson, along with others, claim that women use more

conservative forms of speech. How is it that women can insight change if they are the more

conservative sex in regards to speech? In 1990, the idea of the gender paradox, which examines

the contradictions of the claims made about the way women use language, was proposed (Labov

1990). The idea of the gender paradox and other examinations of contradictory data have led

modern researchers to reinvestigate and replicate studies like those just mentioned in hopes of

solving the mystery behind the contradiction. These studies will be discussed in the following

section.

Since the Jesperson piece, more research has been conducted that has found other

differences between the way women and men use language. Women have been cited as being

more polite than men in their language use by linguists other than Holmes (Lakoff 1975).










Linguists (Labov 1972) have also claimed that women use language in such a way that it is

evident that they are more status conscious than men.

In summary, women have been cited as using more prestigious language, insighting

linguistic change, using more polite language, using more conservative language, and being

more status conscious.

To this day, findings like these have been used to make generalizations about women and

men. These generalizations, though founded in the field of linguistics, have extended to other

fields and outside of professional fields into public opinion. Furthermore, from these

generalizations come predictions. From these predictions comes further research into the

differences between female and male speech.

Cameron (1996) and Bing and Bergvall (1996) believe that it is research like this that

perpetuates the dichotomy that persists in gender and language research. They suggest that we

should not be asking questions like, "What are the differences between women's and men's

speech?" but "How do different language practices contribute to the production of people as men

and women?"

Another type of question that is asked based on findings in binary gender research is why

women (or men) use certain types of language (Cameron 1996). When researchers ask questions

like these, they presuppose that women as a whole and as individuals all use that certain type of

language. Making assumptions like that perpetuates stereotypes and generally increases the

difficulty a woman might have in a situation dictated by "appropriate" language use (for

example, at work). Furthermore, it causes future researchers to focus on differences in speech

rather than similarities or reasons we focus so closely on differences in the first place.









Modern Gender Research

What will be referred to in this research as modern gender research is a field of thinking

and theory that was born in the 1970s around the time of the women' s liberation movement. This

type of research questioned the validity of binary gender research and its applicability to the real

world. Some (Hall and Bucholtz 1995) consider Robin Lakoff s 1975 publication of Language

and a Woman 's Place the turning point in the field, and a maj or influence on most of the gender

and language research following it.

While some theorists may differ on how exactly gender should be conceptualized, many

linguists currently working in the area of gender and language agree that gender is not binary.

This suggests a question, however, regarding what gender is if not binary. When a group of

people has relied on a construct for so long, how can they begin to change their views on it and

what are the consequences of future and past research if a new methodology is adopted? In this

section and throughout this chapter, these questions will be addressed and hypotheses from

experts working in the field will be examined.

Methodology in Modern Gender Research

The most common way in which gender is conceptualized is as a continuum (Bing and

Bergval 1996). This concept is in stark contrast to the categorical model used in past gender

research, and in some cases, current gender research. A continuum accounts for minute

differences between individuals due to the actuality that not one individual has all of the exact

characteristics of another individual. Bing and Bergval (1996) compare this gender continuum to

the transition from day to night, "People relaxing at dusk experience the gradual change from

day to night with no concept or precise word for when day becomes night." Even linguists who

traditionally collect data using the binary model believe that gender is not completely










categorical. For example, Labov (1973) believes that even though language is effectively

categorical that, "all boundaries show [a] degree of vagueness."

Another way that gender has been conceptualized has been using circles that overlap with

one another. Each circle represents a different social factor, such as gender, race, or class. This

representation would show the connection between each factor, but also how there are some

individuals that fall in one circle, or two, but not all three, and other individuals that fall into all

three (West and Fenstermaker 1995). This model does not predict that even when two

individuals share all of the same factors that they will behave identically. This model has not

been used in experimental research.

Nicholson (1994) has a similar concept of gender, taken from her work in Interpreting

Gender. Nicholson suggests that individuals (read: women) are threads in a tapestry. As the

tapestry is woven, threads overlap so that we see parts of each individual making up the whole,

but not one particular individual dominating the whole. Again, this is simply a description for

how gender should be conceptualized and not necessarily a testable theory.

Nicholson and West and Fenstermaker' s theories for conceptualizing gender in research

are not unlike the idea of multivariate analysis (Abdi 2003). While multivariate analysis

approaches suggest the analysis of data based on a more representative way in which human

behavior is influenced, a model that focuses on representing gender can be useful in isolating

minute differences between speakers.

The research in this paper focuses on gender, although it does address sex in certain

discussion. So before proceeding to the next section, a few comments should be made about

binary sex. In the early 1990s, individuals in a number of disciplines pointed out that sex, as well

as gender, is not binary. Sex, like gender, can be conceptualized as a continuum, not simply









female versus male (Butler 1993, Epstein 1990, Bem 1993, Nicholson 1994). Biologically, most

individuals may be born as a man or as a woman, but not all individuals are born this way, and

not all individuals choose to live their lives this way.

Babies born as hermaphrodites often have their sex chosen for them by their parents and

may eventually grow up to find that they do not feel that they truly are that chosen sex. Other

individuals are born as one sex and then choose to change their sex surgically because it will

help them feel more like the person they know themselves to be. How can binary sex include

these individuals? Should they be classified as one sex or the other, or should there be more than

two sex categories?

While recognizing these issues, this research does not propose to challenge the traditional

idea of sex. Binary sex will be assumed in this paper, though further research may wish to

examine the idea of non-binary sex further.

Findings in Modern Gender Research

Current gender and language research usually poses the question of why we are looking at

differences between groups of people when really more similarities exist.

For example, research has shown that women and men really do share more language in

common than display more differences (Goodwin and Goodwin 1987, Weatherall 1998, Freed

1996) and that the differences that are displayed are not actually due to the subj ects being from

two different sexes, but are differences between powerful and powerless language (O'Barr and

Atkins 1980).

As mentioned in previous sections as well as subsequent sections of this chapter, it has

been assumed for some time that women use more prestigious forms than men when speaking.

However, research exists that suggests this is not entirely true. It shows that not all women use

prestigious forms and that men do use prestigious forms (James 1996). The validity and










generalizability of the previous findings on women' s use of prestigious language comes under

scrutiny with these new findings. Furthermore, why are claims still being made to the effect that

women and men speak so differently?

Although many researchers accept the view that gender is not binary, many of them still

believe that sex is binary. With this assumption comes the belief that language reflects this

dichotomy (Bing and Bergvall 1996). Since individuals and the media alike are fascinated by the

differences between women and men, research investigating these alleged differences thrives.

Bing and Bergvall (1996) also point out that while differences between women and men

exist, that the examination of the differences is not always the problem, but the simplification

and stereotyping that arises from those differences is the problem. In making a statement that

attributes prestigious forms to women and less prestigious forms to men, researchers are

generalizing about women and men, leading others to assume that all members of one group

behave in one manner while all members of another group behave in a different manner. This is

simply untrue. Studies where an average is taken from a group, and then generalizations are then

made about that group, usually lead to generalizations being made about members of that group

outside of the individuals tested. Just like not every drug or therapy works for one hundred

percent of the population, not every theory works for one hundred percent of the population. Any

good and thorough researcher knows that there are almost always exceptions to the

generalizations that are made using linguistic research, but not every non-linguist does. While

good research is supposed to be generalizable, it should not be used to make inaccurate

generalizations that perpetuate stereotypes and negative opinions.









The Progressive Verb Ending [-Ig]1

Moving away from gender research for a moment, we will take time to examine a

linguistic variable commonly tested in sociolinguistic research--[-Ig]. First we will take a look at

some classic studies collecting tokens of this variable and then we will return once again to

gender research and examine how [-Ig]1 has been used in the past to make generalizations about

how women and men use language.

As a morpheme used to express a grammatical aspect, [-Ig]1 is used by nearly all speakers

of English. For this reason, [-Ig]1 has become a popular variable to collect data in sociolinguistic

experiments and was also the first morphological variable to be studied quantitatively in speech

(Wald and Shopen 1981). The variable [-Ig]1 is usually pronounced with a velar nasal. In this

paper this will be referred to as the norm (to be discussed below). The second most common

pronunciation of [-Ig]1 is with an alveolar nasal, as in [-In]. Other variants do exist, with the

tongue placed slightly farther back or forward in the mouth than the alveolar ridge, but those

variations will be classified as [-In] in this research.

Traditionally, the [-Ig]1 variation is considered to be the more prestigious form and [-In]

the less prestigious form (Shopen 1978). With this belief then comes predictions that can be

made as to which members of a specific group will be more likely to use the [-Ig]1 variant and

which will be more likely to use the [-In] variant. Taking class as an example and assuming all

other social variables are equal, a member of a higher social class would be predicted to be more

likely to use [-Ig]1 while a member of a lower social class would be predicted to be more likely to

use [-In]. Research that predicts this trend with class (Ross 1954, Chambers 1995, Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet 1995), race (Rampton 1995), and age (Cheshire 1987, Eckert 1997) adds to the

reason this variable is used in this research.









As mentioned above, many studies have been conducted comparing the production of the

[-Ig]1 variable between women and men. For nearly a century, linguists have proposed that

women and men use language differently, and since the 1950s they have looked specifically at

the [-I9] variable. In a 1958 study of American children, Fischer found that girls used [-Ig]1 more

often than males. Fischer studied children aged three to ten, which would suggest that the trend

for women to use one type of language and men another is something that individuals are

socialized for from a very young age. In his paper Fischer recognizes that the use of [-Ig]1 versus

[-In] in his data collection is a "socially conditioned variant" and points out that other social

factors are at work besides the subj ect' s sex. Still, he attributes the girls' use of [-Ig]1 to the fact

that girls choose to portray themselves as using a more prestigious form.

Peter Trudgill hypothesized in 1974 that individuals of the female gender would be more

likely to use the prestigious form of the progressive variable which would be realized with the

velar nasal and that individuals of the gender male would be more likely to use the less

prestigious form of the progressive variable which would be realized with the alveolar nasal. In

his paper published in 1974 he found his hypothesis to be true. Again, he took other social

factors into account and theorized that those factors played a part in determining which form a

speaker would use. Sex alone was not the only factor influencing a speaker' s choice of variable.

Expansions

There has been a push in recent years to escape the polarization by which we have come to

classify gender. Specifically, the idea of how to conceptualize a speech community has been

challenged by Rusty Barrett in his 1997 look at what a speech community should be. Barrett

challenges nearly all language and variation studies done so far by saying that society has set up

standards based on some idealized society and group of people that have not existed for decades









and possibly centuries. The questioning of a standarddddd~~~~~~dddddd at all in terms of language use is made

(Barrett 1997).

Race, age, class and other variables interact with each other every day, all day. With this

being acknowledged, how is it possible to set a standard for language? The notions of

community and identity are not externally definable categories (Barrett 1997). With this notion

ofBarrett's in mind, this study aims to define these variables based on the community in which

the study is being conducted and does not claim to tell us anything else beyond this specific

community. Future studies must be conducted to determine how to operationalize these

categories, if operationalizing them is possible at all.

Though grievances concerning the way gender research is conceived and conducted have

existed for a long time, little has been done to change experimental research in the Hield. Theories

have been proposed, ideas formulated, and models speculated, but language and gender research

lacks a model in which gender can be conceptualized without coming back to binary gender.

The Hield of psychology, however, has a few established gender scales that have been in

use for a few decades. The oldest, most well-known, and arguably most controversial (McGrath

and Sapareto 1998) scale comes from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

and is known as Scale 5 M~f(masculine-feminine). The scale was proposed in 1940 but has since

been updated multiple times. The purpose of the collection of scales in the MMPI is to diagnose

individuals with personality disorders. When the scale was proposed in 1940, gender identity

disorders were widely considered treatable like many other psychological diseases. Scale 5 Mf

was intended to diagnose whether an individual identified primarily with the masculine or

feminine gender (Greene 2000).









Another scale, known as the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was proposed in 1974 and

was intended to provide construct validation for the concept of androgyny (Bem 1974) and has

since been used to measure masculinity and femininity in multiple studies over the past three

decades. The BSRI has as well been updated since its conception and numerous studies that have

tested its validity have been performed (Choi and Fuqua 2003). The BSRI is the inspiration for

the scale that is used in this study, and will therefore be discussed in great detail in the following

chapter.

Combining the Bem scale, the idea of non-binary gender and research that shows how

certain groups use more prestigious forms, this research aims to expand the scope of gender and

language research. Although a scale is being proposed as a tool to measure gender, it is being

proposed not to limit linguists to this scale but to suggest that a formal instrument should be

devised to measure gender so that linguists can stop relying on binary gender.









CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

The primary goal of this research is to develop and test a new method for collecting data

on gender and language. The method used to determine an individual's gender includes relying

heavily on a preexisting gender scale, the Bem Sex Role Inventory. An individual will receive a

gender categorization based on this inventory and her or his use of a linguistic variable will be

compared to the gender she or he is classified under. Additionally, each individual's biological

sex will be compared to the individual's gender categorization and variable usage. Any patterns

that emerge will be discussed.

Dependent Variable

The dependent or linguistic variable of the present study is [-Ig]1, which appears in the

speech of American English speakers as two variants: [-Ig]1 and [-In]. There are no specific

phonological contexts in which [-In] occurs as a replacement of [-Ig]1, though variation can be

constrained by other linguistic factors (see the following subsection). Occasionally, a more

extreme variant of [-Ig]1 will occur, for example, as a glottal stop between two nasals as in

[sAm?m] or \ineth~rling. In the present study the norm will be referred to as [-Ig]1 and all other

realizations of the variable will be grouped together as [-In].

Variable Context

The reduced variants can occur in many phonological contexts, but are sometimes

restricted in other linguistic contexts. The contexts that restrict the reduction of [-Ig]1 to [-In]

include contexts in which the variant is in a stressed syllable, a deverbal adj ective and a deverbal

adverb.










Excluded Contexts

The first context that is excluded is contexts where the word containing the variant is not

completely unstressed. For example, thing, which is monosyllabic and is therefore realized with

full stress, is such a word. In contrast, the word nothing contains the same variable, but the

variable is found in an unstressed part of the word, so nothing would be included in the data

collection. Some proper nouns also contain the variable but it is always in a stressed syllable. For

example, Beijing contains the variable but it is in a stressed syllable so it would be excluded from

the data collection. Even when the first syllable receives primary stress, the second syllable, the

syllable that contains the variable, is not completely unstressed. This is common with proper

nouns.

The second context that is excluded is words that can be used as verbs and adj ectives or

adverbs. Wald and Shopen (1981) pointed out that although certain deverbal adj ectives will

sometimes occur with the reduced forms, most people, regardless of their tendencies to use one

form of the variant or another, will use the norm in adj ectives and adverbs. For example, moving

can be a verb or an adj ective. When used as a verb it is often used with a variant of the norm. For

example, We 're moving out versus We 're movin out. When used as an adj ective it is nearly

never used with the reduced form (Wald and Shopen 1981). For example, His speech wa~s

moving versus His speech wa~s movin '. The latter example would probably be interpreted by

native speakers as the speech physically moving as opposed to the speech being touching. When

used as an adverb it is even less likely to be used with a reduced form. For example, His speech

wa~s movingly given versus His speech wa~s movin 'ly given. For these reasons, adj ectives and

adverbs will not be included in the data collection, regardless of the variant an individual speaker

uses.









Wald and Shopen also point out that the reduced form is more likely to occur in everyday

words than supercilious words. For example, the reduced form is more likely to be used in

talking than in communicating. In the present study, this fact will be ignored since no pretest on

which words are everyday words and which words are not everyday words has been conducted,

and all words that are not otherwise excluded from the study based on the discussion above will

be included in the data analysis.

Independent Variables

The independent or extralinguistic variables included in the analysis are biological sex and

socially constructed gender.

Sex

In the present study, all the participants self-reported themselves as either being female or

male, so binary sex was assumed. Although sex was not taken into consideration when

determining an individual's gender, it is analyzed and discussed in the following chapter to

illustrate how, if at all, gender and sex are related.

Gender

As mentioned in the previous section, this study will examine non-binary gender. After

considering a number of the gender scales available for use from other fields of study, one

gender scale was chosen because of its obj ectives, simplicity, and the opportunities it allows.

Gender was determined using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem 1974). The obj ectives and

history of the inventory will first be discussed, followed by a discussion of the adaptations made

to the inventory since it was first conceived, and finally the adaptations made for the present

study will be discussed.









Obj ectives

Sandra Bem developed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) in 1974 at Stanford

University. This test was originally designed to evaluate an individual's psychological

androgyny by calculating an individual's independent femininity and masculinity scores and then

calculating an androgyny score.

Originally, Bem tested 400 adj ectives with students at the university to decide which

adj ectives would ultimately be used in the B SRI. Bem used test-retest measures and eventually

narrowed the adjectives down to 60--twenty positive feminine adj ectives (for example,

affectionate, loyal, sympeaketll~iL twenty positive masculine adjectives (for example, self reliant,

independent, athletic), and twenty gender-neutral adj ectives, ten being positive (for example,

helpful, happy) and ten being negative (for example, moody, jealous). The presence of an

adj ective under the category of feminine does not imply that its opposite would be found under

masculine. For example, the presence of affectionate under feminine qualities does not imply

that unaffectionate is a masculine quality. The BSRI was designed to have the categories exist

independently of each other. For a full list of adj ectives, see Appendix A.

These 60 adj ectives were decided on based on a preliminary study conducted by Bem

where 400 adj ectives were evaluated by 100 participants as being desirable for a man, woman,

both or neither. The neutral traits were included in the final study to ensure that individuals who

completed the BSRI were not simply giving high rankings to socially desirable traits in general

and to determine an individual's social desirability score.

Next to each adj ective is a scale from 1 ("Never or almost never true") to 7 ("Always or

almost always true"). Individuals are asked to rate each adj ective on this scale in relation to how

accurately each adj ective describes the participant. Since the feminine, masculine and neutral

traits are all independent, each participant will receive a score for femininity and masculinity.









The gender model that the scores are plotted on will represent how an individual ranked in

regards to femininity and masculinity. For example, if an individual received a significantly

higher ( t >2.0250) score for femininity than she or he did for masculinity the individual will

be categorized as sex-typed feminine. If the reverse is true the individual will be sex-typed

masculine. In the event that the individual scores high for femininity and masculinity

( t <2.0250) the individual will not be sex-typed and instead be considered androgynous. The

raw scores (ranging from one to seven) will be added for the ten positive gender-neutral

adj ectives. The reverse of the raw scores (ranging from one to seven, one being the reverse of

seven and seven being the reverse of one) will be added for the ten negative gender-neutral

adj ectives. The total for both types of adj ectives are added together and then divided by the total

number of gender-neutral adj ectives. This will provide a score from one to seven for an

individual's social desirability ranking.

The original study which proposed the BSRI (Bem 1974) and the most recent follow-up

study to test the current validity of the BSRI (Auster and Ohm 2000) used the same criteria to

test whether a trait was feminine, masculine or neither. A trait would qualify as belonging to

either feminine or masculine if individuals from both sexes respondents' mean desirability

ratings for a specific sex were significantly higher (p < .05) than their mean desirability rating for

the opposite sex. Participants asked to rate these adj ectives only ranked adj ectives for men or

women, but never for both sexes.

Results from the Auster and Ohm study showed that the mean desirability ratings for all

non-significant relationships were higher in the appropriate direction (feminine were all ranked

desirable "for a woman" by both sexes and masculine were ranked desirable "for a man" by both

sexes). However, respondents had a higher desirability ranking for the feminine traits linked to









"desirable for a woman" than for the masculine traits linked to "desirable for a man." Two

feminine traits--childlike and yielding-and two masculine traits-a~nalytical and makes

decisions ea~sily--were found to have the lowest validity rankings of all the traits tested. Ten

additional masculine traits were found to have lower validity rankings than they originally had in

the Bem (1974) study, but there was not as large a disparity as with the initial two masculine and

two feminine traits mentioned. This might suggest that new criteria should be proposed and

tested for judging masculinity, but until then only the specific traits that were ranked the lowest

will be eliminated, leaving 18 for femininity and masculinity each, instead of the original 20

each. None of the gender-neutral traits were eliminated using the validity rankings of the study.

Another study (Harris 1994) tested the feminine and masculine traits (all except the traits

feminine and masculine) with 3,000 participants, as opposed to the 100 participants used in both

the Bem study and the Auster and Ohm study, and found that the remaining 19 masculine traits

were still valid and 16 of the 19 tested feminine traits were valid. It has been suggested, however,

that since Harris used a significantly larger sample size than Bem did in the original study that

this could have contributed to the vastly different results (Auster and Ohm 2000). Alternatively,

it has been suggested that the differences are due to the change of social values of the 1970s to

present day.

Considering the ways in which society has changed since the 1970s, it might be difficult

to imagine that most of the same traits might be used in current gender studies. For example,

asking a random individual on the street if women are accurately described using the word

yielding the questioner might receive a harsh look and a few rude remarks. Traits like these

represent how different thoughts about women were just 30 years ago. However, since the

previously mentioned studies have retested all of the traits in more recent years, it will be









assumed that these validation studies have suggested that most of the traits still do accurately

describe society's views of the sexes.

Since these differences exist between the Auster and Ohm and Harris studies, for the

present study only the two feminine (childlike and yielding) and two masculine (analytical and

makes decisions easily) traits that had low validity ratings in the Auster and Ohm study will be

removed from the present study. Until different criteria are proposed to replace the 12 masculine

traits found having low validity in the Auster and Ohm study, the 10 traits in question will be

kept in the present study and any future studies conducted by the principal investigator under the

same revised model of the B SRI.

Furthermore, while the present study does not hope to obtain results that could extend

outside of the United States or even beyond the specific speech community in which it is being

tested, the BSRI has been tested within different speech communities and cultures. Research

conducted in Turkey (Ozkan and Lajunen 2005), China (Zhang and Norvilitis 2001), and Japan

(Katsurada and Sugihara 1999) under similar circumstances has shown that the BSRI can be

applied in some different cultures with comparable results, though further and more extensive

research should be conducted.

In sum, the BSRI will be used to decide whether an individual is categorized within a

certain gender category. The adapted BSRI will be identical to the original except it will lack the

four traits that were determined to be invalid in the Auster and Ohm study. In the present study

each individual will be assigned to one of three categories-feminine, masculine, androgynous--

and that category will be considered the individual's gender. It can be assumed, however, that a

group of individuals who all fall in the same category differ from one another to some degree.









Finally, each individual will receive a social desirability score that will be compared to the

individual's gender and variable use.

Data

Participants

Participants were recruited from undergraduate Linguistics and French classes at the

University of Florida. Students were first asked to sign an informed consent form approved by

the UFIRB (Appendix B) and they then completed a questionnaire (Appendix C), the results of

which are displayed in Table 3-1. The table displays background information for each of the

twenty speakers who comprise the present data set. A total of 11 females and 9 males were

included in the sample. Most of the participants were born and raised in Florida, though there are

a few exceptions represented in Table 3-1. All participants attended the University of Florida at

the time of data collection and all were undergraduates. This controlled the age range of the

participants to be from 18 to 22. Sixteen of the 20 participants were Caucasian, one was

Hispanic, one was Asian, and two were of mixed races where one of their parents was

Caucasian. All of the participants came from middle class families. All of the participants spoke

English natively and if they spoke a second language it was learned in school and was not

spoken at home.

Some of the participants held part time j obs, though most of the participants did not rely on

those jobs as a source of college funding. Most participants were either on scholarship or were

supported by their parents. The principal investigator had met some of the participants prior to

data collection since some participants were associated with the Linguistics Program at the

university as was the principal investigator. In the event that the principal investigator knew the

participant prior to data collection it is indicated how long the two were acquainted for at the

time of data collection in Table 3-1.









Table 3-1. Participant information
Participant Sex Age Race Time acquainted Place of Time lived
# w/ interviewer birth in FL
1 M 21 Caucasian 6 months Florida Life
2 M 20 Caucasian 6 months Florida Life
3 M 18 Asian N/A Illinois 16 years
4 M 21 Caucasian 2 months Florida Life
5 M 22 Caucasian N/A Florida 15 years
6 F 20 Caucasian N/A New York 16 years
7 F 20 Caucasian N/A Florida Life
8 F 19 Caucasian N/A New York 18 years
9 F 20 Caucasian N/A California 2 years
10 F 22 Mixed N/A California 2 years
11 F 21 Hispanic N/A Florida Life
12 F 21 Caucasian N/A Florida Life
13 F 21 Caucasian N/A Wisconsin 3 years
147 F 20 Caucasian N/A California 14 years
15 M 22 Caucasian N/A South 18 years
Carolina
16 M 23 Mixed N/A New York 5 years
17 M 19 Caucasian N/A New York 2 years
18 M 19 Caucasian N/A California 13 years
19 F 21 Caucasian N/A New York 10 years
20 F 21 Caucasian N/A Florida Life

Speech Samples

Informal, audio-recorded conversations in American English, lasting 15 minutes with each

individual, were transcribed and analyzed. The recordings took place either in the principal

investigator' s office at the University of Florida or in the conference room next to the principal

investigator' s office, whichever was not occupied by others at the time. All data was collected

during February and March 2007. In the interviews, the principal investigator used the [-Irj]

variant with all interviewees. This was verified when the conversations were played back for

transcription. No one was informed of the exact focus of the study though students were told of

the goal of the study after completion of both forms and the interview.

All of the interviews were very natural but were helped along with some preconceived

questions and follow-up questions available to the principal investigator through an interview










outline (Appendix D). Though the questions were available and used when there was a lull in the

conversation, the interviewees were free to speak about any topic they wanted. The conversation

began by asking about the individual's studies and classes, where the individual is from, how

they liked their classes and their hometowns, and the preconceived questions were worked into

the conversation when appropriate and/or needed. Most of the conversations flowed naturally

and responses to questions and stories were uttered spontaneously, without being solicited.

Topics varied.

All participants spoke freely and openly, seemingly oblivious to the presence of the tape

recorder.

This study tried to avoid the observer 's paradox (Labov 1966), but no absolute claim can

be made that the participants did not monitor their speech in some way. The awareness of the

tape recorder could have caused some participants to use the standard [-Ig]1 variant, though the

principal investigator tried to portray herself as being a part of the same speech community as

each individual by making personal connections in the conversation whenever possible. For

example, when it was discovered by the principal investigator that one participant attended the

same high school as the investigator did years ago, conversation was made about the high school

in an attempt to establish camaraderie. Also, three of the participants were previously acquainted

with the principal investigator, all of whom used the standard [-Ig]1 variant. Other participants

whom the principal investigator was not familiar with used the non-standard [-In] variant freely

during conversation, suggesting either a lack of the observer 's paradox effect or an inability to

control which variable she or he used.









Analytical Procedures


Dependent Variable

The principal investigator listened to all recordings twice, extracting and calculating the

number of occurrences of [-Ig]1 and [-In] in the speech of each participant in the qualified

environments discussed in the first section of this chapter. Each qualified context in which one of

the variants was used was then transcribed. A few examples of the [-Ig]1 variant in use include

Participant 1' s utterance I'm still waiting on one thring. I need a recommendation letter to be

written up; Participant 6' s utterance I was walking fr~om my 0 period class to my 1st period class

when I heard people talking about it in the hall; and Participant 20' s utterance I was going like

five miles an hour. A few examples of the [-In] variant in use include Participant 5's utterance

There 's not much keeping them there now that I'm gone; Participant 15's utterance It 's like a

little football stickin out; and Participant 1 8' s utterance I 'm looking at livin [off campus/ v ithr

one of my good buddies.

A simple percentage was calculated for each individual, expressing the percentage out of

the total times the variable was used the participant used [-Ig]1 and the percentage the participant

used [-In]. Some participants always used one of the two variants in speech. A few participants

varied their use of the variable, but always used one variant more frequently than the other.

These patterns are reported in the following section.

Independent Variable

Next, each completed BSRI was analyzed. As mentioned in a previous section of this

chapter, a high femininity score combined with a low masculinity score would result in an

individual being categorized as feminine. A high score was qualified as receiving a t-ratio of

St >2.0250 between the feminine and masculine categories. A low score was qualified as









receiving a t-ratio of t < 2.0250 for the feminine and masculine categories. In the event an

individual received a t-ratio of less than 2.0250, she or he was categorized as androgynous.

Table 3-2. Gender categorization
Category Raw difference between F and t-ratio
M score from (0-6)
Feminine >0.872 >2.0250
Masculine >0.872 >2.0250
Androgynous <0.872 <2.0250

Since the gender-neutral adj ectives were included in the BSRI to ensure a more valid self-

report and to determine an individual's social desirability score, they were calculated and

analyzed independently. Ten of the 20 gender-neutral adj ectives were ranked in protests as being

positive qualities for an individual to possess and half were ranked as negative qualities for an

individual to possess (Bem 1974). The raw score (from one to seven) was added for all of the

positive gender-neutral adj ectives and the reverse of the raw score was calculated for all of the

negative gender-neutral adj ectives. The two numbers were then added together and divided by

the total number of gender-neutral adj ectives. This provided a score from one to seven that an

individual could receive for social desirability.

Table 3-3. Social desirability categorization
Social desirability Numerical score
Socially more desirable >4.0
Socially less desirable <4.0

After personal information was collected about each individual, the individual's gender

categorization was calculated along with her or his social desirability score. Following this, each

relevant part of each interview was transcribed, providing a percentage of variable use for each

individual. Results and any correlations among and between variables are presented and

discussed in the next chapter.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study was designed to identify patterns between an individual's gender as determined

by the Bem Sex Role Inventory and her/his use of the progressive verb ending. Once each

participant was categorized as being feminine, masculine, or androgynous, the individual's

placement in a category was then compared to the individual's use of the linguistic variable [-Irj]

and the correlation between gender, sex, and variable usage was made.

Though the research did not predict finding a correlation between an individual's social

desirability ranking and her/his use of a variant, a correlation was found between an individual's

social desirability ranking and the likelihood that that individual would be sex-typed. Therefore,

after each individual received a gender classification, each individual's social desirability score

was compared to her or his use of the linguistic variable. A simple score was given to each

participant for social desirability. Since (4) was the mean score an individual could receive, a

participant who received a score greater than (4) was considered as reporting her/himself as

socially desirable and a participant who received a score less than (4) was considered as

reporting her/himself as socially undesirable (see Table 3-3 in the previous chapter). Finally,

each individual's gender categorization and social desirability score were compared to her or his

use of the linguistic variable. All of the patterns that emerged from this method of data collection

are identified and discussed in this chapter.

Gender Categorization of the Sample

The categorization of the sample according to gender is displayed in Table 4-1 below for

sex-typed individuals and Table 4-2 below for androgynous individuals. This distribution will be

discussed point by point in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Nine of the 20 participants

(45%) were strongly sex-typed ( | t > 2.0250) where they received the category of feminine or










masculine as illustrated in Table 4-1. Of these nine, seven (35% of total sample and 77.78% of

total who were sex-typed) were sex-typed masculine and two (10% of total sample and 22.22%

of total who were sex-typed) were sex-typed feminine. The participants who were sex-typed

feminine are both biological females. Participants 6 and 7 received a 3.993 and 2.322 t-ratio

androgyny score, respectively, resulting in both participants being sex-typed feminine. Of the

seven participants who were sex-typed masculine, two were biological females. Participants 11

and 20 received t-ratio androgyny scores of 2.856 and 3.343, respectively, resulting in both

participants being sex-typed masculine. Five of the sex-typed masculine participants were

biological males. Participants 5, 15, 16, 17, and 18 received androgyny scores of 2.577, 2.205,

3.111, 3.088, and 6.71, respectively.

Table 4-1. Sex-typed individuals according to the BSRI
Participant Masculine Feminine Andro yny score (t- Sex-typed
score score ratio)
5 5.77 4.66 2.577 M
6 4.11 5.83 3.993 F
7 4.55 5.55 2.322 F
11 6.11 4.88 2.856 M
15 5.83 4.88 2.205 M
16 6.61 5.27 3.111 M
17 5.05 3.72 3.088 M
18 6.61 3.72 6.710 M
20 5.38 3.94 3.343 M

The remaining 11 participants who were not strongly sex-typed all received androgyny

scores between 0 and | 1.415 ( t <2.0250), as illustrated in Table 4-2.

An individual who received an androgyny score of 0 received exactly the same number of

points for the feminine and masculine adj ectives. The farther away an individual's androgyny

score was from 0, the closer the individual was to being sex typed. Participant 8 was the only

individual to score above 1.0 for androgyny, coming closest to the 2.0250 score needed to be

sex-typed.










Table 4-2. Androgynous individuals according to the BSRI
Participant Masculine Feminine Andro yny score (t- Sex-typed
score score ratio)
1 4.88 4.55 0.766 no
2 4.66 4.66 0 no
3 4.55 4.16 0.905 no
4 4.61 4.66 0.116 no
8 4.44 5.05 1.415 no
9 4.33 4.44 0.255 no
10 5.16 4.94 0.510 no
12 4.77 4.94 0.394 no
13 4.22 4.38 0.371 no
14 3.77 3.94 0.394 no
19 4.55 4.72 0.394 no
An androgyny score above 2.0250 indicates sex-typing. A score below 2.0250 indicates no sex-
typing, but does indicate androgyny.

Table 4-2 also provides each individual's average feminine and masculine scores. If an

individual's scores are different, this individual scored higher for one sex-type and lower for the

other, though the scores were ultimately not significantly different enough to cause sex-typing. If

we look closer at these individuals we can see that a few individuals scored higher for the sex-

type opposite their biological sex. For example, participant 10 is a woman who received a

masculine score 0.22 higher than her feminine score. No correlation was found between

individuals who had androgyny scores closer or farther away from zero and variable use.

As mentioned in Chapter 2 of this paper, many sex roles that could be considered

traditional are now being questioned and invalidated in current American society. Women and

men are not expected to act the same ways that they were expected to act at the time that the

BSRI was proposed. It is worthy of note then, that recent validation studies have found that most

of the adj ectives on the BSRI still do correlate strongly with one sex. What is even more

noteworthy is that the maj ority of individuals who participated in this study were found to be

androgynous. What can the BSRI tell us about current society then? Is it that the gap between the

sexes that society has perpetuated for so many years is closing, and because of this are we now









seeing individuals who are not strongly sex-typed but rather fall somewhere in the middle of

what traditional genders are?

Variable Usage of [-Ig]1 and Gender

Since participants were free to discuss whatever they chose to discuss, some participants

used the token frequently while others used it infrequently. In previous sections it was mentioned

that this variable was chosen for its high frequency in speech. Regardless of whether a

participant used the variable frequently or infrequently, a simple percentage was calculated for

how often a particular variant was used. The distribution is provided in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Variable usage by participant
Participant Variant used Total number of Number of tokens
tokens that were [Ig]1
1 [Ig]1 31 31
2 Both, mostly [Ig]1 31 29
3 Both, mostly [Ig]1 21 18
4 Both, mostly [Ig]1 32 31
5 [In] 21 4
6 [Ig]1 23 23
7 [Ig]1 16 16
8 [Is] 11 11
9 Both, mostly [Ig]1 21 18
10 [Ig]1 13 13
11 [Ig]1 22 22
12 [Is] 19 19
13 [Ig]1 20 20
14 [Is] 9 9
15 [In] 10 2
16 [In] 12 1
17 Both, mostly [Ig]1 13 11
18 [In] 37 7
19 [Is] 19 19
20 [Is] 10 10

Table 4-4 below shows the distribution of the [-Ig]1 variable usage and gender

categorization. Use of the linguistic variable varied from speaker to speaker. Eleven (55%) of the

participants always used the velar nasal in producing the target form. Included in this group of









speakers are both of the sex-typed feminine participants, seven of the androgynous speakers, and

two of the sex-typed masculine speakers. The two sex-typed masculine speakers who always

used the velar variant were both the biological female, sex-typed masculine participants.

Table 4-4. Variable usage and gender categorization
Participant Variant used % [Ig]1 variant used Gender categorization
1 [Ig]1 100 A
6 [Ig]1 100 F
7 [Ig]1 100 F
8 [Ig]1 100 A
10 [Ig]1 100 A
11 [Ig]1 100 M
12 [Ig]1 100 A
13 [Ig]1 100 A
14 [Ig]1 100 A
19 [Ig]1 100 A
20 [Ig]1 100 M
2 Both, mostly [Ig]1 94 A
3 Both, mostly [Ig]1 86 A
4 Both, mostly [Ig]1 97 A
9 Both, mostly [Ig]1 86 A
17 Both, mostly [Ig]1 85 M
5 [In] 19 M
15 [In] 20 M
16 [In] 8 M
18 [In] 19 M

Five of the participants varied their use of the variable, occasionally using the alveolar

nasal but mostly using the velar nasal. The frequency of their use ranged from once using the

alveolar variant out of thirty-two utterances to using the alveolar variant two times out of thirteen

utterances. Clearly, these speakers used the standard velar variant much more frequently than the

alveolar variant. Of these five participants who varied their usage of the variable, only one was

sex-typed and this participant was sex-typed as masculine. The remainder of the participants who

varied their usage was categorized as androgynous.

The most salient correlation is found with the last group--the individuals who used the

alveolar nasal all or almost all of the time. Four individuals fall into this group and all of them









are sex-typed masculine. Participants 5, 15, 16, and 18, all sex-typed masculine, used the

alveolar variant from 80-92% of the time in their speech. All of these speakers were biological

males. A discussion of Table 4-4 in relation to the Literature Review will be discussed at the end

of the following section.

Variable Usage of [-Ig]1 and Sex

Table 4-5 below shows the distribution of variable usage and biological sex. Looking at the

results from within the realm of binary gender, one out of 11 (9%) of the biological females who

participated in this study used both variants, but used the velar variant more frequently. The

remaining ten females (90%) always used the velar variant, regardless of whether they were sex-

typed feminine or masculine.

Table 4-5. Variable usage of [-Ig]1 and sex
Participant Variant used Sex Gender categorization
6 [Ig]1 F F
7 [Ig]1 F F
8 [Ig]1 F A
10 [Ig]1 F A
11 [Ig]1 F M
12 [Ig]1 F A
13 [Ig]1 F A
14 [Ig]1 F A
19 [Ig]1 F A
20 [Ig]1 F M
9 Both, mostly [Ig]1 F A
1 [Ig]1 M A
17 Both, mostly [Ig]1 M M
2 Both, mostly [Ig]1 M A
3 Both, mostly [Ig]1 M A
4 Both, mostly [Ig]1 M A
5 [In] M M
15 [In] M M
16 [In] M M
18 [In] M M

The biological males were more unpredictable. One of the nine (1 1.1%) biological males

who participated in this study always used the velar linguistic variant. Four of the nine (44.4%)










used both variants, but used the velar variant more frequently. The remaining four (44.4%)

biological males used the alveolar variant all or almost all of the time. In Chapter 3 of this paper

it was mentioned that individuals who used one variant significantly more frequently than the

other variant would be classified as being a user of the more frequent variant. With this in mind,

all of the biological females can be classified as users of the velar variant. Five (55.56%) of the

biological males can be classified as users of the velar variant while four (44.44%) can be

classified as users of the alveolar variant.

The section of the literature review of this paper titled Findings in Binary Gender

Research discussed that much of the previous research has found that men use non-standard

varieties and variables more often than women. The results in Table 4-5 show that this is true to

a certain degree. Forty-four percent of the men in this study used the non-standard variant, not

quite half, compared to zero percent of the women. From these results the generalization can be

made that men might be more likely to use the non-standard variant, but it cannot be said that

they usually use the variant.

If we compare Table 4-4 and Table 4-5, some predictions can be made about future use of

the variants. Based on Table 4-4 or Table 4-5 alone, one cannot predict linguistic behavior.

However, when the results from both tables are combined a pattern emerges. As the section

Findings in M~odern Gender Research discussed in the Literature Review, men and women do

not always behave in the manner binary gender research has found. There must be, then, an

additional factors) that might be at play. Perhaps there is a relation between an individual's sex,

gender, and language use.

Table 4-5 shows us that while not all men use the non-standard variant and not all

masculine-typed individuals use the non-standard variant, all the individuals who use the non-









standard variant are masculine sex-typed men. This suggests that the individuals who are most

likely to use the non-standard variant are men who subscribe to societal sex roles for males.

This study shows that all females, regardless of whether they subscribe to traditional sex-

roles for women in regards to their personal behavior tend to use the standard variant. This

supports past binary gender findings, as mentioned in the Literature Review.

Social Desirability

The social desirability score was calculated using the 20 gender-neutral adjectives, 10 positive

and 10 negative. As mentioned in the previous section, the raw score for the 10 negative

adj ectives was reversed on a seven-point scale. If an individual ranked a negative adj ective at

one on the point scale it would be reversed to the opposite end of the scale at seven. If the

individual ranked her/himself as a seven on the scale it would be reversed to a one. All of the

positive raw scores and reversed negative scores were tallied and then the total was divided by

20 (the total number of gender-neutral adj ectives).

Each individual's calculation of her/his social desirability score was an afterthought for

this research. No correlations were expected to be found using this scale, but after calculations

were made some correlations emerged and will therefore be discussed in this section.

No participants received less than a (4) on the social desirability score. Table 4-6 shows

participant ranking from highest social desirability to lowest. It appears that most of the

individuals who used the alveolar linguistic variant tend to fall on the higher-ranking part of the

table. Seven (70%) of the top ten ranked individuals were sex-typed, both of the sex-typed

feminine individuals and five (71.43%) of the sex-typed masculine individuals.

Participants who were sex-typed were more likely to self report a higher ranking on the

desirability score than androgynous individuals. All four of the sex-typed masculine individuals

who used the alveolar variant are found in the top 50% of the socially desirability table. More









data collection should be done to ensure there is an actual correlation between variable use, sex-

typing, and social desirability.

Table 4-6. Variable usage and social desirability
Participant Variant used Social desirability Sex Categorization
score
11 [Ig]1 5.90 F M
6 [Ig]1 5.70 F F
15 [In] 5.60 M M
10 [Ig]1 5.50 F A
2 Both, mostly [Ig]1 5.25 M A
7 [Ig]1 5.25 F F
8 [Ig]1 5.25 F A
16 [In] 5.25 M M
5 [In] 5.15 M M
18 [In] 5.05 M M
12 [Ig]1 5.00 F A
13 [Ig]1 4.90 F A
1 [Ig]1 4.85 M A
4 Both, mostly [Ig]1 4.75 M A
19 [Ig]1 4.55 F A
17 Both, mostly [Ig]1 4.45 M M
3 Both, mostly [Ig]1 4.35 M A
20 [Ig]1 4.35 F M
9 Both, mostly [Ig]1 4.20 F A
14 [Ig]1 4.00 F A

Overall, some trends were observed in regards to variable usage, gender categorization,

sex, and social desirability. All of the individuals who used the alveolar variant were sex-typed

masculine and were biological males. These individuals also self-ranked themselves high on the

social desirability scale along with the maj ority of the other sex-typed individuals. Implications

of these results and suggested future research will be discussed in the following chapter.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Gender and language research has been conducted under the assumption that there is a one-

to-one correlation between biological sex and social gender. Many linguists point to the problem

of conducting research in this manner, but few have proposed an alternative to this type of

research. While it has been suggested that gender can be conceptualized as a continuum, whether

linear or circular, this concept has not been tested in experimental research.

In this study an existing model for socially conceptualized gender was used to collect

language data from 20 individuals. This model, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, was borrowed from

the field of psychology. The model predicts that a person can fall under one of three

categorizations-feminine, masculine, or androgynous. In addition to the sex role

categorizations, or gender categorizations, an individual can independently report herself or

himself as being "socially undesirable" to "extremely socially desirable" on a seven-point scale.

Each individual was then interviewed and her or his use of the linguistic variable [-Ig]1 was

compared to her or his gender categorization and social desirability score. Since this model had

previously never been used in the collection of linguistic data, no hypotheses were proposed

concerning the outcome of the research. Instead, data was collected and trends that emerged from

that data were reported and discussed.

In this study it has been demonstrated that gender categorization may play a role in the use

of [-Ig]1 versus [-In] in the college student community of Gainesville, Florida. Sex may also play a

role in a speaker' s use of one of the variants since gender alone did not predict which variant a

speaker used. It was noted that females tended to use the standard variant [-Ig]1 more than men,

though the maj ority of men used [-Ig]1 more than they used [-In]. Further investigation is required

of more people who live in this area and outside this area to see if more accurate predictions can









be made regarding which variant a speaker is likely to use. Neither gender nor sex alone can

predict which variant an individual will use in this speech community. There is some indication

from this study that linguists might be able to use the Bem Sex Role Inventory to describe and

predict speech, but only a wider study can confirm this.

Since the Bem Sex Role Inventory was originally designed to measure how much

individuals are willing to separate themselves from qualities of the opposite sex, these results tell

us how likely these people who do not subscribe to typical sex roles for themselves are to use the

nonstandard linguistic variant. Two individuals in the study divorced themselves from the

standard sex-typing society suggests for them. These two women identify themselves as sex-

typed masculine; however, their speech reflects the usage of androgynous and sex-typed

feminine individuals. Does this suggest that the BSRI cannot accurately predict how an

individual will behave linguistically based on gender roles? Not exactly.

Although not all of the sex-type masculine individuals always used the alveolar variant, all

of the individuals who used the alveolar variant were sex-typed masculine. This fact alone

suggests that further research should be conducted in this area. Ideally, a larger sample size and a

more diverse sampling of individuals would be best.

Another noteworthy finding was the apparent correlation between social desirability and

sex-typing. Since the maj ority of sex-typed individuals are found on the upper half of the social

desirability range, this might suggest there is a correlation between the need to be perceived as a

certain sex-type and the need to be socially desirable. Since both sex-type feminine and

masculine individuals were found in the upper half of the scale, it can be concluded that there is

a correlation between sex-typing and social desirability in this study.









In order to confirm the results of the study, an additional experiment should be performed,

perhaps testing a different linguistic variable. It might be that most individuals in this speech

community use the [-Irj] variant, making it difficult to include participants in a study who would

be likely to use [-In] in any speech, whether formal or informal.

The results cannot suggest why androgynous and sex-typed feminine individuals are less

likely than sex-typed masculine individuals to use a non-standard variant in speech. Referring

back to the Literature Review, perhaps sex-typed masculine men feel that they have less to lose

in using the non-standard variant. Perhaps these individuals happened to feel more comfortable

with the interviewer than some of the other participants, and were therefore more likely to use

speech typical for them. Even though the question of why cannot be answered, further research

may eventually be able to answer the question of who, feminine, masculine, or androgynous

individuals, uses the non-standard variant.

Further research should be collected and analyzed using the BSRI to ensure the BSRI can

be used to accurately predict an individual's speech behavior. Although the BSRI suggested

some correlation between its proposed genders and an individual's biological sex, potential

problems do exist with the future use of this model. As mentioned in Chapter 3, there might be

reason for concern in the choice of gender model used since it was proposed in the 1970s when

society' s views of roles for women and men differed drastically from the views now. Although

the few rogue traits identified in recent validation studies were not included in the current study,

it is worth doing more validation studies in the near future. Before further linguistic data is

collected in conjunction with the BSRI, a validation study should also be conducted on the BSRI.

The most recent validation study, although conducted just seven years ago, could show very

different results from a study conducted this year.









The BSRI also lacks in that linguists are still forced to place an individual into a definitive

category. Instead of a two-way distinction there is now simply a three-way distinction. If the

BSRI could be adapted to account for gender as a continuum, more interesting results and

correlations might be seen.

Still, with these apparent faults, the BSRI has allowed gender and language research to be

conducted in a new way. Hopefully, future gender and language research will be at least this

considerate in promoting a more accurate portrayal of gender in the linguistic community, as

opposed to reverting back to what is easiest--conducting gender and language research as sex

and language research.










APPENDIX A
THE ADJECTIVES OF THE BSRI


Feminine
Cheerful
Shy
Affectionate
Flatterable
Loyal
Feminine
Sympathetic
Sensitive to others
Understanding
Compassionate
Eager to soothe
Soft-spoken
Warm
Tender
Gullible
No harsh language
Loves children
Gentle


Masculine
Self-reliant
Defends own beliefs
Independent
Athletic
Assertive
Strong personality
Forceful
Leadership abilities
Willing to take risks
Self-sufficient
Dominant
Masculine
Willing to take stand
Aggressive
Acts as a leader
Individualistic
Competitive
Ambitious


Positive Gender-Neutral
Helpful
Conscientious
Happy
Reliable
Truthful
Sincere
Likable
Friendly
Adaptive
Tactful

Negative Gender-Neutral
Moody
Theatrical
Unpredictable
Jealous
Secretive
Conceited
Solemn
Inefficient
Unsystematic
Conventional









APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT

Informed Consent Statement

Project Title: BENDING GENDER OUT OF THE BINARY MODEL

Principal Investigator: Genevieve Bittson, Program in Linguistics
Phone: (305) 323-3030
e-mail: gbittson@ufl.edu

Supervisor: Helene Blondeau, Ph.D, Program in Linguistics
210 Dauer Hall
UF Box 117405
Phone: (352) 392-2016 x 247
e-mail: blondeau@rll.ufl. edu

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research project
The purpose of this study is to examine a new model for determining gender in relation to
language studies.

What you will be asked to do in the study
In this study, you will first be asked to complete a language and education questionnaire. Next,
you will be asked to fill out a second questionnaire where you will rate yourself using a list of
adj ectives on a scale as either having a quality or not having a quality. Finally, you will be asked
to answer a few questions and your answers will be tape recorded by the principle investigator.
You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. More precise instructions
will be given just before the experiment starts. All testing will be carried out by the principal
investigator, Genevieve Bittson.

Time required
About 1/2 hour

Risks and Benefits
There are no risks associated with this experiment. There is no direct benefit to you, although
your participation will ultimately help us improve the current model of gender in relation to
language.

Compensation
You will be compensated 1 extra-credit point towards your final grade in your Linguistics class.

Confidentiality
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information and data
will be assigned a code number. The key to this code will be kept in a password protected
electronic file that is accessible only by the principal investigator and her research team. Your









name and other personal identifying information will not be used in any scientific reports of this
study. The tapes containing your interview will be kept in a locked cabinet and only the principle
investigator will have access to the key. After the data is analyzed the tapes will be destroyed.

Voluntary participation
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

Right to withdraw from the study
You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study
Genevieve Bittson, MA student, Program in Linguistics
Phone: (305) 323-3030
e-mail: gbittson@ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant.
UFIRB Office, box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 3261 1-2250
352-392-0433.

In case you have any question about the purposes or procedures of the experiment that need to be
clarified before you give your consent to participate, please feel free to ask them to the
experimenter now.

Agreement
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and
have received a copy of this description.

Signatures

Participant: Date:


Principal investigator: Date:









APPENDIX C
BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Participant Number:

Age:

Sex:

Ethni city:

Occupation:

Highest Level Completed in College:

Native Language(s):

Other Languages Spoken Fluently:


Florida resident (yes or no):

Place of Birth:

Please list all of the places you have lived for at least one year and the amount of time your have
lived there:

For example: Miami, FL--10 years









APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Instructions: The participants will be asked the following (a) questions. Every time the
participant responds yes to an (a) questions she/he will be asked the corresponding (b) questions.
The participant can choose not to answer any of the questions she/he does not wish to answer.

Before asking these questions the participants will be asked to talk a little about themselves
(what they study, where they are from, etc.) in order to make them feel more comfortable. From
the participant' s response one of the below questions will be asked, preferably one that logically
follows from what the participant just shared about her/himself.

la. Have you ever had a disagreement with a sales clerk?
lb. Please describe the situation.

2a. Have you ever visited the emergency room because of a broken bone or sprain?
2b. Please tell me about the situation that led up to your injury.

3a. Did you ever have a birthday party as a child?
3b. Please tell me about the party.

4a. Have you ever been in a car accident and/or in a car when it broke down?
4b. Please tell me about where you were going and/or what you were doing when this happened.

Sa. Do you remember what you were doing when the World Trade Center was attacked?
5b. Please tell me about where you were and what you were doing.

6a. Did you attend class recently?
6b. What did you do in class?

7a. Can you imagine what your future life would be like in your idea of a perfect world?
7b. Please describe the circumstances of your life and the world around you please.

8a. Did you participate in any sports or activities when you were young and/or now?
8b. Can you please tell me about the activity and why you like it.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Abdi, Herve. 2003. Multivariate analysis. In Michael Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing
(eds.) Encyclopedia for Research M~ethods for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. 699-702.

Auster, Carol J. and Susan C. Ohm. 2000. Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American
society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles 43: 499-528.

Barrett, Rusty. 1997. The 'homo-genius' speech community. Queerly Phrased 11: 181-201.

Bem, Sandra L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 42: 155-162.

Bem, Sandra L. 1 993. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Identity. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Bing, Janet and Victoria Bergvall. 1996. The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In
Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender
Research: Theory andPractice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 1-30.

Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies the Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex '. New York:
Routledge.

Cameron, Deborah. 1996. The language-gender interface: Challenging co-optation. In Victoria
Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research:
Theory and Practice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 31-53.

Chambers, John K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social
Significance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Age and generation-specific use of language. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar,
and K. Mattheier (eds.) Sociolinguistics: An Introductory H~andbook of the Science of
Language and Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 760-767.

Choi, Namok and Dale R. Fuqua. 2003. The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A
summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological M~easurement
63: 872-887.

Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1995. Constructing meaning, constructing selves:
Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In Mary Buchholtz and Kira
Hall (eds.) Gender Articulated: Language and the Culturally Constructed Self: New
York: Routledge. 469-507.

Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) The
Handbook ofSociolinguistics. Oxford. 151-167.










Epstein, Julia. 1990. Either/or-neither/both: Sexual ambiguity and the ideology of gender.
Genders 7: 99-142.

Fischer, John L. 1958. Social influences in the choice of a linguistic variant. Word 14: 47-56.

Freed, Alice. 1996. Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In Victoria
Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research:
Theory and Practice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 54-76.

Greene, Roger L. 2000. The MVI~PI-2: An Interpretive Manual. Boston: Allen & Bacon.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Charles Goodwin. 1987. Children's arguing. In Susan Philips, Susan
Steele and Christine Tanz (eds.) Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 200-248.

Hall, Kira and Mary Bucholtz. 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially
Constructed Self: New York: Routledge.

Harris, Allen C. 1994. Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item
selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles 31: 241-273.

Holmes, Janet. 1998. Women's talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. In Jennifer
Coates (ed.) Readings in Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell. 461-83.

James, Deborah. 1996. The women, men and prestige speech forms: A critical review. In
Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender
Research: Theory andPractice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 98-125.

Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Development. London: Allen and
Unwin.

Katsurada, Emiko and Yoko Sugihara. 1999. A preliminary validation of the Bem Sex Role
Inventory in Japanese culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30: 64 1-645.

Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Charles-James Bailey
and Roger Shuy (eds.) New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press. 340-373.

Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change.
Language Variation and Change 2: 205-254.

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and a woman's place. Language in Society 2: 45-80.










McGrath, Robert E. and Elizabeth Sapareto. 1998. A new perspective on gender orientation
measurement with the MMPI-2: Development of the masculine-feminine pathology scale.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment 70: 551-563.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. www.m-w.com. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Nicholson, Linda. 1994. Interpreting gender. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 20: 79-
105.

O' Barr, William and Bowman K. Atkins. 1980. Wonten 's Language or 'Powerless' Language?
Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger.

Ojzkan, Tiirker and Timo Lajunen. 2005. Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem Sex Role
Inventory in Turkey. Sex Roles 52: 103-110.

Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. Harlow and New
York: Longman.

Ross, Alan S. C. 1954. Linguistic class indicators in present-day English. Neuphilologische
M~itteilungen 16: 171-185.

Shopen, Timothy. 1978. Research on the variable (ING) in Canberra, Australia. Talanya 5: 42-
52.

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don 't thiderstand. New York: Ballantine Books.

Trud gill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambrid ge: CUP.

Wald, Benji and Timothy Shopen. 1981. A researcher's guide to the sociolinguistic variable
(ING). In Timothy Shopen and Joseph Williams (eds.) Style and Variation in English.
Cambridge: Winthrop Publishing Company. 219-249.

Weatherall, Ann. 1998. Re-visioning gender and language research. Women andLanguage 21: 1-


West, Candace and Sarah Fenstermaker. 1995. Doing difference. Gender and Society 9: 8-37.

Zhang, Jie and Jill M. Norvilitis. 2001. Measuring gender orientation with the Bem Sex Role
Inventory in Chinese culture. Sex Roles 44: 237-251.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Genevieve Bittson completed her B.A. in linguistics and English at the University of

Florida (2005) with a minor in teaching English as a second language. This thesis was submitted

in partial fulfillment of her M.A. in linguistics from the University of Florida (2007). While

pursuing her M.A., Bittson taught English as a second language.





PAGE 1

1 GENDER, SEX, AND THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIABLE [ ing] By GENEVIEVE BITTSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UN IVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Genevieve Bittson

PAGE 3

3 To mom, for her unwavering dedication

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my mother for her support and love. I would like to thank Jennifer L. Shea for her advice and encourageme nt. I would also like to thank Dr. Hlne Blondeau for introducing me to the topic of this thesis and her willingness to serve as chair. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Diana Boxer for her advice and support as a committee member for this thesis.

PAGE 5

5 TAB LE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Previous Bi nary Gender Research ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 Methodology in Binary Gender Research ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Findings in Binary Gender Research ................................ ................................ ............... 13 Modern Gender Resea rch ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 Methodology in Modern Gender Research ................................ ................................ ..... 16 Findings in Modern Gender Research ................................ ................................ ............. 18 The Progressive Verb Ending [ ................................ ................................ ......................... 20 Expansions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 24 Dependent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Variable Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 24 Excluded Contexts ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 25 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 26 Sex ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 Speech Samples ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 32 Analytical Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 34 Dependent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Independent Variable ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 34 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 Gender Categorization of the Sample ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Variable Usage of [ ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 Variable Usage of [ ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 Social Desirability ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 43

PAGE 6

6 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 45 APPENDIX A THE ADJECTIVES OF THE BSRI ................................ ................................ ....................... 49 B INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 50 C BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 53 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Participant information ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 32 3 2 Gender categorization ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 3 3 Social desirability categorization ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 4 1 Sex typed individuals according to the BSRI ................................ ................................ .... 37 4 2 Androgynous individuals according to the BSRI ................................ .............................. 38 4 3 Variable usage by participant ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 4 4 Variable usage and gender categorization ................................ ................................ ......... 40 4 5 Variable usage of [ ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 4 6 Variable usage and social desirability ................................ ................................ ................ 44

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfil lment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts GENDER, SEX, AND THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIABLE [ ing] By Genevieve Bittson August 2007 Chair: Hlne Blondeau Major: Linguistics Since its inception, the field of gender and language research has been dominated by studies focusing on binary gender. Although many linguists and other social scientist agree that sex is binary while gender is not, little experimental research has been conducted under the construct of non binary gender. This focus on binary genders. This study intends to reconceptualize gender and make a distinction between sex and gender in terms of ling uistic data collection. Data was collected from twenty individuals, roughly half biological females and half biological males. Their speech was recorded during one on one interviews, personal data was collected about each individual, and each individual co mpleted the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The speech data was examined and each individual was recorded as using the standard progressive verb ending realized with the velar nasal or the non standard progressive verb ending realized with the alveolar nasal. The personal data collected determined feminine, masculine, or androgynous. No one to one correlation between gender and variable usage was found.

PAGE 9

9 Past research has claimed that women use more prestigious and standard forms of phonological variables while men use less prestigious and less standard forms of the same variables. This research shows that while all biological females tended to use the standar d, velar form, not all men tended to use the nonstandard, alveolar form. In addition, the data showed that all sex typed feminine and androgynous individuals used the standard, velar form regardless of biological sex, and all individuals who used the nonst andard, alveolar form were sex typed masculine and biological males. The data also showed that not all sex typed masculine individuals used the nonstandard form. While this research does not completely refute past gender and language research that claims t hat sex plays a role in determining how an individual will speak, it does show that the relationship between gender and language is more complex than the past research has suggested. The data collected in this study suggests that there is a correlation bet ween sex, gender and language. Perhaps instead of focusing on one extralinguistic variable while conducting linguistic that person may or may not portray her or h imself in a society which tends to value sex typing.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Much of the gender and language research conducted today focuses on differences between the sexes, not differences between genders. In highlighting the differences between the w ay individuals of different sexes use language, linguists are perpetuating the stereotype that the differences between women and men are plentiful and that these differences are large and meaningful. Arguably, research that focuses on similarities might no t be as interesting to conduct or to read about, but research like this is important so that the public receives an accurate representation of what actually takes places between and among groups of people. While this paper does not focus on similarities b etween the way different groups behave, and instead highlights their differences, it is important to note before continuing on that more similarities exist between these groups in regards to language use than do exist differences. With this in mind, read o n. Approaching gender and language research from a perspective other than binary sex, a gender model must be carefully chosen. Since many ideas have been proposed for conceptualizing gender, yet they have been difficult to use in experimental linguistic r esearch, it is practical to use a model that has been tested in another field before, if at all possible. This research has borrowed a gender model from the field of psychology know as the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This model was proposed in the 1970s and ha s been tested and retested since that time. It proposes that gender can be conceptualized based on sex roles to which individuals subscribe. The most noteworthy thing about this model is that biological gender is not used to determine into which category a n individual falls. the progressive verb ending [ I

PAGE 11

11 as categorized by the model. As will be discu ssed in the following chapter, much of the past literature and research in the field of gender and language has made certain assumptions about how women and men use language. Since this is the first time this model has been used in the field of linguistics no hypotheses can be made regarding how individuals will perform linguistically based on their gender categorization. I separate analysis will be provided. Finally, the Bem Sex Role Inventory also provides a score for reported social desirability ranking on a seven point scale. Again, no her or hi s gender or use of the variable, but trends will be reported and discussed if found.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The first part of this literature review summarizes the methodology and findings of gender research conducted under the binary model of gend er. The second part summarizes the methodology and findings of gender research conducted under models other than the binary model of gender. The third part summarizes the research done on the linguistic variable [ I ]. Finally, an explanation of how the cu rrent study complements and expands upon existing literature is provided. Previous Binary Gender Research Many of the studies of gender and language have been conducted under the assumption that gender correlates directly, if not exactly, with biological sex. Furthermore, nearly all of these studies have focused on differences between the genders rather than similarities between them. Not all of the studies done, particularly in recent years, have been conducted under the assumption that gender is binary. These studies are discussed in the second part of this section. came from this type of methodological implementation. Methodology in Binary Gender Research In a ssuming that differences exist between the sexes or genders in regards to language variation, a methodology for collecting gender and language data was constructed that exists to this day. Most of the classic research conducted in sociolinguistics (Labov 1 972, Trudgill 1974, Tannen 1990) has examined binary gender. That is, a direct correlation between what is considered biological sex, female versus male, and gender, also female versus male. of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male

PAGE 13

13 Webster 2005). ultural, or psychological traits typically associated with Webster 2005). These definitions loosely translate into sex being a biological construct and gender being a social construct, however, linguistic research reflects little to no d ifference in distinguishing between these two categories. In subsequent sections of this chapter, the above definition of sex will be challenged, specifically in relation to the idea that many theorists believe that biologically there are not just two sexe s, and that sex is not innate. Another factor to consider when discussing the methodology behind gender and language research is that much of this research is conducted while examining other independent variables (Trudgill 1974). In sociolinguistics, gen der is commonly tested along with age, race, and socioeconomic status, to name a few. No evidence exists to suggest that language data collected that examines differences in any of those three factors fits those factors into the binary model. At one point in our society a great divide existed between the races (white versus non white) and the classes (upper versus lower class), but most people would think it absurd if research was collected by lumping everyone in a community into two races or two classes. W hy, then, do people not find it absurd when we lump everyone into the categories of female or male, forcing everyone into one, and conducting research that proposes to make predictions about an Researchers design experiments and write papers with the understanding that sex and gender are not actually the same thing, yet propose little to no alternative to changing this methodology. Findings in Binary Gender Research Binary gender research has shown that wo men tend to use more prestigious phonological forms than men, who tend to use less prestigious forms than women (Fischer 1958, Labov 1972,

PAGE 14

14 Tannen 1990, Trudgill 1974, Holmes 1998). In the oft cited Norwich study conducted by Trudgill (1974), data suggests that women are more likely than women to use more prestigious (read: standard) forms of a phonological variable than men. Similarly, a study conducted by Labov (1972) found that not only did women use more prestigious phonological forms than men, but women also insight linguistic change more than the men. The study also claims that men use less polite lexical items in their speech compared to women (Labov 1972). Other individuals have claimed other things about female and male language. In 1922 Jespersen c oncluded that women use more conservative language than men do. Though Jespersen came to these conclusions nearly a century ago, it has established a trend in gender and language research: assume that differences exist between female and male speech, look for differences in female and male speech, and treat female speech as inferior. One might consider the above findings slightly contradictory. While Holmes claims that women insight linguistic change, Jesperson, along with others, claim that women use more conservative forms of speech. How is it that women can insight change if they are the more conservative sex in regards to speech? In 1990, the idea of the gender paradox which examines the contradictions of the claims made about the way women use languag e, was proposed (Labov 1990). The idea of the gender paradox and other examinations of contradictory data have led modern researchers to reinvestigate and replicate studies like those just mentioned in hopes of solving the mystery behind the contradiction. These studies will be discussed in the following section. Since the Jesperson piece, more research has been conducted that has found other differences between the way women and men use language. Women have been cited as being more polite than men in their language use by linguists other than Holmes (Lakoff 1975).

PAGE 15

15 Linguists (Labov 1972) have also claimed that women use language in such a way that it is evident that they are more status conscious than men. In summary, women have been cited as using more pre stigious language, insighting linguistic change, using more polite language, using more conservative language, and being more status conscious. To this day, findings like these have been used to make generalizations about women and men. These generalizati ons, though founded in the field of linguistics, have extended to other fields and outside of professional fields into public opinion. Furthermore, from these generalizations come predictions. From these predictions comes further research into the differen ces between female and male speech. Cameron (1996) and Bing and Bergvall (1996) believe that it is research like this that perpetuates the dichotomy that persists in gender and language research. They suggest that we Another type of question that is asked based on findings in binary gender research is why women ( or men) use certain types of language (Cameron 1996). When researchers ask questions like these, they presuppose that women as a whole and as individuals all use that certain type of language. Making assumptions like that perpetuates stereotypes and genera lly increases the example, at work). Furthermore, it causes future researchers to focus on differences in speech rather than similarities or reasons we focus so closel y on differences in the first place.

PAGE 16

16 Modern Gender Research What will be referred to in this research as modern gender research is a field of thinking type of re search questioned the validity of binary gender research and its applicability to the real Language the turning point in the field, and a major influence o n most of the gender and language research following it. While some theorists may differ on how exactly gender should be conceptualized, many linguists currently working in the area of gender and language agree that gender is not binary. This suggests a question, however, regarding what gender is if not binary. When a group of people has relied on a construct for so long, how can they begin to change their views on it and what are the consequences of future and past research if a new methodology is adopte d? In this section and throughout this chapter, these questions will be addressed and hypotheses from experts working in the field will be examined. Methodology in Modern Gender Research The most common way in which gender is conceptualized is as a contin uum (Bing and Bergval 1996). This concept is in stark contrast to the categorical model used in past gender research, and in some cases, current gender research. A continuum accounts for minute differences between individuals due to the actuality that not one individual has all of the exact characteristics of another individual. Bing and Bergval (1996) compare this gender continuum to day to night with no concept o traditionally collect data using the binary model believe that gender is not completely

PAGE 17

17 categorical. For example, Labov (1973) believes that even though language is effectively categorical that Another way that gender has been conceptualized has been using circles that overlap with one another. Each circle represents a different social factor, such as gender, race, or class. This representation wo uld show the connection between each factor, but also how there are some individuals that fall in one circle, or two, but not all three, and other individuals that fall into all three (West and Fenstermaker 1995). This model does not predict that even when two individuals share all of the same factors that they will behave identically. This model has not been used in experimental research. Nicholson (1994) has a similar concept of gender, taken from her work in Interpreting Gender Nicholson suggests that i ndividuals (read: women) are threads in a tapestry. As the tapestry is woven, threads overlap so that we see parts of each individual making up the whole, but not one particular individual dominating the whole. Again, this is simply a description for how g ender should be conceptualized and not necessarily a testable theory. are not unlike the idea of multivariate analysis (Abdi 2003). While multivariate analysis approaches suggest the analysis of data based on a more representative way in which human behavior is influenced, a model that focuses on representing gender can be useful in isolating minute differences between speakers. The research in this paper focuses on gend er, although it does address sex in certain discussion. So before proceeding to the next section, a few comments should be made about binary sex. In the early 1990s, individuals in a number of disciplines pointed out that sex, as well as gender, is not bin ary. Sex, like gender, can be conceptualized as a continuum, not simply

PAGE 18

18 female versus male (Butler 1993, Epstein 1990, Bem 1993, Nicholson 1994). Biologically, most individuals may be born as a man or as a woman, but not all individuals are born this way, and not all individuals choose to live their lives this way. Babies born as hermaphrodites often have their sex chosen for them by their parents and may eventually grow up to find that they do not feel that they truly are that chosen sex. Other individu als are born as one sex and then choose to change their sex surgically because it will help them feel more like the person they know themselves to be. How can binary sex include these individuals? Should they be classified as one sex or the other, or shoul d there be more than two sex categories? While recognizing these issues, this research does not propose to challenge the traditional idea of sex. Binary sex will be assumed in this paper, though further research may wish to examine the idea of non binary s ex further. Findings in Modern Gender Research Current gender and language research usually poses the question of why we are looking at differences between groups of people when really more similarities exist. For example, research has shown that women a nd men really do share more language in common than display more differences (Goodwin and Goodwin 1987, Weatherall 1998, Freed 1996) and that the differences that are displayed are not actually due to the subjects being from two different sexes, but are di Atkins 1980). As mentioned in previous sections as well as subsequent sections of this chapter, it has been assumed for some time that women use more prestigious forms than men when speaking. Ho wever, research exists that suggests this is not entirely true. It shows that not all women use prestigious forms and that men do use prestigious forms (James 1996). The validity and

PAGE 19

19 language comes under scrutiny with these new findings. Furthermore, why are claims still being made to the effect that women and men speak so differently? Although many researchers accept the view that gender is not binary, many of them still believe that sex is binary. With this assumption comes the belief that language reflects this dichotomy (Bing and Bergvall 1996). Since individuals and the media alike are fascinated by the differences between women and men, research investigating these alleged differ ences thrives. Bing and Bergvall (1996) also point out that while differences between women and men exist, that the examination of the differences is not always the problem, but the simplification and stereotyping that arises from those differences is the problem. In making a statement that attributes prestigious forms to women and less prestigious forms to men, researchers are generalizing about women and men, leading others to assume that all members of one group behave in one manner while all members of another group behave in a different manner. This is simply untrue. Studies where an average is taken from a group, and then generalizations are then made about that group, usually lead to generalizations being made about members of that group outside of t he individuals tested. Just like not every drug or therapy works for one hundred percent of the population, not every theory works for one hundred percent of the population. Any good and thorough researcher knows that there are almost always exceptions to the generalizations that are made using linguistic research, but not every non linguist does. While good research is supposed to be generalizable, it should not be used to make inaccurate generalizations that perpetuate stereotypes and negative opinions.

PAGE 20

20 The Progressive Verb Ending [ I ] Moving away from gender research for a moment, we will take time to examine a linguistic variable commonly tested in sociolinguistic research -[ I some classic studies collecting tokens of this variable and then we will return once again to gender research and examine how [ I how women and men use language. As a morpheme used to express a grammatical aspect, [ I ll speakers of English. For this reason, [ I experiments and was also the first morphological variable to be studied quantitatively in speech (Wald and Shopen 1981). The variable [ I sually pronounced with a velar nasal. In this paper this will be referred to as the norm (to be discussed below). The second most common pronunciation of [ I I n]. Other variants do exist, with the tongue placed slightly farther back or forward in the mouth than the alveolar ridge, but those variations will be classified as [ I n] in this research. Traditionally, the [ I I n] the less prestigious form (Shopen 1978). With this belief then comes predictions that can be made as to which members of a specific group will be more likely to use the [ I which will be more likely to use the [ I n] variant. Taking class as an example and assuming all other s ocial variables are equal, a member of a higher social class would be predicted to be more likely to use [ I use [ I n]. Research that predicts this trend with class (Ross 1954 Chambers 1995, Eckert and McConnell Ginet 1995), race (Rampton 1995), and age (Cheshire 1987, Eckert 1997) adds to the reason this variable is used in this research.

PAGE 21

21 As mentioned above, many studies have been conducted comparing the production of the [ I women and men use language differently, and since the 1950s they have looked specifically at the [ I girls used [ I often than males. Fischer studied children aged three to ten, which would suggest that the trend for women to use one type of language and men another is something that individuals are socialized for from a very young age. In his pape r Fischer recognizes that the use of [ I [ I I that girls choose to portray themselves as using a more prestigious form. Peter Trudgill hypothesized in 1974 that individuals of the female gender would be more likely to use the prestigious form of the progressive variable which would be realized with the velar nasal and that individuals of the gender male would be more likely to use the less prestigious form of the progressive variable which would be realized with the alveolar nasal. In his paper published in 1974 he found his hypothesis to be true. Again, he took other social factors into account and theorized that those factors played a part in determining which form a Expansions There has been a push in rece nt years to escape the polarization by which we have come to classify gender. Specifically, the idea of how to conceptualize a speech community has been challenged by Rusty Barrett in his 1997 look at what a speech community should be. Barrett challenges n early all language and variation studies done so far by saying that society has set up standards based on some idealized society and group of people that have not existed for decades

PAGE 22

22 and possibly centuries. The questioning of a standard at all in terms of language use is made (Barrett 1997). Race, age, class and other variables interact with each other every day, all day. With this being acknowledged, how is it possible to set a standard for language? The notions of community and identity are not externall y definable categories (Barrett 1997). With this notion of Barrett's in mind, this study aims to define these variables based on the community in which the study is being conducted and does not claim to tell us anything else beyond this specific community. Future studies must be conducted to determine how to operationalize these categories, if operationalizing them is possible at all. Though grievances concerning the way gender research is conceived and conducted have existed for a long time, little has bee n done to change experimental research in the field. Theories have been proposed, ideas formulated, and models speculated, but language and gender research lacks a model in which gender can be conceptualized without coming back to binary gender. The field of psychology, however, has a few established gender scales that have been in use for a few decades. The oldest, most well known, and arguably most controversial (McGrath and Sapareto 1998) scale comes from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ( MMPI) and is known as Scale 5 Mf (masculine feminine). The scale was proposed in 1940 but has since been updated multiple times. The purpose of the collection of scales in the MMPI is to diagnose individuals with personality disorders. When the scale was p roposed in 1940, gender identity disorders were widely considered treatable like many other psychological diseases. Scale 5 Mf was intended to diagnose whether an individual identified primarily with the masculine or feminine gender (Greene 2000).

PAGE 23

23 Another scale, known as the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was proposed in 1974 and was intended to provide construct validation for the concept of androgyny (Bem 1974) and has since been used to measure masculinity and femininity in multiple studies over the past three decades. The BSRI has as well been updated since its conception and numerous studies that have tested its validity have been performed (Choi and Fuqua 2003). The BSRI is the inspiration for the scale that is used in this study, and will therefore be discussed in great detail in the following chapter. Combining the Bem scale, the idea of non binary gender and research that shows how certain groups use more prestigious forms, this research aims to expand the scope of gender and language research. Althou gh a scale is being proposed as a tool to measure gender, it is being proposed not to limit linguists to this scale but to suggest that a formal instrument should be devised to measure gender so that linguists can stop relying on binary gender.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTE R 3 METHODOLOGY The primary goal of this research is to develop and test a new method for collecting data heavily on a preexisting gender scale, the Bem Sex Role I nventory. An individual will receive a gender categorization based on this inventory and her or his use of a linguistic variable will be sex will be compared t that emerge will be discussed. Dependent Variable The dependent or linguistic variable of the present study is [ I speech of American English speakers as two variants: [ I I n]. There are no specific phonological contexts in which [ I n] occurs as a replacement of [ I constrained by other linguistic factors (see the following subsection). Occasionally, a more extreme variant of [ I [s m?m] or something In the present study the norm will be referred to as [ I realizations of the variable will be grouped together as [ I n]. Variable Context The r educed variants can occur in many phonological contexts, but are sometimes restricted in other linguistic contexts. The contexts that restrict the reduction of [ I I n] include contexts in which the variant is in a stressed syllable, a deverbal adjec tive and a deverbal adverb.

PAGE 25

25 Excluded Contexts The first context that is excluded is contexts where the word containing the variant is not completely unstressed. For example, thing which is monosyllabic and is therefore realized with full stress, is such a word. In contrast, the word nothing contains the same variable, but the variable is found in an unstressed part of the word, so nothing would be included in the data collection. Some proper nouns also contain the variable but it is always in a stressed s yllable. For example, Beijing contains the variable but it is in a stressed syllable so it would be excluded from the data collection. Even when the first syllable receives primary stress, the second syllable, the syllable that contains the variable, is no t completely unstressed. This is common with proper nouns. The second context that is excluded is words that can be used as verbs and adjectives or adverbs. Wald and Shopen (1981) pointed out that although certain deverbal adjectives will sometimes occur w ith the reduced forms, most people, regardless of their tendencies to use one form of the variant or another, will use the norm in adjectives and adverbs. For example, moving can be a verb or an adjective. When used as a verb it is often used with a varian t of the norm. For example, versus When used as an adjective it is nearly never used with the reduced form (Wald and Shopen 1981). For example, His speech was moving versus The latter example would probably be interpreted by native speakers as the speech physically moving as opposed to the speech being touching. When used as an adverb it is even less likely to be used with a reduced form. For example, His speech was movingly given versus His speech w For these reasons, adjectives and adverbs will not be included in the data collection, regardless of the variant an individual speaker uses.

PAGE 26

26 Wald and Shopen also point out that the reduced form is more likely to occur in everyday words than supercilious words. For example, the reduced form is more likely to be used in talking than in communicating In the present study, this fact will be ignored since no pretest on which words are everyday words and which words are not everyday words has been conducted, and all words that are not otherwise excluded from the study based on the discussion above will be included in the data analysis. Independent Variables The independent or extralinguistic variables included in the analysis are biological se x and socially constructed gender. Sex In the present study, all the participants self reported themselves as either being female or male so binary sex was assumed. Although sex was not taken into consideration when is analyzed and discussed in the following chapter to illustrate how, if at all, gender and sex are related. Gender As mentioned in the previous section, this study will examine non binary gender. After considering a number of the gender scales available f or use from other fields of study, one gender scale was chosen because of its objectives, simplicity, and the opportunities it allows. Gender was determined using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem 1974). The objectives and history of the inventory will first be discussed, followed by a discussion of the adaptations made to the inventory since it was first conceived, and finally the adaptations made for the present study will be discussed.

PAGE 27

27 Objectives Sandra Bem developed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) in 19 74 at Stanford calculating an androgyny score. Originally, Bem tested 4 00 adjectives with students at the university to decide which adjectives would ultimately be used in the BSRI. Bem used test retest measures and eventually narrowed the adjectives down to 60 twenty positive feminine adjectives (for example, affectionate, l oyal, sympathetic ), twenty positive masculine adjectives (for example, self reliant, independent, athletic ), and twenty gender neutral adjectives, ten being positive (for example, helpful, happy ) and ten being negative (for example, moody, jealous ). The pr esence of an adjective under the category of feminine does not imply that its opposite would be found under masculine. For example, the presence of affectionate under feminine qualities does not imply that unaffectionate is a masculine quality. The BSRI wa s designed to have the categories exist independently of each other. For a full list of adjectives, see Appendix A. These 60 adjectives were decided on based on a preliminary study conducted by Bem where 400 adjectives were evaluated by 100 participants as being desirable for a man, woman, both or neither. The neutral traits were included in the final study to ensure that individuals who completed the BSRI were not simply giving high rankings to socially desirable traits in general and to determine an indiv accurately each adjective descri bes the participant. Since the feminine, masculine and neutral traits are all independent, each participant will receive a score for femininity and masculinity.

PAGE 28

28 The gender model that the scores are plotted on will represent how an individual ranked in rega rds to femininity and masculinity. For example, if an individual received a significantly be categorized as sex typed feminine. If the reverse is true the indiv idual will be sex typed masculine. In the event that the individual scores high for femininity and masculinity typed and instead be considered androgynous. The raw scores (ranging from one to seven) will be added for the ten positive gender neutral adjectives. The reverse of the raw scores (ranging from one to seven, one being the reverse of seven and seven being the reverse of one) will be added for the ten negative gender neutral adjectives. The total for both t ypes of adjectives are added together and then divided by the total number of gender neutral adjectives. This will provide a score from one to seven for an The original study which proposed the BSRI (Bem 1974) and the most recent follow up study to test the current validity of the BSRI (Auster and Ohm 2000) used the same criteria to test whether a trait was feminine, masculine or neither. A trait would qualify as belonging to either feminine or masculine if individu ratings for a specific sex were significantly higher (p < .05) than their mean desirability rating for the opposite sex. Participants asked to rate these adjectives only ranked adjectives for men or women, but never for both sexes. Results from the Auster and Ohm study showed that the mean desirability ratings for all non significant relationships were higher in the appropriate direction (feminine were all ranked sexes). However, respondents had a higher desirability ranking for the feminine traits linked to

PAGE 29

29 feminine traits c hildlike and yielding and two masculine traits analytical and makes decisions easily were found to have the lowest validity rankings of all the traits tested. Ten additional masculine traits were found to have lower validity rankings than they originally h ad in the Bem (1974) study, but there was not as large a disparity as with the initial two masculine and two feminine traits mentioned. This might suggest that new criteria should be proposed and tested for judging masculinity, but until then only the spec ific traits that were ranked the lowest will be eliminated, leaving 18 for femininity and masculinity each, instead of the original 20 each. None of the gender neutral traits were eliminated using the validity rankings of the study. Another study (Harris 1994) tested the feminine and masculine traits (all except the traits feminine and masculine ) with 3,000 participants, as opposed to the 100 participants used in both the Bem study and the Auster and Ohm study, and found that the remaining 19 masculine tra its were still valid and 16 of the 19 tested feminine traits were valid. It has been suggested, however, that since Harris used a significantly larger sample size than Bem did in the original study that this could have contributed to the vastly different r esults (Auster and Ohm 2000). Alternatively, it has been suggested that the differences are due to the change of social values of the 1970s to present day. Considering the ways in which society has changed since the 1970s, it might be difficult to imagin e that most of the same traits might be used in current gender studies. For example, asking a random individual on the street if women are accurately described using the word yielding the questioner might receive a harsh look and a few rude remarks. Traits like these represent how different thoughts about women were just 30 years ago. However, since the previously mentioned studies have retested all of the traits in more recent years, it will be

PAGE 30

30 assumed that these validation studies have suggested that most of the traits still do accurately Since these differences exist between the Auster and Ohm and Harris studies, for the present study only the two feminine ( childlike and yielding ) and two masculine ( analytical and m akes decisions easily ) traits that had low validity ratings in the Auster and Ohm study will be removed from the present study. Until different criteria are proposed to replace the 12 masculine traits found having low validity in the Auster and Ohm study, the 10 traits in question will be kept in the present study and any future studies conducted by the principal investigator under the same revised model of the BSRI. Furthermore, while the present study does not hope to obtain results that could extend ou tside of the United States or even beyond the specific speech community in which it is being tested, the BSRI has been tested within different speech communities and cultures. Research conducted in Turkey (zkan and Lajunen 2005), China (Zhang and Norvilit is 2001), and Japan (Katsurada and Sugihara 1999) under similar circumstances has shown that the BSRI can be applied in some different cultures with comparable results, though further and more extensive research should be conducted. In sum, the BSRI will be used to decide whether an individual is categorized within a certain gender category. The adapted BSRI will be identical to the original except it will lack the four traits that were determined to be invalid in the Auster and Ohm study. In the present s tudy each individual will be assigned to one of three categories feminine, masculine, androgynous group of individuals who all fall in the same category differ from one another to some degree.

PAGE 31

31 Finally, each individual will receive a social desirability score that will be compared to the Data Participants Participants were recruited from undergraduate Linguistics and French c lasses at the University of Florida. Students were first asked to sign an informed consent form approved by the UFIRB (Appendix B) and they then completed a questionnaire (Appendix C), the results of which are displayed in Table 3 1. The table displays bac kground information for each of the twenty speakers who comprise the present data set. A total of 11 females and 9 males were included in the sample. Most of the participants were born and raised in Florida, though there are a few exceptions represented in Table 3 1. All participants attended the University of Florida at the time of data collection and all were undergraduates. This controlled the age range of the participants to be from 18 to 22. Sixteen of the 20 participants were Caucasian, one was Hispan ic, one was Asian, and two were of mixed races where one of their parents was Caucasian. All of the participants came from middle class families. All of the participants spoke English natively and if they spoke a second language it was learned in school an d was not spoken at home. Some of the participants held part time jobs, though most of the participants did not rely on those jobs as a source of college funding. Most participants were either on scholarship or were supported by their parents. The principa l investigator had met some of the participants prior to data collection since some participants were associated with the Linguistics Program at the university as was the principal investigator. In the event that the principal investigator knew the partici pant prior to data collection it is indicated how long the two were acquainted for at the time of data collection in Table 3 1.

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 1. Participant information Participant # Sex Age Race Time acquainted w/ interviewer Place of birth Time liv ed in FL 1 M 21 Caucasian 6 months Florida Life 2 M 20 Caucasian 6 months Florida Life 3 M 18 Asian N/A Illinois 16 years 4 M 21 Caucasian 2 months Florida Life 5 M 22 Caucasian N/A Florida 15 years 6 F 20 Caucasian N/A New York 16 year s 7 F 20 Caucasian N/A Florida Life 8 F 19 Caucasian N/A New York 18 years 9 F 20 Caucasian N/A California 2 years 10 F 22 Mixed N/A California 2 years 11 F 21 Hispanic N/A Florida Life 12 F 21 Caucasian N/A Florida Life 13 F 21 Caucasian N/A Wisconsin 3 years 14 7 F 20 Caucasian N/A California 14 years 15 M 22 Caucasian N/A South Carolina 18 years 16 M 23 Mixed N/A New York 5 years 17 M 19 Caucasian N/A New York 2 years 18 M 19 Caucasian N/A California 13 years 19 F 21 Caucasian N/A New Yo rk 10 years 20 F 21 Caucasian N/A Florida Life Speech Samples Informal, audio recorded conversations in American English, lasting 15 minutes with each individual, were transcribed and analyzed. The recordings took place either in the principal investiga during February and March 2007. In the interviews, the principal inves tigator used the [ I variant with all interviewees. This was verified when the conversations were played back for transcription. No one was informed of the exact focus of the study though students were told of the goal of the study after completion of bo th forms and the interview. All of the interviews were very natural but were helped along with some preconceived questions and follow up questions available to the principal investigator through an interview

PAGE 33

33 outline (Appendix D). Though the questions were available and used when there was a lull in the conversation, the interviewees were free to speak about any topic they wanted. The conversation they liked their classes and their hometowns, and the preconceived questions were worked into the conversation when appropriate and/or needed. Most of the conversations flowed naturally and responses to questions and stories were uttered spontaneously, without being solici ted. Topics varied. All participants spoke freely and openly, seemingly oblivious to the presence of the tape recorder. This study tried to avoid the (Labov 1966), but no absolute claim can be made that the participants did not monitor their speech in some way. The awareness of the tape recorder could have caused some participants to use the standard [ I principal investigator tried to portray herself as being a part of the same speech community as each individual by making personal connections in the conversation whenever possible. For example, when it was discovered by the principa l investigator that one participant attended the same high school as the investigator did years ago, conversation was made about the high school in an attempt to establish camaraderie. Also, three of the participants were previously acquainted with the pri ncipal investigator, all of whom used the standard [ I whom the principal investigator was not familiar with used the non standard [ I n] variant freely during conversation, suggesting either a lack of the effect or an inability to control which variable she or he used.

PAGE 34

34 Analytical Procedures Dependent Variable The principal investigator listened to all recordings twice, extracting and calculating the number of occurrences of [ I I n] in the speech of each participant in the qualified environments discusse d in the first section of this chapter. Each qualified context in which one of the variants was used was then transcribed. A few examples of the [ I letter to be written up I was walking from my 0 period class to my 1st period class when I heard people talking about it in the hall I was going like five miles an hour A few examples of the [ I n] one of my g ood buddies A simple percentage was calculated for each individual, expressing the percentage out of the total times the variable was used the participant used [ I used [ I n]. Some participants always used one of the two variants in speech. A few participants varied their use of the variable, but always used one variant more frequently than the other. These patterns are reported in the following section. Independent Variable Next, each completed BSRI was analyzed. As mentioned in a previous section of this chapter, a high femininity score combined with a low masculinity score would result in an individual being categorized as feminine A high score was qualified as receiv ing a t ratio of

PAGE 35

35 receiving a t individual received a t ratio of less than 2.0250, she or h e was categorized as androgynous. Table 3 2. Gender categorization Category Raw difference between F and M score from (0 6) t ratio Feminine Masculine Androgynous 0.872 2.0250 Since the gender neutral adjectives w ere included in the BSRI to ensure a more valid self analyzed independently. Ten of the 20 gender neutral adjectives were ranked in pretests as being positive quali ties for an individual to possess and half were ranked as negative qualities for an individual to possess (Bem 1974). The raw score (from one to seven) was added for all of the positive gender neutral adjectives and the reverse of the raw score was calcula ted for all of the negative gender neutral adjectives. The two numbers were then added together and divided by the total number of gender neutral adjectives. This provided a score from one to seven that an individual could receive for social desirability. Table 3 3. Social desirability categorization Social desirability Numerical score Socially more desirable >4.0 Socially less desirable <4.0 categorization was calc ulated along with her or his social desirability score. Following this, each relevant part of each interview was transcribed, providing a percentage of variable use for each individual. Results and any correlations among and between variables are presented and discussed in the next chapter.

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS by the Bem Sex Role Inventory and her/his use of the progressive verb ending. Once each participant was cate gorized as being feminine, masculine or androgynous I and the correlation between gender, sex, and variable usage was made. Though the res social desirability ranking and the likelihood that that individual would be sex t yped. Therefore, was compared to her or his use of the linguistic variable. A simple score was given to each participant for social desirability. Since (4) was the mean score an individual could receive, a participant who received a score greater than (4) was considered as reporting her/himself as socially desirable and a participant who received a score less than (4) was considered as reporting her/himself a s socially undesirable (see Table 3 3 in the previous chapter). Finally, use of the linguistic variable. All of the patterns that emerged from this method of data collection are identified and discussed in this chapter. Gender Categorization of the Sample The categorization of the sample according to gender is displayed in Table 4 1 below for sex typed individuals and Table 4 2 below for androgynous individua ls. This distribution will be discussed point by point in the subsequent sections of this chapter Nine of the 20 participants (45%) were strongly sex

PAGE 37

37 masculine as illustrated in Table 4 1. Of these nine, seven (35% of total sample and 77.78% of total who were sex typed) were sex typed masculine and two (10% of total sample and 22.22% of total who were sex typed) were sex typed feminine. The participants who were sex typed feminine are both biological females. Participants 6 and 7 received a 3.993 and 2.322 t ratio androgyny score, resp ectively, resulting in both participants being sex typed feminine. Of the seven participants who were sex typed masculine, two were biological females. Participants 11 and 20 received t ratio androgyny scores of 2.856 and 3.343, respectively, resulting in both participants being sex typed masculine. Five of the sex typed masculine participants were biological males. Participants 5, 15, 16, 17, and 18 received androgyny scores of 2.577, 2.205, 3.111, 3.088, and 6.71, respectively. Table 4 1. Sex typed indiv iduals according to the BSRI Participant Masculine score Feminine score Androgyny score (t ratio) 1 Sex typed 5 5.77 4.66 2.577 M 6 4.11 5.83 3.993 F 7 4.55 5.55 2.322 F 11 6.11 4.88 2.856 M 15 5.83 4.88 2.205 M 16 6.61 5.27 3.111 M 17 5 .05 3.72 3.088 M 18 6.61 3.72 6.710 M 20 5.38 3.94 3.343 M The remaining 11 participants who were not strongly sex typed all received androgyny 2. An individual who received an androg yny score of 0 received exactly the same number of score was from 0, the closer the individual was to being sex typed. Participant 8 was the only individual to sco re above 1.0 for androgyny, coming closest to the 2.0250 score needed to be sex typed.

PAGE 38

38 Table 4 2. Androgynous individuals according to the BSRI Participant Masculine score Feminine score Androgyny score (t ratio) Sex typed 1 4.88 4.55 0.766 no 2 4.66 4.66 0 no 3 4.55 4.16 0.905 no 4 4.61 4.66 0.116 no 8 4.44 5.05 1.415 no 9 4.33 4.44 0.255 no 10 5.16 4.94 0.510 no 12 4.77 4.94 0.394 no 13 4.22 4.38 0.371 no 14 3.77 3.94 0.394 no 19 4.55 4.72 0.394 no An androgyny score a bove 2.0250 indicates sex typing. A score below 2.0250 indicates no sex typing, but does indicate androgyny. Table 4 higher for one sex type and lower for the other, though the scores were ultimately not significantly different enough to cause sex typing. If we look closer at these individuals we can see that a few individuals scored higher for the sex type opposite thei r biological sex. For example, participant 10 is a woman who received a masculine score 0.22 higher than her feminine score. No correlation was found between individuals who had androgyny scores closer or farther away from zero and variable use. As menti oned in Chapter 2 of this paper, many sex roles that could be considered traditional are now being questioned and invalidated in current American society. Women and men are not expected to act the same ways that they were expected to act at the time that t he BSRI was proposed. It is worthy of note then, that recent validation studies have found that most of the adjectives on the BSRI still do correlate strongly with one sex. What is even more noteworthy is that the majority of individuals who participated i n this study were found to be androgynous. What can the BSRI tell us about current society then? Is it that the gap between the sexes that society has perpetuated for so many years is closing, and because of this are we now

PAGE 39

39 seeing individuals who are not s trongly sex typed but rather fall somewhere in the middle of what traditional genders are? Variable Usage of [ I Since participants were free to discuss whatever they chose to discuss, some participants used the token frequently while others used it infrequently. In previous sections it was mentioned that this variable was chosen for its high frequency in speech. Regardless of whether a participant used the variable frequently or infrequently, a simple percentage was calculated for how often a particular variant was used. The distribution is provided in Table 4 3. Table 4 3. Variable usage by participan t Participant Variant used Total number of tokens Number of tokens that were [I 1 31 31 2 31 29 3 21 18 4 32 31 5 [In] 21 4 6 23 23 7 16 16 8 11 11 9 21 18 10 13 13 11 22 22 12 19 19 13 20 20 14 9 9 15 [In] 10 2 16 [In] 12 1 17 13 11 18 [In] 37 7 19 19 19 20 10 10 Table 4 4 below shows the distribution of the [ I categorization. Use of the linguistic variable va ried from speaker to speaker. Eleven (55%) of the participants always used the velar nasal in producing the target form. Included in this group of

PAGE 40

40 speakers are both of the sex typed feminine participants, seven of the androgynous speakers, and two of the s ex typed masculine speakers. The two sex typed masculine speakers who always used the velar variant were both the biological female, sex typed masculine participants. Table 4 4. Variable usage and gender categorization Participant Variant used ant used Gender categorization 1 100 A 6 100 F 7 100 F 8 100 A 10 100 A 11 100 M 12 100 A 13 100 A 14 100 A 19 100 A 20 100 M 2 94 A 3 86 A 4 97 A 9 86 A 17 85 M 5 [In] 19 M 15 [In] 20 M 16 [In] 8 M 18 [In] 19 M Five of the participants varied their use of the variable, occasionally using the alveolar nas al but mostly using the velar nasal. The frequency of their use ranged from once using the alveolar variant out of thirty two utterances to using the alveolar variant two times out of thirteen utterances. Clearly, these speakers used the standard velar var iant much more frequently than the alveolar variant. Of these five participants who varied their usage of the variable, only one was sex typed and this participant was sex typed as masculine. The remainder of the participants who varied their usage was cat egorized as androgynous. The most salient correlation is found with the last group the individuals who used the alveolar nasal all or almost all of the time. Four individuals fall into this group and all of them

PAGE 41

41 are sex typed masculine. Participants 5, 15 16, and 18, all sex typed masculine, used the alveolar variant from 80 92% of the time in their speech. All of these speakers were biological males. A discussion of Table 4 4 in relation to the Literature Review will be discussed at the end of the follow ing section. Variable Usage of [ I Table 4 5 below shows the distribution of variable usage and biological sex. Looking at the results from within the realm of binary gender, one out of 11 (9%) of the biological females who participated in this study used both variants, but used the velar variant more frequently. The remaining ten females (90%) always used the velar variant, regardless of whether they were sex typed feminine or masculine. Table 4 5. Variable usage of [ I Participant Va riant used Sex Gender categorization 6 F F 7 F F 8 F A 10 F A 11 F M 12 F A 13 F A 14 F A 19 F A 20 F M 9 F A 1 M A 17 M M 2 Both, mostly [ M A 3 M A 4 M A 5 [In] M M 15 [In] M M 16 [In] M M 18 [In] M M The biological males were more unpredictable. One of the nine (11.1%) biological males who participated in this study always used the velar linguistic variant. Four of the nine (44.4%)

PAGE 42

42 used both variants, but used the velar variant more frequently. The remaining four (44.4%) biological males used the alveolar variant all or almost all of the time. In Chapter 3 of this paper it was mentioned t hat individuals who used one variant significantly more frequently than the other variant would be classified as being a user of the more frequent variant. With this in mind, all of the biological females can be classified as users of the velar variant. Fi ve (55.56%) of the biological males can be classified as users of the velar variant while four (44.44%) can be classified as users of the alveolar variant. The section of the literature review of this paper titled Findings in Binary Gender Research discus sed that much of the previous research has found that men use non standard varieties and variables more often than women. The results in Table 4 5 show that this is true to a certain degree. Forty four percent of the men in this study used the non standard variant, not quite half, compared to zero percent of the women. From these results the generalization can be made that men might be more likely to use the non standard variant, but it cannot be said that they usually use the variant. If we compare Table 4 4 and Table 4 5, some predictions can be made about future use of the variants. Based on Table 4 4 or Table 4 5 alone, one cannot predict linguistic behavior. However, when the results from both tables are combined a pattern emerges. As the section Findin gs in Modern Gender Research discussed in the Literature Review, men and women do not always behave in the manner binary gender research has found. There must be, then, an additional factor(s) that might be at play. Perhaps there is a relation between an i gender, and language use. Table 4 5 shows us that while not all men use the non standard variant and not all masculine typed individuals use the non standard variant, all the individuals who use the non

PAGE 43

43 standard variant are masculine sex typed men. This suggests that the individuals who are most likely to use the non standard variant are men who subscribe to societal sex roles for males. This study shows that all females, regardless of whether they subscribe to traditional sex roles for w omen in regards to their personal behavior tend to use the standard variant. This supports past binary gender findings, as mentioned in the Literature Review. Social Desirability The social desirability score was calculated using the 20 gender neutral adje ctives, 10 positive and 10 negative. As mentioned in the previous section, the raw score for the 10 negative adjectives was reversed on a seven point scale. If an individual ranked a negative adjective at one on the point scale it would be reversed to the opposite end of the scale at seven. If the individual ranked her/himself as a seven on the scale it would be reversed to a one. All of the positive raw scores and reversed negative scores were tallied and then the total was divided by 20 (the total number of gender neutral adjectives). this research. No correlations were expected to be found using this scale, but after calculations were made some correlations emerged and will therefore be discussed in this section. No participants received less than a (4) on the social desirability score. Table 4 6 shows participant ranking from highest social desirability to lowest. It appears that most of the individuals who used the alveolar linguistic variant tend to fall on the higher ranking part of the table. Seven (70%) of the top ten ranked individuals were sex typed, both of the sex typed feminine individuals and five (71.43%) of the sex typed masculine individuals. Partic ipants who were sex typed were more likely to self report a higher ranking on the desirability score than androgynous individuals. All four of the sex typed masculine individuals who used the alveolar variant are found in the top 50% of the socially desira bility table. More

PAGE 44

44 data collection should be done to ensure there is an actual correlation between variable use, sex typing, and social desirability. Table 4 6. Variable usage and social desirability Participant Variant used Social desirability score Se x Categorization 11 5.90 F M 6 5.70 F F 15 [In] 5.60 M M 10 5.50 F A 2 5.25 M A 7 5.25 F F 8 5.25 F A 16 [In] 5.25 M M 5 [In] 5.15 M M 18 [In] 5.05 M M 12 5.00 F A 13 4.90 F A 1 4.85 M A 4 Bo 4.75 M A 19 4.55 F A 17 4.45 M M 3 4.35 M A 20 4.35 F M 9 4.20 F A 14 4.00 F A Overall, some trends were observed in regards to variable usage, gender categor ization, sex, and social desirability. All of the individuals who used the alveolar variant were sex typed masculine and were biological males. These individuals also self ranked themselves high on the social desirability scale along with the majority of t he other sex typed individuals. Implications of these results and suggested future research will be discussed in the following chapter.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Gender and language research has been conducted under the assumption that there is a one to one correlation between biological sex and social gender. Many linguists point to the problem of conducting research in this manner, but few have proposed an alternative to this type of research. While it has been suggested that gender can be conceptualize d as a continuum, whether linear or circular, this concept has not been tested in experimental research. In this study an existing model for socially conceptualized gender was used to collect language data from 20 individuals. This model, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, was borrowed from the field of psychology. The model predicts that a person can fall under one of three categorizations feminine, masculine, or androgynous. In addition to the sex role categorizations, or gender categorizations, an individual ca n independently report herself or point scale. Each individual was then interviewed and her or his use of the linguistic variable [ I compared to her or his gender categorization and social desirability score. Since this model had previously never been used in the collection of linguistic data, no hypotheses were proposed concerning the outcome of the research. Instead, data was c ollected and trends that emerged from that data were reported and discussed. In this study it has been demonstrated that gender categorization may play a role in the use of [ I I n] in the college student community of Gainesville, Florida. Sex m ay also play a speaker used. It was noted that females tended to use the standard variant [ I though the majority of men used [ I they used [ I n]. Further investigation is required of more people who live in this area and outside this area to see if more accurate predictions can

PAGE 46

46 be made regarding which variant a speaker is likely to use. Neither gender nor sex alone can predict whic h variant an individual will use in this speech community. There is some indication from this study that linguists might be able to use the Bem Sex Role Inventory to describe and predict speech, but only a wider study can confirm this. Since the Bem Sex R ole Inventory was originally designed to measure how much individuals are willing to separate themselves from qualities of the opposite sex, these results tell us how likely these people who do not subscribe to typical sex roles for themselves are to use t he nonstandard linguistic variant. Two individuals in the study divorced themselves from the standard sex typing society suggests for them. These two women identify themselves as sex typed masculine; however, their speech reflects the usage of androgynous and sex typed feminine individuals. Does this suggest that the BSRI cannot accurately predict how an individual will behave linguistically based on gender roles? Not exactly. Although not all of the sex type masculine individuals always used the alveolar variant, all of the individuals who used the alveolar variant were sex typed masculine. This fact alone suggests that further research should be conducted in this area. Ideally, a larger sample size and a more diverse sampling of individuals would be best. Another noteworthy finding was the apparent correlation between social desirability and sex typing. Since the majority of sex typed individuals are found on the upper half of the social desirability range, this might suggest there is a correlation betwee n the need to be perceived as a certain sex type and the need to be socially desirable. Since both sex type feminine and masculine individuals were found in the upper half of the scale, it can be concluded that there is a correlation between sex typing and social desirability in this study.

PAGE 47

47 In order to confirm the results of the study, an additional experiment should be performed, perhaps testing a different linguistic variable. It might be that most individuals in this speech community use the [ I t, making it difficult to include participants in a study who would be likely to use [ I n] in any speech, whether formal or informal. The results cannot suggest why androgynous and sex typed feminine individuals are less likely than sex typed masculine in dividuals to use a non standard variant in speech. Referring back to the Literature Review, perhaps sex typed masculine men feel that they have less to lose in using the non standard variant. Perhaps these individuals happened to feel more comfortable with the interviewer than some of the other participants, and were therefore more likely to use speech typical for them. Even though the question of why cannot be answered, further research may eventually be able to answer the question of who feminine, mascul ine, or androgynous individuals, uses the non standard variant. Further research should be collected and analyzed using the BSRI to ensure the BSRI can some correla problems do exist with the future use of this model. As mentioned in Chapter 3, there might be reason for concern in the choice of gender model used since it was proposed in th e 1970s when the few rogue traits identified in recent validation studies were not included in the current study, it is worth doing more validation studies in the near future. Before further linguistic data is collected in conjunction with the BSRI, a validation study should also be conducted on the BSRI. The most recent validation study, although conducted just seven years ago, could show very different results fro m a study conducted this year.

PAGE 48

48 The BSRI also lacks in that linguists are still forced to place an individual into a definitive category. Instead of a two way distinction there is now simply a three way distinction. If the BSRI could be adapted to account f or gender as a continuum, more interesting results and correlations might be seen. Still, with these apparent faults, the BSRI has allowed gender and language research to be conducted in a new way. Hopefully, future gender and language research will be at least this considerate in promoting a more accurate portrayal of gender in the linguistic community, as opposed to reverting back to what is easiest conducting gender and language research as sex and language research.

PAGE 49

49 APPENDIX A THE ADJECTIVES OF TH E BSR I Feminine Cheerful Shy Affectionate Flatterable Loyal Feminine Sympathetic Sensitive to others Understanding Compassionate Eager to soothe Soft spoken Warm Tender Gullible No harsh language Loves children Gentle Masculine Self reliant Defend s own beliefs Independent Athletic Assertive Strong personality Forceful Leadership abilities Willing to take risks Self sufficient Dominant Masculine Willing to take stand Aggressive Acts as a leader Individualistic Competitive Ambitious Posi tive Gender Neutral Helpful Conscientious Happy Reliable Truthful Sincere Likable Friendly Adaptive Tactful Negative Gender Neutral Moody Theatrical Unpredictable Jealous Secretive Conceited Solemn Inefficient Unsystematic Conventiona l

PAGE 50

50 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT Informed Consent Statement Project Title: BENDING GENDER OUT OF THE BINARY MODEL Principal Investigator: Genevieve Bittson, Program in Linguistics Phone: (305) 323 30 30 e mail: gbittson@ufl.edu Supervisor: Helene Blondeau, Ph.D Program in Linguistics 210 Dauer Hall UF Box 117405 Phone: (352) 392 2016 x 247 e mail: blondeau@rll.ufl. edu Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research project The purpose of this study is to examine a new model for determining gender in relation to language studies. What you will be asked to do in the study In this study, you will first be asked to complete a language and education questionnaire. Next, you will be asked to fill out a second questionnaire where you will rate yourself using a list of adjectives on a scale as either hav ing a quality or not having a quality. Finally, you will be asked to answer a few questions and your answers will be tape recorded by the principle investigator. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. More precise instructions wi ll be given just before the experiment starts. All testing will be carried out by the principal investigator, Genevieve Bittson. Time required About 1/2 hour Risks and Benefits There are no risks associated with this experiment. There is no direct benefi t to you, although your participation will ultimately help us improve the current model of gender in relation to language. Compensation You will be compensated 1 extra credit point towards your final grade in your Linguistics class. Confidentiality Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information and data will be assigned a code number. The key to this code will be kept in a password protected electronic file that is accessible only by the principal investigator and her research team. Your

PAGE 51

51 name and other personal identifying information will not be used in any scientific reports of this study. The tapes containing your interview will be kept in a locked cabinet and only the principle investigator will have access to the key. After the data is analyzed the tapes will be destroyed. Voluntary participation Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study Genevieve Bittson, MA student, Program in Linguistics Phone: (305) 323 3030 e mail: gbittson@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research partic ipant. UFIRB Office, box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 352 392 0433. In case you have any question about the purposes or procedures of the experiment that need to be clarified before you give your consent to participate, pleas e feel free to ask them to the experimenter now. Agreement I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and have received a copy of this description. Signatures Participant: Date: Principal investig ator: Date:

PAGE 52

52 APPENDIX C BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE Participant Number: Age: Sex: Ethnicity: Occupation: Highest Level Completed in College: Native Language(s): Other Languages Spoken Fluently: Florida resident (yes or no): Place of Birth: Pleas e list all of the places you have lived for at least one year and the amount of time your have lived there: For example: Miami, FL 10 years

PAGE 53

56 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Instructions: The participants will be asked the following (a) questions. Ever y time the participant responds yes to an (a) questions she/he will be asked the corresponding (b) questions. The participant can choose not to answer any of the questions she/he does not wish to answer. Before asking these questions the participants will be asked to talk a little about themselves (what they study, where they are from, etc.) in order to make them feel more comfortable. From follows from what the participant just shared about her/himself. 1a. Have you ever had a disagreement with a sales clerk? 1b. Please describe the situation. 2a. Have you ever visited the emergency room because of a broken bone or sprain? 2b. Please tell me about the situa tion that led up to your injury. 3a. Did you ever have a birthday party as a child? 3b. Please tell me about the party. 4a. Have you ever been in a car accident and/or in a car when it broke down? 4b. Please tell me about where you were going and/or what you were doing when this happened. 5a. Do you remember what you were doing when the World Trade Center was attacked? 5b. Please tell me about where you were and what you were doing. 6a. Did you attend class recently? 6b. What did you do in class? 7a. C an you imagine what your future life would be like in your idea of a perfect world? 7b. Please describe the circumstances of your life and the world around you please. 8a. Did you participate in any sports or activities when you were young and/or now? 8b. Can you please tell me about the activity and why you like it.

PAGE 54

54 LIST OF REFERENCES Abdi, Herve. 2003. Multivariate analysis. In Michael Lewis Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing (eds.) Encyclopedia for Research Methods for the Social Sciences Thousand Oa ks, CA: Sage. 699 702. Auster, Carol J. and Susan C. Ohm. 2000. Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles 43: 499 528. Q ueerly Phrased 11: 181 201. Bem, Sandra L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155 162. Bem, Sandra L. 1993. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Identity New Haven: Yale U niversity Press. Bing, Janet and Victoria Bergvall. 1996. The question of questions: Beyond binary thinking. In Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice New York: Addison Wesley Lon gman Limited. 1 30. Butler, Judith. 1993. New York: Routledge. Cameron, Deborah. 1996. The language gender interface: Challenging co optation. In Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Re thinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 31 53. Chambers, John K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance Oxford: Blackwell. Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Age and generation specific use of language. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, and K. Mattheier (eds.) Sociolinguistics: An Introductory Handbook of the Science of Language and Society Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 760 767. Choi, Namok and Dale R. Fuqua. 2003. The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement 63: 872 887. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell Ginet. 1995. Constructing meaning, constructing selves: Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In Mary Buchholtz and Kira Hall (eds.) Gender Articulated: Language and the Culturally Constructed Self. New York: Routledge. 469 507. Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics Oxford. 151 167.

PAGE 55

55 Epstein, Julia. 1990. Either/or neither/both: Sexual ambiguity and the ideology of gender. Genders 7 : 99 142. Fischer, John L. 1958. Social influences in the choice of a linguistic variant. Word 14 : 47 56. Freed, Alic e. 1996. Language and gender research in an experimental setting. In Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 54 76. Greene, Roger L. 2000. The MMPI 2: An Interpretive Manual Boston: Allen & Bacon. Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Charles Goodwin. 1987. Children's arguing. In Susan Philips, Susan Steele and Christine Tanz (eds.) Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective Cambridge: Cambr idge University Press. 200 248. Hall, Kira and Mary Bucholtz. 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self New York: Routledge. Harris, Allen C. 1994. Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item s election for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles 31 : 241 273. Holmes, Janet. 1998. Women's talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. In Jennifer Coates (ed.) Readings in Language and Gender Oxford: Blackwell. 461 83. James, Deborah. 1996. The wo men, men and prestige speech forms: A critical review. In Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed (eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 98 125. Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Development London: Allen and Unwin. Katsurada, Emiko and Yoko Sugihara. 1999. A preliminary validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Japanese culture. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 30 : 641 645. Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 1973 The boundaries of words and their m eanings. In Charles James Bailey and Roger Shuy (eds.) New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 340 373. Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Lan guage Variation and Change 2 : 205 254. Language in Society 2 : 45 80.

PAGE 56

5 6 McGrath, Robert E. and Elizabeth Sapareto. 1998. A new perspective on gender orientation measurement with the MMPI 2: Development of the masculine feminine pathology scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 70 : 551 563. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. www.m w.com. Merriam Webster, Incorporated. Nicholson, Linda. 1994. Interpreting gender. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 20 : 79 105. Women and Language in Literature and Society New York: Praeger. zkan, Trker and Timo Lajunen. 2005. Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem Sex Role Inventory i n Turkey. Sex Roles 52 : 103 110. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents Harlow and New York: Longman. Ross, Alan S. C. 1954. Linguistic class indicators in present day English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 16 : 171 185. Sho pen, Timothy. 1978. Research on the variable (ING) in Canberra, Australia. Talanya 5 : 42 52. Tannen, Deborah. 1990. New York: Ballantine Books. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich Cambridge: C UP. (ING). In Timothy Shopen and Joseph Williams (eds.) Style and Variation in English Cambridge: Winthrop Publishing Company. 219 249. Weatherall, Ann. 1998. Re vi sioning gender and language research. Women and Language 21 : 1 9. West, Candace and Sarah Fenstermaker. 1995. Doing difference. Gender and Society 9 : 8 37. Zhang, Jie and Jill M. Norvilitis. 2001. Measuring gender orientation with the Bem Sex Role Inventor y in Chinese culture. Sex Roles 44 : 237 251.

PAGE 57

57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Genevieve Bittson completed her B.A. in linguistics and English at the University of Florida (2005) with a minor in teaching English as a second language. This thesis was submitted in partia l fulfillment of her M.A. in linguistics from the University of Florida (2007). While pursuing her M.A., Bittson taught English as a second language.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101113_AAAAFI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-13T06:40:17Z PACKAGE UFE0021199_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 61671 DFID F20101113_AAAIJD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bittson_g_Page_40.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fc2046e122566e64ad2e47c5edd60728
SHA-1
fb4f7abca1e8d4758a623b6fc585da63585dc05b
1053954 F20101113_AAAIEF bittson_g_Page_14.tif
4bd9a05ccab5a8338c188878f7bc668c
e7664cdc65a0cd2f9c3dd6a997dc348f73ebaa4b
54014 F20101113_AAAIOA bittson_g_Page_45.pro
0b855312ddeade03555f006b67acf00c
88fdc056344cf6a18ba92062b63b58f1ec3e49b4
2592 F20101113_AAAIQY bittson_g_Page_06thm.jpg
4b3e6325bc33ebad7a4adfbc55e2bb99
3a382a8a7a7d9548b322ffcbcd110288b21cbc7b
25565 F20101113_AAAIEG bittson_g_Page_54.QC.jpg
45188984505cc3edbf24eecc956ffb33
8cc0e10a562c48408cc519366e6d33d38b3d6d77
51282 F20101113_AAAIOB bittson_g_Page_46.pro
7b17090e08812acb2935894fbf37cc8a
1dddb76fc8ae31714a42f4205badddcf85919b9d
88216 F20101113_AAAIQZ UFE0021199_00001.xml FULL
215a9c7053566a8bd1dc8677c7c2df71
2f3df04879b39bb5dad2f7f814e454ab479732e3
55585 F20101113_AAAIJE bittson_g_Page_41.jpg
a037b922b79939429555a6c2820f4754
5282e6588aeb9cd818822f383cf6f07a8687bf78
F20101113_AAAIEH bittson_g_Page_22.tif
f96dc51d92bf8be5a5e2badc785c2708
a47666fa94f1b636ad09160477e36f60ab83432e
54333 F20101113_AAAIOC bittson_g_Page_47.pro
7508f809d68af09c285cbf9687e609bf
c0513ab00bdba96307509e856901a4d5583b6461
73610 F20101113_AAAIJF bittson_g_Page_42.jpg
2af1e2d0edc8b6f1b10fbece2c6911fd
3c61543dd1e897ca1847c932f74e80c2b256350d
10676 F20101113_AAAITA bittson_g_Page_49.QC.jpg
24110e7f4af87e197bd3cc1355cb9a7e
bee184293c5c5113c120fa1186e45376ed3a9c24
1385 F20101113_AAAIEI bittson_g_Page_03thm.jpg
2c0081fc6f1eb826ebbee6d496d9e6ff
290391a8c1795d212ddcc3f5bc56f972c8f687bf
18603 F20101113_AAAIOD bittson_g_Page_48.pro
71f02379730205a7ef3c2650a1eea189
0f7377a89d19279624dad16a12d1a1959df7b894
77172 F20101113_AAAIJG bittson_g_Page_43.jpg
0d592164fb628a06ae23d085ebeb0fe1
61ec96276795040c94d64fbec27bec59c9546be3
22813 F20101113_AAAITB bittson_g_Page_50.QC.jpg
12fa17423aeb8d7d50dacbff8fc86c95
5d26a84a0a0fba6536a0534932a8bb7075f1ffc6
F20101113_AAAIEJ bittson_g_Page_47.tif
879b42c8191ef3a9cd0c9a869fa2350a
a85561f0100ea25593a7f95d82e032ee328f0edd
21041 F20101113_AAAIOE bittson_g_Page_49.pro
498a1c264af8b85356909addd3c8b98c
3f9ade828989e8f63693eb125d95a7569360e5cb
7354 F20101113_AAAITC bittson_g_Page_52.QC.jpg
3879738f61db6b6e8cbe99b3a3bc563e
4ab2485a09d4f1e57c964b30bc6d85e4957b1fd5
F20101113_AAAIEK bittson_g_Page_39.tif
e09887d5b1b008c0a0dce0d3dd57b3aa
18bd2cbf999b5f2115b5cf188e77e9e83c07286c
51427 F20101113_AAAIOF bittson_g_Page_50.pro
4c81474354f5a9ae3223e7be1bfada3b
5dd82986b81e6f780740662854561590f8769e71
48545 F20101113_AAAIJH bittson_g_Page_44.jpg
5f0b261462c833c7166905b03d065834
e7be842a14b15736c767b2a29edce47ad23ba783
2483 F20101113_AAAITD bittson_g_Page_52thm.jpg
60d40a07813e7dba3e5aa63243d1fcd3
7b67cc6d6ff47f9a8698db0be0e2e76df3be029b
F20101113_AAAIEL bittson_g_Page_42.tif
d0dce2b2d283c6460b8a7323f02b8d98
0ab7d57ecc38a0785e0eb86ab1030db85e04b4a9
33191 F20101113_AAAIOG bittson_g_Page_51.pro
c731b5721d884e66381c7a07478f0a31
9db9408c71705134aec21a1146cef4eedc4862a9
76094 F20101113_AAAIJI bittson_g_Page_45.jpg
5f82040eb3b32cd4affd6f1cf7db0cb6
bc9f6956d518c98879f08b8372c47bd8bc323440
6724 F20101113_AAAITE bittson_g_Page_54thm.jpg
c4f4d6f1744023363d3211247401766e
9d7f7a31771069a3346d9c5d74ea4eb4111aa08c
1051973 F20101113_AAAIEM bittson_g_Page_05.jp2
b2906781ed1bfe7afecaddbe893dbbff
cd7348494893381d20a0c7d4e48274add62acc9c
9983 F20101113_AAAIOH bittson_g_Page_52.pro
c0b007adce7a37287dbb6a7b334a1f12
55220f4e72b053938d917abe7e86a246203a57d2
76956 F20101113_AAAIJJ bittson_g_Page_47.jpg
f51c5a87beb576c0ca21950ff34f9499
2288d77cf0aca07044fc1f6fed1852896f3eeaf3
7186 F20101113_AAAITF bittson_g_Page_55thm.jpg
5feb22b9a61d891f5947058f05ff1deb
29a48b57e390b60429d5e9afd5957d2670ab92af
73245 F20101113_AAAIEN bittson_g_Page_46.jpg
f91e48200f510f894f9d6fcc5f74e3e6
4b76a271b2f7a633f18ca041e534f9c04f2b3d93
44845 F20101113_AAAIOI bittson_g_Page_53.pro
04f5c29fa8965bb3400790d8ea0bbd32
b2b67facba079e896d3ee353611fee25bc688784
31683 F20101113_AAAIJK bittson_g_Page_48.jpg
6addfaf3fe7499916a7e2a1368c6ffc8
7054e735007617339f5310b08eb23e459ad4fb4d
20920 F20101113_AAAITG bittson_g_Page_56.QC.jpg
047dd6b8db2a39ff357bb2771045fae3
5fb25c963e6ee0cd0b5d2f215d0e652eef3281db
6342 F20101113_AAAIEO bittson_g_Page_50thm.jpg
13fca356b3ef99294609aed22abff555
c464b9a8c62364d47123e3501813190c224b9477
60793 F20101113_AAAIOJ bittson_g_Page_54.pro
fc9442f3e9420fab53495082f7f69aa8
0f70c77a83443a1553d6c304f011933c9961c5a6
53942 F20101113_AAAIJL bittson_g_Page_51.jpg
f15ca1f7811cf1b53d14234227a8f85f
bd5a8b703dc032c76cfb46072db6130b5fbde950
6801 F20101113_AAAITH bittson_g_Page_57.QC.jpg
4c19171897cb965b567bf90d82510a8f
7cd95a27b4622f36a4445e91f8140e3f97789e11
67829 F20101113_AAAIEP bittson_g_Page_33.jpg
e69ad3e00059df856d01b298974e190c
f0e53d63cdfe220128551642baf4810e2be91f4d
63310 F20101113_AAAIOK bittson_g_Page_55.pro
91c878f6649c208bdada3763bd3c0d87
f25099461547b40bc95e4b07469c6b123401c773
22183 F20101113_AAAIJM bittson_g_Page_52.jpg
18d9e741effbee9a0999d4d069a0410d
616f7f06337ff0c6ef8ca15ec4d506c003a94359
2249 F20101113_AAAITI bittson_g_Page_57thm.jpg
d6691e8bfa9c6e646ce07285ddb6c729
2c7f1848f892e2e2820462418e8380b175154103
F20101113_AAAIEQ bittson_g_Page_32.tif
786c6105cfcf86653ecd4805dae2ef83
2fe5f243dfe6cf654c156f5fdd86a63260d60992
45465 F20101113_AAAIOL bittson_g_Page_56.pro
936b014aadb2c72af90e4ddd920d41e1
3854847c1537e10f20855603bd8764e3d68e0a5d
64277 F20101113_AAAIJN bittson_g_Page_53.jpg
e50a89778c8442f340890af1bc484131
d878dd539afec5a09989c10c007ed72fd5ed6a8b
63422 F20101113_AAAIER bittson_g_Page_11.jp2
7776e630d8158d5433e7e8fea1206d35
d87f9c2584cdc8facf018098a2c50f3170d14a8c
88643 F20101113_AAAIJO bittson_g_Page_55.jpg
f5f8dd4757cc62b68d1ee11ba34b4a59
665f6a82c4ad23c17b26de6c63e0bcf410f84841
1872 F20101113_AAAIES bittson_g_Page_56.txt
4cef324a73ec273efa3b4ffb8b775099
577f92b370d8068d95bcc2120d32cd14bfaea57d
9678 F20101113_AAAIOM bittson_g_Page_57.pro
f2afb1a3866e8d1af995495b0cf0a1f5
0f89c159e0b2fa98d77db10818d9dcb768e1b476
66714 F20101113_AAAIJP bittson_g_Page_56.jpg
25f4e2db772905d9c85a967593efa307
32a8ddd4a106bb76584032ad44e1ec02e8706333
6565 F20101113_AAAIET bittson_g_Page_12thm.jpg
128b25d741175c278ae7b8a40228e118
5e32018289d949c4f734e77a6a84d97c7737e514
414 F20101113_AAAION bittson_g_Page_01.txt
1c6765dafb4096d59382812cbfffc64a
1d740b9abd5672ebe73dc33c10e23212ac6ee620
21824 F20101113_AAAIJQ bittson_g_Page_57.jpg
022fc216a25b3636dd30146800b3fc70
7af45e3b8705fcbe945188fb05e64d3318eae0e9
F20101113_AAAIEU bittson_g_Page_45.tif
c328e082caec45bd749a15883fea52d5
be1c833fdd3a4a4da6bd83ba87e26855eaea54a6
97 F20101113_AAAIOO bittson_g_Page_02.txt
7f8d452a32fa005d632540e435046f6e
4f7932de29a9f0a3657762eb8ec7a6a6384c1a56
5426 F20101113_AAAIJR bittson_g_Page_02.jp2
ecdc06da8d733c5bb6baa8066c57db2e
6a2f83ebed9f1203c9a54b5be37d8c56e852367c
457 F20101113_AAAIEV bittson_g_Page_04.txt
fec32dbd24fa64dfdc7f1ce21cdb699e
bb752a26d771e9a209f92bf9dfb4bf43ecb71af8
100 F20101113_AAAIOP bittson_g_Page_03.txt
20c7a1dd0869c3cc2424d3ca4a986e34
503e3d86927fb01e682e3cefbd58761765b03974
6078 F20101113_AAAIJS bittson_g_Page_03.jp2
b90a9ca523eb8724cb4ed151c8acf33a
b2a0b63f4ef99e2b01e210ed188271e98157f4d5
5892 F20101113_AAAIEW bittson_g_Page_56thm.jpg
ec152dc906a9fca1b87119d06a564354
ea1321626ec1254e388c33b72c15b1ed7f3254a2
608 F20101113_AAAIOQ bittson_g_Page_06.txt
b4241d864b8c33cd1267812bb34c3aa5
14992d2b72fc2d9c6bd69f26adbb2d8b2fcc5af7
25665 F20101113_AAAIJT bittson_g_Page_04.jp2
30109ab782e90698c0817a4216cd7821
13c239b0d92fcfa9336c4af9af65b6abefd6c21a
F20101113_AAAIEX bittson_g_Page_09.tif
5fe011d4cc1d86151eaba95e4e861a11
81e6c63b55596955cc86f1fcf55eb2222c5437ee
1011 F20101113_AAAIOR bittson_g_Page_07.txt
cf69f5662336228231845101ba1b3208
427d7c83f7b2ee55c1fdfdc78d9b345fd1d5d40b
551815 F20101113_AAAIJU bittson_g_Page_06.jp2
251d7399634db5f7b5406d8a3b275045
80c572a29de09a2b51e3e3caeb40be6739cb59ef
F20101113_AAAIEY bittson_g_Page_19.tif
2a955c2ca54024ed8a620a5e671bf516
7d813419405d98c58a1d8bf40adabf1589c1db9b
1915 F20101113_AAAIOS bittson_g_Page_08.txt
306c443757d67c0b82da5d0b57933b09
031d0a92ef3a94f8ab7b5d2a4025c14e7a52fa5e
773945 F20101113_AAAIJV bittson_g_Page_07.jp2
c695fde313ddaeda31230f579a2ed455
d502a4e2be41ae88c1984cb9a3c7994a4f735a13
4796 F20101113_AAAIEZ bittson_g_Page_51thm.jpg
3040668266f7d55a8173c149db1aef47
776402d659e143270aecdbe1a2458cdffd72e435
1407 F20101113_AAAIOT bittson_g_Page_09.txt
e344892c874a439de5a0350b7311905b
644133f92202d2a0876b841a6bdf6149f4635d0f
78124 F20101113_AAAIJW bittson_g_Page_09.jp2
565f84f588da1b5f9ac612937e42ddd0
50c48742dbca7cca3fb4cce1deaa3cc9272cd1ff
1144 F20101113_AAAIOU bittson_g_Page_11.txt
ece2267b7fec718a9059dbd9caf1621c
19a8d94474379cf7cb7db17aad4ec4c6d4c9ab23
112434 F20101113_AAAIJX bittson_g_Page_10.jp2
7fd8175a5db64201146724c6b8ea1a72
36c6167fdf8fa128550642d212f48e0f854f4e07
2049 F20101113_AAAIOV bittson_g_Page_12.txt
fea02898ac076af612f4fa5a48836b87
e5fb794bcaf42b1f3c38424bb0b3e0e2fe364582
20004 F20101113_AAAIHA bittson_g_Page_26.QC.jpg
7963049e48b983d7a1e04657c9c5ea8b
6c51af4fc6d5a3b9ad1aa0829b6bb119e5e19926
106468 F20101113_AAAIJY bittson_g_Page_12.jp2
75849d9cc3b5df49bea11dbb7b92f15b
38c6f1fd7b5d4b7a3dd5e67ecf92768546810cec
2166 F20101113_AAAIOW bittson_g_Page_13.txt
b1e59654f732033b952187162e77ac05
09c81cf3860d4aca938a961a748f9036f2997211
35588 F20101113_AAAIHB bittson_g_Page_49.jpg
dabe96374117b921753552b75cf5f318
e10344f7c8259f61984920c7405bde7394cf6c39
118580 F20101113_AAAIJZ bittson_g_Page_13.jp2
5bcf9a48d9bf569c8a21b19da0686c63
97723e4b48b995d1b5e04aecb0dd10e463dcce36
2066 F20101113_AAAIOX bittson_g_Page_14.txt
9505b2f3f02b9b9dc04db1390f927678
11429701ff7550d2558f8ce1f520fbee6effcbe2
52281 F20101113_AAAIHC bittson_g_Page_20.pro
c5e5ead20b88d30846f4877ea7ac99a8
a5f14636207f19352d8522784a4bafa1331a79b7
1871 F20101113_AAAIOY bittson_g_Page_15.txt
0be7a02c486c5e120130372c5e0dbd1d
d903f0aa8219859d82b7d8871bf7dd55b1fd139e
2278 F20101113_AAAIHD bittson_g_Page_04thm.jpg
5b8bbd193a697bfd5150bb132417ef4c
0e394e30cb5b6b02ef350714fae8212c0fd523bb
F20101113_AAAIMA bittson_g_Page_29.tif
804ad8ceb197e5d846af37eac251f096
cbb5d808e36def853555faadf459803d8f4b34ae
2038 F20101113_AAAIOZ bittson_g_Page_16.txt
8c837281996a8e5836d8972f44e7a385
78c8e8a4d151fecd8e89bb3734673f4b5f52eaca
77263 F20101113_AAAIHE bittson_g_Page_27.jpg
8cc7022b1d23bf287532d2c9e6c1bc01
9d419d477ccb9a8592124acaab843c9396f2d760
F20101113_AAAIMB bittson_g_Page_30.tif
7f48c9797c1e04912ade7171213e0ee0
bf9718e40e8ea5b3bf2f75ddebb630a5bf78400f
F20101113_AAAIMC bittson_g_Page_31.tif
a3c8b0b6574b02f27ac3c24dcb76f244
6f842bfd0a49ae9ce6cb129c0eaf98f46fd3742f
22965 F20101113_AAAIHF bittson_g_Page_35.QC.jpg
683c2ff3130d0f0938cd9c7afcd2be5f
974da55f093c35265ebe147dfa63460ea27d826c
3281 F20101113_AAAIRA bittson_g_Page_02.QC.jpg
771e1b0d4e00a7bf020d21a61609d35c
0ca8e624ffbfeca97411bd06505b141ff1633527
F20101113_AAAIMD bittson_g_Page_33.tif
5803435da1de242a271f32d0aaf56eff
1bc6619ae92ae71ff539cdd7c2d6d8c409377389
23355 F20101113_AAAIHG bittson_g_Page_25.QC.jpg
c4d025a54c0e595bb8a8269c68f9ed3c
c372e97967c927373ebc0802f96ac8c07e35e748
3443 F20101113_AAAIRB bittson_g_Page_03.QC.jpg
aa8228a2662d4e8d636acf61dd06a1f1
23a47800c90bf20bc194f99b6709077405e56055
F20101113_AAAIME bittson_g_Page_34.tif
2ba659319670ee84a24b0f138a6f680b
cfc21b983de9fdcd5b93e5b93c530e4b2badf321
103752 F20101113_AAAIHH bittson_g_Page_56.jp2
e079bad98c88791ae815e37e24360649
7986f341190d8bf04a670520a4534bd027e6e4bd
7165 F20101113_AAAIRC bittson_g_Page_04.QC.jpg
5aa79a70166af2e921e573bbfd281bb9
40b52118d03c601c31ac687a69b942a354405f13
F20101113_AAAIMF bittson_g_Page_36.tif
2e159297972faa96947950743eaed37c
545dd700567759e3d9c242c5c416421650ad1c05
43415 F20101113_AAAIHI bittson_g_Page_08.pro
69bc3fd41d3c5713ad00da71c6c07658
defb60a4470a630cc4e9fa75ff5b65d42484126e
19877 F20101113_AAAIRD bittson_g_Page_05.QC.jpg
f88b96d85996b075df8ed79a34d2da62
bd8dbeaacce09e134c52ec684ad05ab94995c330
F20101113_AAAIMG bittson_g_Page_37.tif
d268a06c2b2a484af19192ea971ba4d9
900bd5810d6a653b0d5d2a6f7056fc96901aaa70
F20101113_AAAIHJ bittson_g_Page_23.tif
c7398c0b37d10ae029686e13de037b93
a5ad1eb82e0bfb35b2fe63a76a2c4d8856f5965a
5062 F20101113_AAAIRE bittson_g_Page_05thm.jpg
d0c6b2bd467a127656d4ec3ad7534bb5
969fbf96a3bd154402886eeb1fbcec9b59552e17
F20101113_AAAIMH bittson_g_Page_40.tif
971ee90095087ca0feb3eeede06c2914
d5dc9aa71846e19cded366e006cc5bf5a544ca57
50415 F20101113_AAAIHK bittson_g_Page_31.pro
11e083ce1e9f54b0d9d307ec4885b904
72167a73ee57bf1e3295257712a5936d50abd4ee
10386 F20101113_AAAIRF bittson_g_Page_07.QC.jpg
5b104e1d5cf41c08de9f3e24f6f6cb8a
64bd00f111a1360391751585c4a9cd2f09fb3153
F20101113_AAAIMI bittson_g_Page_41.tif
0a82ed94b88b1f24ca6b871aa9bc5510
6ea873f961c7dc0658b4e86d047c160c99a428eb
16024 F20101113_AAAIHL bittson_g_Page_51.QC.jpg
c61c4d242539cba3682229b588078893
9e7467f06917da9fc7d4ec866837920b02de4ea6
20865 F20101113_AAAIRG bittson_g_Page_08.QC.jpg
81a8d569f613ed7f31c5254b7b90379c
ec525b3e966e5b63a1e7ec0fa1cee5464cb08b56
F20101113_AAAIMJ bittson_g_Page_44.tif
203b9e5dba77ccd21cb73ea8b1838112
6b8657d8d31e041211e15ee91317b8b558260589
5356 F20101113_AAAIHM bittson_g_Page_39thm.jpg
9ae8ccd1368bb46c1d4af30bb62f888f
00fbdd4a30d048e48e3bbfa8f05e44a9a55a37ed
6094 F20101113_AAAIRH bittson_g_Page_08thm.jpg
f5a64b4d1c20c217b012cb96fb0105ba
c20ee5e4f000e6be07d5f82a4bfc0c957add23e6
18362 F20101113_AAAIHN bittson_g_Page_41.QC.jpg
68b0b47b0ee0954f2a524d1db884047e
b4a17bb16f86985dc791805b30241aef79c6272e
17943 F20101113_AAAIRI bittson_g_Page_09.QC.jpg
3b6346e87002163caa5cfc9cea9637a3
0a29b202b153a0583364691e4a3f6d7ffe5213e2
F20101113_AAAIMK bittson_g_Page_46.tif
46c02e4bc6ca1a53a1230e01bc36ace6
87225594b70c28badbf808b161c503bd5accd9d9
3135 F20101113_AAAIHO bittson_g_Page_05.txt
3b9b29a2cc1fa0f62c17c3b3a87eca4a
01f68318f593a5fa419d73c35f3751c15ed84731
4987 F20101113_AAAIRJ bittson_g_Page_09thm.jpg
b4008773e536fc43e88d224f5b7a8107
8d6821ed012eb80186ec52df7203631e700d52bd
25271604 F20101113_AAAIML bittson_g_Page_50.tif
5a1d91fcc3fbd5a41742b610ac354772
cbd6a62c311bed38769b8794b1ccedebc5e86ee3
2193 F20101113_AAAIHP bittson_g_Page_29.txt
fe232d64e55675f06873fee926f45a22
e5e32505835333816f0172be1d1ba571a2a3b388
6719 F20101113_AAAIRK bittson_g_Page_10thm.jpg
f64327056a2417e21053d71fbd7a9a22
f439506388ed865f7d533afc2b7e78f934391ee8
F20101113_AAAIMM bittson_g_Page_51.tif
a8193498171bb7616f297b46d49c369e
e2d203fb253a7e0d6c5155e10fdcc917ceb08326
F20101113_AAAIHQ bittson_g_Page_16.tif
98a62d0015011d1380d7907b0afa8e6d
ec13e2a0b884bfd44b936d72bfb7a8153e8e2659
14664 F20101113_AAAIRL bittson_g_Page_11.QC.jpg
3c905088a15ef7c2a3367e7ce6c2d15e
82df6acaa28de5f242cce0ac8d5d1945bece56c0
F20101113_AAAIMN bittson_g_Page_52.tif
e5aefb5721ab0856f4b7d190d100a16a
5593a0bf2c5c46bc01d0208582dde85a0ff2c9e7
77429 F20101113_AAAIHR bittson_g_Page_39.jp2
df8d70837830d692705f076d9b691f55
ca898b1d0a7c4691447b8bf7380c7b5a885cfb1e
4187 F20101113_AAAIRM bittson_g_Page_11thm.jpg
ddffb37e355abd8b3ba6db402249df3d
88575f789fcb4e5c6124c4d70485dbd72a30af63
F20101113_AAAIMO bittson_g_Page_54.tif
11929771abf2d37bdc4c5f4ea86c6e8e
965e12905a344c42860a1d7296a49033eacb42d5
21610 F20101113_AAAIHS bittson_g_Page_01.jp2
45d80f09a5c700c8ba1b7f9a8b3064f8
0356d8e40ce1e0c31485d61fa94d008a6cd287db
25590 F20101113_AAAIRN bittson_g_Page_13.QC.jpg
c3b383dede7d31ec34b71dea4269e217
72d10d8e268a80b7b8f4b1cefa148700f71a726e
F20101113_AAAIMP bittson_g_Page_55.tif
2d8b89bf561f716e37c9fe75c4f2c891
fdb0421e933a307676e7fb39cf10c7b5b1a80eee
71308 F20101113_AAAIHT bittson_g_Page_12.jpg
079b4fdf233af886fde2288fceb5130a
9049313a39cfad97aa553f90c1751260f4ca0d6a
6936 F20101113_AAAIRO bittson_g_Page_13thm.jpg
d418b5d7793e7bf18801764b47073ea3
89c6c0902d6762d3400747156acfa068f842caa4
F20101113_AAAIMQ bittson_g_Page_56.tif
4a9d2a5588ae83b5724e8a5ec40700f4
796464fac6395b76c358ed84d69b0f10d926e843
F20101113_AAAIHU bittson_g_Page_43.tif
e1146533bdbb216baa0eb3223d5c7bfa
0a5bd220c0f30fbf06ba96cf0abd396bed0088e6
F20101113_AAAIMR bittson_g_Page_57.tif
93dda1aa528e8e127d063d28cfa7795f
50602f74ad1b6e124c168f345759e1e94a357e74
68492 F20101113_AAAIHV UFE0021199_00001.mets
e55c10bb0c8dc5431c269b1dce01293a
31d4fd228b62b8526878c8d4f7d3e68fcc758248
21562 F20101113_AAAIRP bittson_g_Page_15.QC.jpg
a7e324d93f4288b5c7f81f3f40821319
cab74d8371fd585149cde0ef3d00da51a32443db
7195 F20101113_AAAIMS bittson_g_Page_01.pro
132a1e624e9406b86b1ea5927d4e82ed
caf708566dba160820f47f8d2c774e6ae66ebe56
24167 F20101113_AAAIRQ bittson_g_Page_16.QC.jpg
641cc36903f99481811c40a117993630
d166a05b892894cd74b06b8c6422d69dfac968c4
1246 F20101113_AAAIMT bittson_g_Page_03.pro
87af171dcb8dd3b883f70e7032cb1aa7
d95eb52e75387572db8e65ba8419b3dc1b9b7289
6706 F20101113_AAAIRR bittson_g_Page_18thm.jpg
638b80905857f4dd9982ae379d4e11f1
62cb38c6b1454af2162ebc5aed984612171ca93e
10535 F20101113_AAAIMU bittson_g_Page_04.pro
0f54dcbe369d5009bc66b627922cf0b1
ecd6ca4c8f73fcbb7e58697313704edefecd4a43
9964 F20101113_AAAIHY bittson_g_Page_02.jpg
db9da60433765c5e087de0326250ef0b
b3eb30f84dda88c3c010a4580abe14782a401405
23367 F20101113_AAAIRS bittson_g_Page_19.QC.jpg
318ef1a32ec34aebf25d8326efe108b0
059437303829cd56c5e6396862bd1be49d76b970
71999 F20101113_AAAIMV bittson_g_Page_05.pro
5f27701f13e5c144b6ead1074aedf633
1327add59067334dde6cbd1b12498a53d9c9e064
5150 F20101113_AAAIFA bittson_g_Page_53thm.jpg
3a73696aca0d8fd0684ab14c53c7a164
8b1296a2dd3ed98ec9ad88b9b544ba0c30d08719
10458 F20101113_AAAIHZ bittson_g_Page_03.jpg
cbf7f0cd8f64e6574ef9efdbc1066c25
37d6db1f0fc17545378916689d5d5888ebbd9fa0
6452 F20101113_AAAIRT bittson_g_Page_19thm.jpg
c9268907358e5cfb8e2a5c77ad622437
eecd51ac60c8c423a40fa6ffceaef73303ce5ee9
17133 F20101113_AAAIMW bittson_g_Page_06.pro
42d47bb6f29d3656cf7265ed9c01e56b
6d6c6a9b4b05bf5ef6851b5228c836b00ee2d9ef
5671 F20101113_AAAIFB bittson_g_Page_24thm.jpg
8b376ad7283892a30b2694a9ea795f67
56db438a9f8688adcc60dc2636341bcf3ca5db3c
6587 F20101113_AAAIRU bittson_g_Page_20thm.jpg
827ac102c62734c30c63f1e0c0e40033
1e93aa08a34c7585c8640d01d8e7c54c809c9f48
22295 F20101113_AAAIMX bittson_g_Page_07.pro
ca39dc9770693cee93c1bc871fbf08c6
700ee30a45311054fd92a855869ecfed4ecf3062
69925 F20101113_AAAIFC bittson_g_Page_34.jpg
b01a511c1e99b6ecfd465089692c3a48
5263fd496d5ea74e1c4730711103a95f8e9227f5
6891 F20101113_AAAIRV bittson_g_Page_21thm.jpg
cacdc357636039cbeb45d8fa5a8345b0
aed767a9da2998952beff74f6904930535f20d3e
103973 F20101113_AAAIKA bittson_g_Page_15.jp2
0ca2d2c2a6f9ce584269e17123756e71
9e1e9da63599f92678df234739fdd4b6ae1d468f
35221 F20101113_AAAIMY bittson_g_Page_09.pro
e7bd1b131fa283af87c7625e6b9530b4
6ceb9f0ea8a7dcdea1925615ffa8c0f265530ef8
6738 F20101113_AAAIRW bittson_g_Page_25thm.jpg
a3e226e20863d9516eb94fc9a9a3860e
432d7c85fa1a93e335e657e52f47f11cc6dea064
111290 F20101113_AAAIKB bittson_g_Page_16.jp2
524f0bce4e318bfe354cca5c78746d8d
180e5debbea2bc51b7dedc5ee55a0d12d75467f7
51847 F20101113_AAAIMZ bittson_g_Page_10.pro
f7c12ea81e0c3c7877eb483bb5b29a7f
da248e68a7cd0907f12c82ef1ed586e5c8e7307d
6268 F20101113_AAAIFD bittson_g_Page_33thm.jpg
03d294ef461f21536237457541304f1d
45feeddd8ba192cb329685817e0e214451bdfd93
25205 F20101113_AAAIRX bittson_g_Page_27.QC.jpg
e2a3498a34c3926e00570220d9e88524
92fac48b5a7afa32b9e7cbd2cf8c81a86746c490
112556 F20101113_AAAIKC bittson_g_Page_17.jp2
3d08757cb67a29ac4ee9fa244ab59d30
49b32d62c1534be1f8e8142ef3e1bbb8216950d3
51478 F20101113_AAAIFE bittson_g_Page_25.pro
96a24e0ef9d6211f8478d605592d8a20
a23cab76853b9cee50d0b72fa381e37f144d4bc4
25093 F20101113_AAAIRY bittson_g_Page_28.QC.jpg
f2d727e79a256e6011b5573c795d7112
0f31b465a6be8b3047cd6412259eaaf6ecb0dae5
109907 F20101113_AAAIKD bittson_g_Page_18.jp2
ddb5433de8279907b9483fa3a6df9baf
cdbae65f9ff344935df6bd133695ed769eed6188
24607 F20101113_AAAIFF bittson_g_Page_18.QC.jpg
c20afe7e8c5c3fb2f5ff8ef24726d98b
e24b88c9089af6344fef32430a41c0bf80ef0839
2075 F20101113_AAAIPA bittson_g_Page_17.txt
1ebfddb010f77df4a8dfbc8b8adae477
d57ea9cad4262cfb3628b6a4092b6d39aaf103b9
6708 F20101113_AAAIRZ bittson_g_Page_28thm.jpg
ae864c26a54e3d4c332cc87ac4388cd4
6703f8b99459eabee62062025c8554958b470699
107660 F20101113_AAAIKE bittson_g_Page_19.jp2
20aa86d6ab2b9245778f84953b629dae
7b88eafb1f7035686b0fb881ec63d4eb27fd9420
24159 F20101113_AAAIFG bittson_g_Page_10.QC.jpg
56ca81188a418ecaae3f3497c8f97a19
033507712d89d4dba4f0a0592e612a22c6760b3b
2015 F20101113_AAAIPB bittson_g_Page_18.txt
e2529d6b960670f432d904d33bb78421
6f7a478fb828154dc756137d6edda01b26509b67
109784 F20101113_AAAIKF bittson_g_Page_20.jp2
687fe1f38dd80da77c1e3f2ecff34f6d
3ea117acc98d2a2be13988b29eb4eafd1163ce6e
20714 F20101113_AAAIFH bittson_g_Page_01.jpg
dab8f35aabf7b2667d73249c8978da6d
8db3970a2c8fd0fe40a2f0b8ad172dee6c0bd3c6
2096 F20101113_AAAIPC bittson_g_Page_20.txt
a914b056002a23ddba236f5d07dc61e9
e361dcff64b467b6ca4f770bc70bcafed8f08410
117005 F20101113_AAAIKG bittson_g_Page_21.jp2
a962faa99718e967f8379cf0e2e49660
e9953bb3e8e65340884c8ddb9016430c847fa208
114970 F20101113_AAAIFI bittson_g_Page_28.jp2
070d12719498c2bd420db7daedc837ef
0d2480df30703c3408ff0fe73956cae3687f7bfb
2205 F20101113_AAAIPD bittson_g_Page_21.txt
c47fd2e8e216bcc882e5cdaeff1ad2c3
5d0440a07383e1c0b1759ddfc4972dda30276e83
108562 F20101113_AAAIKH bittson_g_Page_22.jp2
c4817d3211347effe57e8f71e11966cf
15752821ae96b5084b846ec1115be0375499bb25
6614 F20101113_AAAIFJ bittson_g_Page_31thm.jpg
6f88491ca3de896f08188b13f851e67d
3ec7526cbeb9b5f343a19d8198a578d3665e4025
1971 F20101113_AAAIPE bittson_g_Page_22.txt
57e0a946584a72d23f1deb38decc75b9
f3509d7c9c444fd475436883142ff131acdd3f30
6682 F20101113_AAAIFK bittson_g_Page_17thm.jpg
3c5029d819a42c6a776f94429bb6f90c
3f33ab5a4b6c8e614e5638c70e5cf2c746831669
1082 F20101113_AAAIPF bittson_g_Page_23.txt
39095c784ca2c5d67764b274de29cfae
ad19c678b78ea0e1d468224398a81800215f4f4d
61428 F20101113_AAAIKI bittson_g_Page_23.jp2
de116b18394fbe7989c9514a6f1e43fc
8c4b5fc7cb7957708392a49bbe42a74d2a39d9e4
23277 F20101113_AAAIFL bittson_g_Page_22.QC.jpg
2362bdc70c43e495afa1ccda49d238e1
daa82f777767bc867ce3b5560458f283d0f37b63
1786 F20101113_AAAIPG bittson_g_Page_24.txt
3dce438b8b2da8cbb33dcab8815c43e2
95ea2133cac67b9b32fcbd69af3a9e7a3b1a3041
90420 F20101113_AAAIKJ bittson_g_Page_24.jp2
1d7d5604b00337ec1a55ef2caee393a7
65e3b34fec9e1fc5a580f63fd6816e1020a5f907
2135 F20101113_AAAIFM bittson_g_Page_28.txt
0fe2a6f44fb2c0e2d985a0dcd2737812
95a9acc18994b39f4dbf2edc997b8c4696191b9f
2034 F20101113_AAAIPH bittson_g_Page_25.txt
0f7654e1baca6e29ee7b6e360c74e0ff
2114009e45965d26e4b42224f2eeb124a386bb40
110412 F20101113_AAAIKK bittson_g_Page_25.jp2
9ba9bb248b25845f04bef9cdeeff8d40
1177b05d360139161030fe38bab7f78fe0ad4902
2029 F20101113_AAAIFN bittson_g_Page_46.txt
4dc5a2eb941d2155dea1ab3aa35255a6
4654dfd1bb10f4e3488b10d5a16d8a8a643676a2
1699 F20101113_AAAIPI bittson_g_Page_26.txt
7ad25014bfd72e978933aa4edbe6ea5f
a4e4e0fc90f1ff1e71ff2505d562fa8a8c2371ea
117799 F20101113_AAAIKL bittson_g_Page_27.jp2
38bab43e5075be776526cbb50e3ff841
711679747a8415e35e5f363881e53e658e3199a8
83445 F20101113_AAAIFO bittson_g_Page_50.jpg
7d8334e420600ffe8efdaa6a6e3fd890
065049b797eaa8736b507977cf0deebef04e643e
2149 F20101113_AAAIPJ bittson_g_Page_27.txt
3846c8591d080980c58e703662d16434
ce8df8b1a1eaec93a4faa69e05c1fb1798209ea3
117902 F20101113_AAAIKM bittson_g_Page_29.jp2
5256956241f768675c066c5b5a8da15e
4c4d3d06102d14ab725aba6a7c424a8f5eb412ca
96579 F20101113_AAAIFP bittson_g_Page_08.jp2
bbafc899887631fa92d6cf5b737ec041
c926edb2cb1a0875e81a8c88a9f07c4481bc713e
2027 F20101113_AAAIPK bittson_g_Page_31.txt
7c92dc99eb0cb5f8903d6fbdf97bd797
6d6cc64ee7efa540ed4e6cb953811fd11e27caf2
108518 F20101113_AAAIKN bittson_g_Page_30.jp2
d221347ed1d41d62e0c42aa44c13a0a8
36bea703ee9eabc24bed34f87f7687586a4eb829
114892 F20101113_AAAIFQ bittson_g_Page_47.jp2
738cf928db779e1d4837f3d10afe5c1e
8b2d0ed68b38ed06cf4b8d03554e94b110356062
2005 F20101113_AAAIPL bittson_g_Page_32.txt
074a9e4a0f1b1a2f9588bb7357a4f618
455ade42e99a14b62c3f1296a945d78e3be73151
107987 F20101113_AAAIKO bittson_g_Page_31.jp2
b150c1509d6e9a86a516052d22a251d7
e16ada8d357b26397726f82fb591fc7aa4a677eb
2572 F20101113_AAAIFR bittson_g_Page_55.txt
5c68fb6976d3daf0c2645b35916d0ba0
9318f18c17beb45b4768e5921aa194b352dd0dab
1859 F20101113_AAAIPM bittson_g_Page_33.txt
07fa7568dddde115ad9e0ae3cc5c229c
409f8894f1ac9127d5c87999e8bca7216accf583
101839 F20101113_AAAIKP bittson_g_Page_33.jp2
218da0789462585aafe28598bf668e7c
3252f1e266fe412b7c7eb41e5953733a0a34c0cd
F20101113_AAAIFS bittson_g_Page_53.tif
f4dbb8c8b31c0276e260d3ed14b0d299
eeb89bfcc4630b1102bb688549725d0dbe2afb6d
105969 F20101113_AAAIKQ bittson_g_Page_34.jp2
9736894bc2c9ddfbc49b7482aa449e68
fa436d09041615ab53e9b3cd2f62164301bb905a
6349 F20101113_AAAIFT bittson_g_Page_35thm.jpg
d215dba3587b3c15a17a88d7f9886ba3
e6ecc5c3a905328ec3b83bf4401f6508b0f6f97e
1834 F20101113_AAAIPN bittson_g_Page_35.txt
0834d047c5141e7e5673f2be03103743
c6eb235a362bebe85f604edf323dafd7d0613ca4
113313 F20101113_AAAIKR bittson_g_Page_36.jp2
c669666cecd0c7e7de2013d1a99d3021
2ae11d614dc7fbd1f9c669a54787705f55db2dea
134503 F20101113_AAAIFU bittson_g_Page_54.jp2
8e0007db6bdbcf823597e270775e65fd
09040c13593abae3285da4ba4d14dd2f1421318f
2178 F20101113_AAAIPO bittson_g_Page_36.txt
8f16a20654a5807c183ed538c94fcf3d
d0058ed6a9966f95857f24a0101e9beaf5d20c1e
103519 F20101113_AAAIKS bittson_g_Page_37.jp2
c978006440dab152c0bba1b4c96e1ba7
a505cedf303072c9cf45f63176207707b8f0002d
1502 F20101113_AAAIFV bittson_g_Page_41.txt
d1957936f0fbb845f0aaf1bd61b87f05
2e2225adfa4d37e5af0bb179a078052e5e51e25e
1858 F20101113_AAAIPP bittson_g_Page_37.txt
15ae6b5c8a7e837d083532bfc5d5c5dd
e48cb6cf3540fe7c4ec9d09863fe022b8e08c00a
109944 F20101113_AAAIKT bittson_g_Page_38.jp2
7a9f56de475c3f75e188e70a31b3857d
e547b7c0610f63014513bd1b7aa76ee13451c51b
6493 F20101113_AAAIFW bittson_g_Page_38thm.jpg
f84c70da82bc13ae4e95253c44e08c95
5a1ea883d63eed6eb031f7e11e067c5e7b57660e
2023 F20101113_AAAIPQ bittson_g_Page_38.txt
5745c0896db6ea1b951687de6743a370
05a4577b8db2add1999da2c491365ed7f30b6ebd
88036 F20101113_AAAIKU bittson_g_Page_40.jp2
501b7caef082da792c5f7df8bab2212a
42f6e36619d8082080a6383880def5c75a45be8f
6898 F20101113_AAAIFX bittson_g_Page_36thm.jpg
d2331d8addcade8daa72c4dde85bb3c3
c270aa1ec2c37673b1dcc1af060469a91557f0d5
1548 F20101113_AAAIPR bittson_g_Page_39.txt
42a53aae03f558394a42341d5bd242dc
2e364b4fb180b4a1f955a53e380ab43de183839c
77610 F20101113_AAAIKV bittson_g_Page_41.jp2
43c7debcdae5391d91942c670997d881
a9972a7e85d43792689a2644c221cbad0c537093
74506 F20101113_AAAIFY bittson_g_Page_16.jpg
907c19349e0a0af74f67e9e96e86753e
40ef636dda7bd3095c372648ad4e66f7bb916b3e
1670 F20101113_AAAIPS bittson_g_Page_40.txt
35e98a06c9279db5765056f0d102c558
338318e838199e2a497aafb0daf12e9257f83b36
118249 F20101113_AAAIKW bittson_g_Page_43.jp2
07de18f303bf76c4f37e82fd9f7b5f2f
8d458b3262d2714cdec019d6694c3f84fe9f9b63
F20101113_AAAIFZ bittson_g_Page_38.tif
561ba7354077a7a391bda2cca6518ec2
c835e74d6be767edcc9c9889dc462e05969ea028
2068 F20101113_AAAIPT bittson_g_Page_42.txt
b0feda594a69b861005c826fed0bf536
1d7142e697ae0fe4c46e7f422f98fa9824f90129
66232 F20101113_AAAIKX bittson_g_Page_44.jp2
7f3056cd50940c34063651edaee53655
e72596367bc4d52ae7800be4514eabf3fa2a91f3
2250 F20101113_AAAIPU bittson_g_Page_43.txt
add9bec559b0e4ff3ddbfe01091cf12a
49678e90a8579e2ebd1e67b38a9b293c5e816077
1266 F20101113_AAAIPV bittson_g_Page_44.txt
826c6264b05c76f78e34093da04bbea1
69a4f75664cb55036c09dfa8bc3f35ae6c741831
22735 F20101113_AAAIIA bittson_g_Page_04.jpg
7d980cb69aa78a39b9623b435dced1fb
9bec08abf9328cbcfe3fc0ca007c804c4090fd02
114369 F20101113_AAAIKY bittson_g_Page_45.jp2
721ccd725f0531119c321a6f0096c8e7
a97f31bce2f00dcbbab6fac0066bf84752917f57
2203 F20101113_AAAIPW bittson_g_Page_45.txt
ae6f9cdac3a00ce439f83edff1b021bc
a509b961a90a62cf5c3a6010f0810445e6be218c
26148 F20101113_AAAIIB bittson_g_Page_06.jpg
d5164a81857cbe437b749fee0c8621db
3d84476eb20828cebb94c3886da123a7c0dfa18c
110149 F20101113_AAAIKZ bittson_g_Page_46.jp2
8affaaa935947f4aa04b996d1c63b185
023205e8005d3ec11de1c2eaa70992b4969dc0a5
2143 F20101113_AAAIPX bittson_g_Page_47.txt
c70c5deb476bb34bbda4235a9d83ab3f
2978404700bbf43e36d079b6ea6f60c02821e99c
34614 F20101113_AAAIIC bittson_g_Page_07.jpg
4ac6cf17de0fafd773a85cb5595d8a6e
28fa9ca113a0ef27f1acd0dde6d11e8aff7552ed
28709 F20101113_AAAINA bittson_g_Page_11.pro
6b34ebce80a8c2c445ec08d9d2206aed
a81f86600f5c0af213760e4f8f5283eb505a59da
753 F20101113_AAAIPY bittson_g_Page_48.txt
f0694249eba67caa6a3673bb35104849
c29abf4d4e1283c984f4c6319434280f685b7b95
64508 F20101113_AAAIID bittson_g_Page_08.jpg
5d7b3146000eb656f7ffcaedabbaa901
a4776bdc0ed258604a914e6b5df02167f19e2f7c
48798 F20101113_AAAINB bittson_g_Page_12.pro
d1e81c92c27663b184d97f10032b4098
03eb9aaf80162465e65af3463d0920b9aaf28074
2216 F20101113_AAAIPZ bittson_g_Page_50.txt
5ef45e203fc84eeab53c52b6c78e882c
41533956c38075b72674997aba5f5b0bafb60818
73425 F20101113_AAAIIE bittson_g_Page_10.jpg
4e9003b4947ca3d117c07dc1662ddc10
8d8e27814d84c0531ad370d2221cd9245f477095
54743 F20101113_AAAINC bittson_g_Page_13.pro
058d721e3d67e7dca04b94b0224d2d83
d535df63f97794d3beece6ed798ee3cf1d34d524
44515 F20101113_AAAIIF bittson_g_Page_11.jpg
8b4a730a0ebfcedc27ebe7c1221b9503
983f72b58b423ae56c73b4201c8df30f910ff31c
52255 F20101113_AAAIND bittson_g_Page_14.pro
e1dee85461ec03b91ccc8a02a036b138
f7feb4ad78a1e2b5672d8f11a224f6795ddbb57e
7110 F20101113_AAAISA bittson_g_Page_29thm.jpg
91f415466fd79d59efd2e8cf543d8419
1d2123fe602d55641a0697ccd92d48fc565320f2
47007 F20101113_AAAINE bittson_g_Page_15.pro
6e2c0f288e5e1865b3575f6edd7a2f25
26964eaf2ca0856dd5951d76b87e014d833279f2
77990 F20101113_AAAIIG bittson_g_Page_13.jpg
dd1c4787ba9247a5dabd867f39f52a75
d572304bacfde8bccefab317ed7ac868570093ec
23450 F20101113_AAAISB bittson_g_Page_30.QC.jpg
65564ab5c1b5abd20524811dc7dab528
6434e9b23aa7b45185727f42de78970ab52235cf
50788 F20101113_AAAINF bittson_g_Page_16.pro
3f6cfbb938890abb85a2708eaf0ce378
3c349777541f58c004bcd520ad1a8fdc0ec4867a
75723 F20101113_AAAIIH bittson_g_Page_14.jpg
d9c9fc656b350ab6fbce2f53ecca7da3
c23a42187c467f6017a7c1511921de28d0e6aeef
6757 F20101113_AAAISC bittson_g_Page_30thm.jpg
961e85a1b157be729a88d735881e6b78
50e539eba6d968cb42b2b3bdd2171bb52b898a79
52442 F20101113_AAAING bittson_g_Page_17.pro
ba934f2cbb653ebcaf39d0ce675bbfae
21b32a31d5198225905f5af3bb28ac9f27fddfb8
67941 F20101113_AAAIII bittson_g_Page_15.jpg
cdd8164b4df0efc6ca10f1eb4a698243
53f94e4c025a94823102eea7a7bd3119bf4b51b1
23747 F20101113_AAAISD bittson_g_Page_31.QC.jpg
1a7976b853cec640fd6cf7d2b7ff6b37
aea4eadc963cfa041e706b8dfb186375f6ea50a7
50706 F20101113_AAAINH bittson_g_Page_18.pro
b0228a8904f3ed9f53d4dea4c3f7381a
8e964a10bde18af65ae6c076ef89729b3edf0d3f
73184 F20101113_AAAIIJ bittson_g_Page_17.jpg
e8f86b32631fd4a08e97163eb2698b93
cc9427e1684e84587c0d68882b354a45ce2ae452
22843 F20101113_AAAISE bittson_g_Page_32.QC.jpg
404e094beff34ebebf21c229cb939cca
bd6917e7a0b768b093ebce8eba087f95707bfa02
49251 F20101113_AAAINI bittson_g_Page_19.pro
b25676a6af59295957b164fbd260dde4
1ea13221342dc82279266afb4425363d088b6c16
73433 F20101113_AAAIIK bittson_g_Page_18.jpg
4c5b86c8d40b1f10c1d78a9d3118d962
73e9d39afe3ec195c2f8a87d55463ac1a482b4ef
6581 F20101113_AAAISF bittson_g_Page_32thm.jpg
725ddd7f5dbe57b223abaf5f3660bf98
6effbd87526ee8c678e0934da512c5d6ab6673fd
49644 F20101113_AAAINJ bittson_g_Page_22.pro
165bd6c5ec1bbda9c052ea043cb4502f
1ba01ebf2d89399a377685745ab80ee8f8f5e3f7
70939 F20101113_AAAIIL bittson_g_Page_19.jpg
60488a1a03f299974c2c09d7ea00f439
3b84e2c8c320207990c23ac23f9d486212929de3
22492 F20101113_AAAISG bittson_g_Page_33.QC.jpg
1ff07576f2884eb772255bb2eb5e7d50
36cb6d7985707bd7b257275e5288d524a008c889
26968 F20101113_AAAINK bittson_g_Page_23.pro
0c1f899fd705ceb382352e9c88181243
89a7e394c4e006d22708d0d93dbb013791fd22c0
73777 F20101113_AAAIIM bittson_g_Page_20.jpg
59d34fed2d9f932ca2d4d42329814ec3
5d0fc9151f71ea1da6ee3be0aaf42583a26f0414
22918 F20101113_AAAISH bittson_g_Page_34.QC.jpg
6ecf87582ac765a42134ce4ecbbe56db
b316070771c3f033df5f51b6178931bf1a770860
77019 F20101113_AAAIIN bittson_g_Page_21.jpg
7e8b8f7a79fca65b97739e07dc888815
3ca6cabcd355efa3a83497f4fafb9cfbb2ef08b2
6213 F20101113_AAAISI bittson_g_Page_34thm.jpg
b27d8d9d8aaeb602eb6b9d52fef4e389
fa0514f652169f68b88daeaea81ec923fc544edf
41862 F20101113_AAAINL bittson_g_Page_24.pro
5c8f2de49425659aac27a39cae37a515
10a11e3c9efb7f9af543dc0c5c2c2dac3f552fdc
71435 F20101113_AAAIIO bittson_g_Page_22.jpg
2248fbc8f8216a4a31d5a8cf3993f59f
597f2afee9bc4bcc712f990b75fd7ecfc7898239
24438 F20101113_AAAISJ bittson_g_Page_36.QC.jpg
69463e802b9b477f2044101a63a1391e
5fb9f4efe97f02484bd27817ff7d1d9b6c1a4a9a
41520 F20101113_AAAINM bittson_g_Page_26.pro
93a783d5a94289261144cd2cc3e18092
09bc642d7c4bdf3163d2e82a2978a8fcb247be93
43580 F20101113_AAAIIP bittson_g_Page_23.jpg
0017ec6d5748bd0e0a34a9b06971731c
79d036dcc6a8d473ddc823bcbb8291dacca72417
21975 F20101113_AAAISK bittson_g_Page_37.QC.jpg
b8830e42700a7a99465da51c87465b9a
e15131f9203b1bbe62d3777bee5c1725dd19d99a
54338 F20101113_AAAINN bittson_g_Page_28.pro
a089d2326c14c6eebc01cb29fd7aa3af
f9660f114de33a373ab253f855aa256f142cc844
61959 F20101113_AAAIIQ bittson_g_Page_24.jpg
8f26e94bb94457d1d8c2fe3abed3bea9
af65be5b1efff96ed27a46dbb41a229f29df9a75
23184 F20101113_AAAISL bittson_g_Page_38.QC.jpg
1ce05607328098761221df58f06c0e14
d6260ca41e96db4fc9c123b45a863aa00f063ab6
55760 F20101113_AAAINO bittson_g_Page_29.pro
98b582ececac139e07e1c005bcd28363
252b8d19c02ed8e90c71797ddbdf2fb745e0ac47
72278 F20101113_AAAIIR bittson_g_Page_25.jpg
091e08d3339a3715ec9a8166dfde0f09
35e80b8b653753679ad13b7d4f6e95ebd05309b6
17880 F20101113_AAAISM bittson_g_Page_39.QC.jpg
3d05596cecaeb6d2d459d70e1985b434
12996f54d410bdf30eb1534d6ca0b516cb9b0556
50174 F20101113_AAAINP bittson_g_Page_30.pro
79eabc0791f2d0f7d9d3582009832daa
5b31e96d98b87d206651d0b8a2eb38bfa2c0019a
60302 F20101113_AAAIIS bittson_g_Page_26.jpg
7727c931af68dd19a955b7bfffc6b6cd
3d5abfe889a927920257402acab239d51819989e
19858 F20101113_AAAISN bittson_g_Page_40.QC.jpg
9b9fc94a6c821c0ccb9b65c57d1536b4
5fa30e8793e58b2372db0233f931fedf470bdc62
91563 F20101113_AAAIDV bittson_g_Page_26.jp2
e33769b90bcb504b20a39c1d77908edb
023e2a996dfd21c85997ae30cb8dc66cf3c5c5dd
48833 F20101113_AAAINQ bittson_g_Page_32.pro
6d57beaf167ecd92c5f00d6d9a80ef21
efa69d9d56b6449ba2e2ccdddcce45311c89b15c
76733 F20101113_AAAIIT bittson_g_Page_28.jpg
71bc5aeb4c7e8de61738edb1c63484fa
a65436900029bcacd6493eaf967ce8ee5f24c6b1
5510 F20101113_AAAISO bittson_g_Page_40thm.jpg
b07b1d801602b3e51cc0b13198a09ce5
c9c0a088b394392fd08a0cbd941a9effd4e31ae9
1986 F20101113_AAAIDW bittson_g_Page_30.txt
258f06b9f34e7c68138650c5d83809d5
578153490f837ba2978018fd19bc694d40bbe2cc
46797 F20101113_AAAINR bittson_g_Page_33.pro
e877506c1ddf81496669790e220391c7
1ea0d9653963971e7f9ac8d63b55b335057d7d7f
77157 F20101113_AAAIIU bittson_g_Page_29.jpg
0d707d0806e16a8be545c3ff444405fd
923aa3b084eebb7a128ac1c834868e5c5a537f3c
5476 F20101113_AAAISP bittson_g_Page_41thm.jpg
9321f948aca1ea005ae6d57bc7fe496e
62973edf38fa242a710b1cd45ed826f958cc8918
F20101113_AAAIDX bittson_g_Page_35.tif
0119570924e5b08e7514ca15d2fa4a77
69e45253bfa657aa65863ef8d56f0dd582da1107
45628 F20101113_AAAINS bittson_g_Page_35.pro
32967ba99ca338dcf8766adf9ac241f4
40cd359c2f69f4a839fb8810c204fef86fb3cc61
71891 F20101113_AAAIIV bittson_g_Page_30.jpg
f086e65f43b90ed0b76aa6bde3ecc7c0
37ec7db47dedf60cbbcb463095d87dcc743f359b
56045 F20101113_AAAIDY bittson_g_Page_43.pro
fa052bd56027da1d68f8508f16b9d1ff
42ba1b8aac6b4ba66e5ab4c6ac3d62a2975cbead
52574 F20101113_AAAINT bittson_g_Page_36.pro
93d2b080db08cf80db812eb209ea9d39
e73d5c41aef434943334e94c8ce8eb06229e4dec
72463 F20101113_AAAIIW bittson_g_Page_31.jpg
0a558a59aa830af7c0118d6259c6d89e
c92e89ce138755c1494d7a464e33ce0ae117bed0
6555 F20101113_AAAISQ bittson_g_Page_42thm.jpg
0d17509f93107aaf400a51a015ec6d46
e79c9d430df5ef7643772855f355ea863d170b43
54472 F20101113_AAAIDZ bittson_g_Page_27.pro
e68b8d146da3c83e0bac0ced3041f61b
8c4353eec0337388607fdb65bcdc3693af125f24
74045 F20101113_AAAIIX bittson_g_Page_32.jpg
679df668c0cae731c946ed514fd2fb1c
dbbb2bce865373c5c1ea7badfeaa8cb191934180
25125 F20101113_AAAISR bittson_g_Page_43.QC.jpg
e5cd2e1ae8d322b20a005ef4b92954cf
d201a432f2a8e54e7c9e2e597c2b1cb9b2881ab8
46335 F20101113_AAAINU bittson_g_Page_37.pro
5c4c136cee0c84ad83929d2880eeaac7
da7c614a3d0de3960f1e3c566e841358a41edb63
1952 F20101113_AAAIGA bittson_g_Page_19.txt
ff1f8e7d8f3795de2be85e69f5546f26
efaf28af1fb039443e0556915ba0de70cc838b23
70978 F20101113_AAAIIY bittson_g_Page_35.jpg
36e39999ab505cda2552cbedb02b4e40
3125216914c4dc4109563f5f2f6cc9ddb5b0cf77
6933 F20101113_AAAISS bittson_g_Page_43thm.jpg
fe7599853573c83838ec54aee6a9019d
1a3a7aab128d4d2c4c07b79ba37f4dadc0930802
50677 F20101113_AAAINV bittson_g_Page_38.pro
6b3b1f581004817823a4f3f37f5bc587
4d9db91bb2f4c41afbbda559e55ce7092afe6449
101450 F20101113_AAAIGB bittson_g_Page_35.jp2
220a59cc1247b8bee45f49bc61ae770a
716a9dbbdb9ac830b3f639bcde41ab7bd86e3189
74671 F20101113_AAAIIZ bittson_g_Page_36.jpg
00f1204b38dfc906b44a3fa459a0a540
46a74cb3a99bbf4bc200be5d4e8048475b8d59cf
15863 F20101113_AAAIST bittson_g_Page_44.QC.jpg
b51b78a067a28e14cabf1448ec622c80
a9cb4e3a953d73cc8adb77226af985bed22e1b59
36549 F20101113_AAAINW bittson_g_Page_39.pro
ab2f0f5bf511802544937a11dc1547f5
f1d86444968aaac975d75ac5cbfa010ce943186e
F20101113_AAAIGC bittson_g_Page_06.tif
d927821cd645351bef1ccf859fe107ab
e313cb237362883169de31cfc2697c1f59f07366
4516 F20101113_AAAISU bittson_g_Page_44thm.jpg
42a014d3f03f2c026a5221cc940bfc66
f4234b5763d4d71b63dfc9a92caf76043434c3e7
41903 F20101113_AAAINX bittson_g_Page_40.pro
bb4b36d5af8b4fdc9061b2f57203776a
00e4cae493a55004564c3a380ae80b0a9c155b66
3996 F20101113_AAAIGD bittson_g_Page_23thm.jpg
51a2f6a959e3bafb502258bec3011d91
d6f75a42d25bc0ab9b47af394940b64b875f5850
24699 F20101113_AAAISV bittson_g_Page_45.QC.jpg
34c725131aaaa9ed111a5c077e731ce8
ba142b43788b86b8b5366926ea49771260ac1133
43529 F20101113_AAAILA bittson_g_Page_48.jp2
5e651f3901b10c2f63a2c8a015a08ce9
95009d5ef096648b067d567672df8b82e3c52f83
36225 F20101113_AAAINY bittson_g_Page_41.pro
b09dbd21b5b48ac0b48d1f2169c93910
7000126c5ab966645c70400b7fa0883ccc30e165
6865 F20101113_AAAISW bittson_g_Page_45thm.jpg
92377c78925d9562bb883663cb79aeb3
ba207d2e8ccf3ec7bed82558920cb2290673cd72
49784 F20101113_AAAILB bittson_g_Page_49.jp2
88df9e9f36f26d598f61c8ec72a7230f
0512885757d382d4c0531cafad763ae29a2a0431
30224 F20101113_AAAINZ bittson_g_Page_44.pro
4e1e865c59a223abe6d18722e86fde3c
96bb4d982667786212dc963dcfc02a3b71292936
F20101113_AAAIGE bittson_g_Page_48.tif
161b50cea828a3169403011e22b05156
839cc81ef0e9086253d08bb27ae58e4222bbfc33
6731 F20101113_AAAISX bittson_g_Page_46thm.jpg
0ca0d7587b65b95bd6118e88af50558e
f342af4f13ab83a01d0cb98b4016702b95b2e753
1051981 F20101113_AAAILC bittson_g_Page_50.jp2
49b320eceb5be3443e598f74ded506fe
ae86d8b9249a32a0a6b2988886deb0b1e884b440
5866 F20101113_AAAIGF bittson_g_Page_26thm.jpg
e32092d5a2bde128d77f84323e11b489
62c7479a77a503fa5fe702ff337cefc7c9a21b00
1312 F20101113_AAAIQA bittson_g_Page_51.txt
e1d21220eaad9f22fcdc19955acb6f7d
fbec9df5b68edf86afdf47d147fcc4e9fe10d334
6859 F20101113_AAAISY bittson_g_Page_47thm.jpg
17ebf38d7999ee3f2f377820e00f97a8
de4dd01ac07b1165473569d22f0288abb1478b94
72209 F20101113_AAAILD bittson_g_Page_51.jp2
baad5d5d8d6cbd8bcc549dbb7bb68358
ed762462f2bb115ef7eb52b147012e2f8a8820b8
85737 F20101113_AAAIGG bittson_g_Page_54.jpg
39ceb9690f24d235a4118ac067232484
fa47cdcacb606d17bf523cf1f9b4a8f5b0c55fb5
1829 F20101113_AAAIQB bittson_g_Page_53.txt
6672119e3bffe5a52a6b2150a2eb292d
f674300642ae0079f50e011c7856d5983f6e7596
10648 F20101113_AAAISZ bittson_g_Page_48.QC.jpg
b1b315f32a67b07e337613abb25bd560
3c7ee8ef4c5e790132d44a3219799bd9707f9d51
26218 F20101113_AAAILE bittson_g_Page_52.jp2
9e293268d46de753f8e4f34afc0d67ae
eec5827215d911143b5b703030ee97f7e392262c
2487 F20101113_AAAIQC bittson_g_Page_54.txt
baba33fa8b5979334a7d7a6ccb11571c
8125a912630a3e32733cd7b818f0700f22e45a4e
95340 F20101113_AAAILF bittson_g_Page_53.jp2
1494c142a2072242765ef556f05a15d5
61dc4c2c51ed195798b4dc77069f0a9c1ef873f6
52275 F20101113_AAAIGH bittson_g_Page_42.pro
59c38a08821e1516a884eb842bc5d9c2
1982455e41832a3125dd9ed0a1d0672dcec0efe1
424 F20101113_AAAIQD bittson_g_Page_57.txt
0aa6fe2e23bac0eea9e89b78c2b1415d
82473c26a119fef000940d4cab1a332fd45cb760
138562 F20101113_AAAILG bittson_g_Page_55.jp2
478d3cbf3b55d081187261be092a8a6c
de237dbd29b5b1f106e9d746452a5e5cd02f22eb
25825 F20101113_AAAIGI bittson_g_Page_29.QC.jpg
4fc276771bb14bcc8f219265b7949892
eb37818c3fc3ecbe206fcebe4971197beb3935d4
475319 F20101113_AAAIQE bittson_g.pdf
b907b6bb7fd6e0e9c338a5116b4ae7c4
e887dc606274c14878e0b9d3436311dde6c91901
F20101113_AAAILH bittson_g_Page_01.tif
c9c08cd690151c1e9985a7282cd75abe
f375bb2047867867aa9bd9100b507d27e4388574
495 F20101113_AAAIGJ bittson_g_Page_52.txt
40fb753439ba80f2ba691c5d98157b5b
223a2137f8c3d62c8791d7387162c0b9eba84726
2176 F20101113_AAAIQF bittson_g_Page_01thm.jpg
42e2d783d8f626a4f07c39b0b627679c
aac690b06a4a0450d38be52457887c0181c83fd9
F20101113_AAAILI bittson_g_Page_02.tif
9369a87fd8ac0bf3a58b5303f01b5f8d
bbbc26a0b99f7dd633bd9201a4c0ac88e674c825
106807 F20101113_AAAIGK bittson_g_Page_32.jp2
1d19a30ba99e7ba0fa1bdf29abe3ee21
b8c40eaf75dd854b7c7feecd24f9bb37b997dd3d
24050 F20101113_AAAIQG bittson_g_Page_17.QC.jpg
dee050cfd83a581bd0bf5ccc08d52e63
ada1ec95fd442067bc6c130b3e6e66c24b3def6c
1964 F20101113_AAAIGL bittson_g_Page_34.txt
ade61053ba8b74cef3bdb4b2815e3a6e
e9a8116942a7f360761222de063eeeb5acca9586
24057 F20101113_AAAIQH bittson_g_Page_46.QC.jpg
38f15fead4e5e3a4b711c27fb0f5355b
40d3eb1a455c279b29cdd196cbc8d2cfc5b754cd
F20101113_AAAILJ bittson_g_Page_03.tif
6ec79410cc4f42d2d38bba4e661c5437
5e7ded37021886c6522d1c278884391e2180b8b2
2130 F20101113_AAAIGM bittson_g_Page_10.txt
7bc9b37d576543e94abdf0d1925754f6
6dee84b3f143dc89191c225bd7800cb87edc34ae
6537 F20101113_AAAIQI bittson_g_Page_15thm.jpg
26995bd87e5958b66a8702aedc69576d
81d8a1a02298f9a93febb15e3abdd1503a22f2e6
F20101113_AAAILK bittson_g_Page_04.tif
ec2240c6e51092dd9fc6a2fa8d439cb3
92c487205c7bf8391aa4d0c6dc6db1d168604baa
23171 F20101113_AAAIGN bittson_g_Page_12.QC.jpg
622dad360c055b1a1dbf62cec2fd4a29
a6cc728dd593e95e313055abf4ef39e0b18e1f8d
14669 F20101113_AAAIQJ bittson_g_Page_23.QC.jpg
7477dba239e82d97d558480bc206da01
2cc138e1666beb9a25ddca85f77c2a97095b60c7
F20101113_AAAILL bittson_g_Page_05.tif
2ecbb285e1d2a5519d8b45b59eb17862
a0ee70088a36ac8b58b40eeeea8edb010fae9422
26590 F20101113_AAAIGO bittson_g_Page_55.QC.jpg
4fe051263ee565a8ef0c3aa9f7c7dd6a
1a167a2202eb3536a025b21f09fe0e239a455cb8
24825 F20101113_AAAIQK bittson_g_Page_14.QC.jpg
45af3284f63c06577d4a7e85b90e7fb1
f5ebbdac2b894c238c81171792feeed850ee74d0
F20101113_AAAILM bittson_g_Page_07.tif
2b6822c8b46ef87c774dd9e3537ea283
81b0e6d52490188a1aa73e54525c53ad827f5ae8
109989 F20101113_AAAIGP bittson_g_Page_42.jp2
0c5d822c1005e508ccab18cc30bcda5f
a4353370f01c70f0541e3bad60276a3269599a27
7738 F20101113_AAAIQL bittson_g_Page_06.QC.jpg
8140f70e9a9a3dd23935aadd079e01af
e774ac4e8a0989478cdda117361a8108814d02fa
F20101113_AAAILN bittson_g_Page_08.tif
294ae19380949e8bff58006d5cffdf00
9e666b5ee22e5cdca70d2e3b98582b7e123550aa
24613 F20101113_AAAIGQ bittson_g_Page_57.jp2
5062c2e057aeaecc369749b78b51ee09
a78df19d0133c5abc77753add9f1fb7ef6884384
3336 F20101113_AAAIQM bittson_g_Page_48thm.jpg
2e1972ce9bf2c968d554381aa8494285
78141109043ded68c95796bb4dc1a420b15893a4
F20101113_AAAILO bittson_g_Page_10.tif
3ee549f180572ce3ceb2a696625ba780
46246933b71108db33b0d05ec2412d1b6331ba8b
53258 F20101113_AAAIGR bittson_g_Page_09.jpg
e760a5ce470b49a36f277774c01df7c1
d172a50cfec081b730ed4a0edbd955f6487c32e5
25486 F20101113_AAAIQN bittson_g_Page_21.QC.jpg
6ddec77eca1e06b33b51e01a20f16bd2
c8b9746cd204158d371091df0a2cf5a6e6aa6ee2
F20101113_AAAILP bittson_g_Page_11.tif
7c16e863d20b8f45b0f9e5ab6369562c
ff188c099a3d340289a084826067875bf5b8d42f
24657 F20101113_AAAIGS bittson_g_Page_42.QC.jpg
f2ed4ba8c2c3f8e833528c7e91666beb
2bb716e23dca37c8528885228ebe092e6f3f888b
F20101113_AAAILQ bittson_g_Page_12.tif
6f1f8dac2059c5962a0e7b299b72bdcd
1eb7ddb5ee15d97c23a4bfecb816a28c9b4f9c5d
18722 F20101113_AAAIGT bittson_g_Page_53.QC.jpg
65ac176edd2a0ad0ca1d3ccd1478206e
6e5c22e8b7885907659f1bc4fa4858c67aac05f4
2833 F20101113_AAAIQO bittson_g_Page_07thm.jpg
dd62b03e89d3d71c2fcec57670625f5e
b259a128a5db69f709b1dbe160dd648711a7e813
F20101113_AAAILR bittson_g_Page_15.tif
10638f966af8cc89306c7bb45c53778a
26f7d5892276c7758cd21cb6464bc287629da711
F20101113_AAAIGU bittson_g_Page_49.tif
5cbe602ac164b37032036fc8b594d2d3
09f2f076d8de4416af52e28975b20bbd8d241415
6486 F20101113_AAAIQP bittson_g_Page_16thm.jpg
116958eb36bc57925b4dfe333a2b2482
7eda033a5fe92c96207b3a905c5d64d50d7eddd1
F20101113_AAAILS bittson_g_Page_18.tif
5457499939e649bd85a0eac0dc1926af
ccec84890861ee21b836521bd27ffeae5e08ab45
78485 F20101113_AAAIGV bittson_g_Page_05.jpg
f63dfa9716538dfde8f2febb4c0912de
565214abcd422ed6d71f77b2b5675c290825b8a8
F20101113_AAAILT bittson_g_Page_20.tif
868085a9a960aa1b024780e2553c1163
bcfb2abbc82ed3985ba96ace918b75397f33d44c
6604 F20101113_AAAIGW bittson_g_Page_01.QC.jpg
89799a32d32a54eaaed4714ffde2355c
245a5c2f508cc198139bef12acac92c92ca81b35
25282 F20101113_AAAIQQ bittson_g_Page_47.QC.jpg
0849f5b0c9d2e7c10d98ef0887b5fd5b
ed1dc0e6c35df5f9c077613a9ad66015acb7f32f
F20101113_AAAILU bittson_g_Page_21.tif
178e75cda521757e013a29e328b0f1a4
9ff43a71a0a9f5086571bfbb1bea6173b9eee0f9
55006 F20101113_AAAIGX bittson_g_Page_21.pro
e7c6e86891a558d2ed23d6940e73c89a
67318760ac68b39b819f682994960618d4803ef7
19115 F20101113_AAAIQR bittson_g_Page_24.QC.jpg
bb0fda57a5685a50cb0a1764dbadbf84
fdd0f748a8b4082d130c0fcb6f65b4cbf8e4242e
F20101113_AAAILV bittson_g_Page_24.tif
3e103823810e6a01f2a56fad3b0333db
3e8206a4865d84288e03315559bb9692ca065496
49556 F20101113_AAAIEA bittson_g_Page_34.pro
d1798a6195979499efbbdaf1ed197d20
9ebe7b6662d97c06687aa94a243a00c66e9232f3
859 F20101113_AAAIGY bittson_g_Page_49.txt
89a7c9d928457c5fdf502fb69b59623f
0efac63be49efae43ea43e98383c72a4513c072b
3182 F20101113_AAAIQS bittson_g_Page_49thm.jpg
fe070b8741feebe7acfd59821e4110cc
5af7df78aa1befb4f5e8a23908f5afe478e35404
F20101113_AAAILW bittson_g_Page_25.tif
f7afc008605effae50e5326dcf227f6e
8d2e5b903e18e170ab08a30bdde34854484da417
114776 F20101113_AAAIEB bittson_g_Page_14.jp2
8db56a4fb7152b4bbea24c346d2fbfa4
dd2ba66c1082b90eebe7f4907438ad1fdee7eef5
F20101113_AAAIGZ bittson_g_Page_17.tif
2e82748e3cb7fe4dc3612b6010877d58
9304bb82328b62f852ec6f0286da1891cb06402b
6253 F20101113_AAAIQT bittson_g_Page_37thm.jpg
451345d527f08138685995bcd6142076
2405a803905cab79769697f1f73f04427383b17a
F20101113_AAAILX bittson_g_Page_26.tif
018193865bfc4caf13fc5588c6ad8850
d0e31925ba061768cbff135bd553ff7d008ab782
1336 F20101113_AAAIQU bittson_g_Page_02thm.jpg
b805c54116c31803361bdba0db19970a
74b570d1d8d116033298ab3ea4a8a4d7b6f95562
69536 F20101113_AAAIJA bittson_g_Page_37.jpg
3d0a6462adbc09e325a4291b2dce7757
2c40c51ab9c0b3d11c14ae37b2ed8d694c04cd84
F20101113_AAAILY bittson_g_Page_27.tif
669ae26cf9bc962b7682bfc870aa582b
31181622c80b13dba37161d1963b3e090ea2d57b
908 F20101113_AAAIEC bittson_g_Page_02.pro
ebe2072ecb14b780798a603f3c1faf33
146f80c17d74afb7f3fe648c9e9cc2b77115a88f
F20101113_AAAIQV bittson_g_Page_20.QC.jpg
1ec33082adee66bf7246d47a14971189
075685e01862b89e9cade42753f155ffb4947b62
72866 F20101113_AAAIJB bittson_g_Page_38.jpg
b30f7e3a1ffecec9722d4ddf8460e576
332b0820bbdfc95cfeec8fff44e441e00ea927d9
F20101113_AAAILZ bittson_g_Page_28.tif
c4e2ef492af7158ffd7c249fc8317341
13289132c8016c3a6bd3e94d079852e49a93b539
F20101113_AAAIED bittson_g_Page_13.tif
731fe60fe769ca439f3c528779b49cbc
3231f8ca202d341d8a6ab433cc8235aec70ac4c1
6567 F20101113_AAAIQW bittson_g_Page_14thm.jpg
076c67841005028863c5a9c1802d9dd6
d3a1fdd708f8e0f63f15b60734d62af607d294bf
55623 F20101113_AAAIJC bittson_g_Page_39.jpg
24708d9fe44895ddf645e89ebc2ac9d0
101f7cf36a0b50471632f1efd5e378c9c528dde9
6825 F20101113_AAAIEE bittson_g_Page_27thm.jpg
c22b30662fac42ab044b41d64bebcbe8
9165e07e05f46d4c1cb702b3c458179f20e7c24e
6578 F20101113_AAAIQX bittson_g_Page_22thm.jpg
87172d288b3baad92f45bd62c581f228
dd2201efbb89afbccce4bf04774fca03fd250c4e