Zürcher Hochschule Winterthur Departement Angewandte Linguistik und Kulturwissenschaften Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen Diplomarbeit DIFFERENCES IN THE SPEECH OF MEN AND WOMEN.
LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE OF GENDER: THE
GERMAN SUBTITLING OF GENDER-SPECIFIC ENGLISH IN THE
Theoriearbeit ABSTRACT
Gender linguistics studies the way men and women speak or are spoken about. Because of
its derivation from general linguistic gender conventions, the speech of the homosexual
community has often been the subject of (socio-)linguistic study. Transvestites, and in
particular drag kings and queens, can be considered part of that community. When
constructing and performing their gender and sexual identity, they draw on the
conventions of the linguistic behavior of men and women in their society. The speech of
four protagonists from the documentary Venus Boyz is analyzed in terms of the gender
identity created and performed through language on the basis of conventional male and
female language features established in previous research. Such features are then tested for
their validity and relevance in gender construction and performance. The analysis is
conducted on oral English source-language texts and also covers their translation into
German subtitles in order to explore the translatability of gendered language in this
language pair under the formal constraints of the genre.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………….……….ii
CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………….iii
INTRODUCTION ………………………………….…………………………1
BACKGROUND ………………………………….………………………….4
2.1 (Fe)male Speech Features ………………………….…………………………5
2.2 Three Ways of Interpreting the Differences …………………….…………….7
2.3 Revealing Gender: A Brief Case Study ………………………….………….10
2.4 Reversed Roles ………………………………………………….………….12
2.4.1 Drag …………………………………………………….………….13
………………………………………………….……………15
2.4.2.1 History of Camp ……………….……………………….17
2.5 Performing Gender …………………………………….……………………18
2.6 Universal (Western) Gender? ……………………….………………………19
DATA & METHOD …………………………….………………………….21
3.1 Data ………………………………………………………….………………21
3.2 Method …………………………………………………….……………….23
3.3 Note on the Subtitling and Translation of Gendered Language …….……….25
RESULTS ………………………………………………………………….28
4.1 Anonymous ………………………………………………………….………28
4.2 Shelly Mars – Damian Corson ……………………………………………….30
4.3 Zanthony Preston – Queen Bee Luscious ………………………….……….32
4.4 Mildred Gérestant – Dréd Gérestant …………………….………………….36
DISCUSSION ………………………………………….……………………45
CONCLUSION……………………………………….…………………….49
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….51
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………54
1 INTRODUCTION
Gender linguistics is concerned with various aspects of the representation of gender in
language. They can be divided into two categories: How the genders speak (or write), and
how they are spoken (or written) about. Karin M. Eichhoff-Cyrus, editor of a volume on
gender linguistics published by DUDEN, expresses the importance of the subject as
follows: “[…] Sprache spiegelt nicht nur Realität, sie schafft auch Realität” (Eichhoff-
Cyrus, 2004: 7): Language not only reflects reality, it also creates reality. This dissertation
will deal with how the genders express themselves in spoken language.
How the genders are spoken (or written) about usually involves a feminist agenda and
applies to women’s representation in language, which has become an important political
issue. To be politically correct, the once sex-indefinite pronoun “he” is being substituted
with “he or she” (Bondine, 1990), and gender-specific nouns for professions are created or
reinforced (for example, actor/actress). The representation of the genders in fiction also
falls into the category of how the genders are represented in language. Considering how
the genders express themselves, Dale Spender addresses the issue of men being the ones
“who have made the world which women must inhabit” (Spender, 1990: 93). This created
world refers to the world of words, the world as it was named with language, and thus the
instrument determining “the limits of our world, which constructs our reality” (Spender,
1980: 94). Such restrictive language forces women into a system of personal expression
that is not necessarily true to their nature, something that has been addressed not only by
linguists, but, for example, as early as the first half of the 20th century by the writer
Virginia Woolf in Women and Fiction (Woolf, 1990: 47-53) or in The Angel in the House
(Woolf, 2004: 185-190). In these articles, Woolf addresses the struggle women writers
experience because they are limited by the conventions of writing that have been created
by minds of men. In the first instance, this is “the very form of the sentence [that] does not
fit her. It is a sentence made by men; it is too loose, too heavy, too pompous for a
woman’s use” (Woolf, 1990: 50); but Woolf also felt restricted in her writing by what she
called “ghosts” or “phantoms” (Woolf, 1942: 189), which were what she felt to be
controlling instance in her own head that would judge her own writing by male standards
(Woolf, 1942: 187-189). She felt that to write freely and according to their female nature,
women would have to learn to break out of the role society expected of them. To a similar
degree, gender issues are confronted with the problem of existing gender stereotypes and
clichés in society. Hence, a society’s ideology of gender may stand as the common
denominator connecting the various issues.
However, this dissertation will not address any specific agenda, political or otherwise.
Neither the representation of the genders in language nor the expression of the genders in
fictional or any other written form are its focal point. The only exception will be the
example of an e-mail interaction, analyzed because that particular piece of text is not
constrained by the formality or norms of writing but is comparable to spoken discourse.
Instead, this undergraduate dissertation is concerned with one aspect of gender linguistics:
The verbal behavior of men and women, a field of study of inherited and learned language
patterns in human minds. Noam Chomsky assumes that all people have a basic sense of
language, or rather of grammar, in them: Generative grammar (Chomsky: 1966). Is it
possible that we also have a pattern of language usage engraved in us, depending on
This dissertation considers in particular the oral expression of the genders. How do the
genders talk and how do people create and perform gender with language? When men and
women talk, their utterances differ in terms of semantics, syntax, and implicatures. It is
possible that the differences in speech behavior are perceived to be much stronger than
they actually are. Therefore, alongside natural gender differences in speech, stereotypes
also serve to create and perform gender.
After considering gender-based differences in speech in general, this undergraduate
dissertation investigates how transvestites (drag kings and queens in particular) make use
of those perceived differences to recreate the opposite gender through their speech. Does
the use of their language contribute to their credibility as exponents of the other gender?
What actual features of language are used because they are specific to one gender or the
other, or because they seem to be stereotypically male or female? The data for the analysis
of gendered speech in this dissertation is taken from the documentary Venus Boyz (2001).
In Venus Boyz, directed by the Swiss filmmaker Gabriel Baur, “[w]omen become men-
some for a night, others for their whole lives” (Baur: www.venusboyz.net). The selected
sequences for analysis do not feature exclusively individuals seeking to perform the
opposite gender but also individuals representing a shade of gender other than male or
female. This selection was made to investigate how the norms of gender (= man and
woman) and also such shades of gender are created and performed.
This dissertation also addresses the question of whether gendered language is universal or
not. The subjects of study are native English speakers, and most research on gendered
linguistic behavior has been formulated for speakers of the English language. For
translational purposes, however, it is important to know if gendered speech differs in
different languages, and if so, how it operates in other languages. The DVD of the
documentary Venus Boyz contains the option for German subtitles. After the linguistic
strategies used by the transvestites have been looked at in the original language, the
translation of these strategies in the form of the German subtitles is analyzed as well. In
this case, not only the transfer of the language, but also transfer of the media from oral text
to a condensed version of written text is analyzed for its effect on the outcome of the
The following chapter will discuss the background to gender linguistics, in particular the
research that has been done on the different speech behavior of men and women. After
some features of gendered language are established, a brief case study testing the accuracy
of these features is conducted. To narrow the focus to the socio-linguistic group of drag
kings and queens, the terms “drag” will be explained, and also the term “camp,” which is
associated with the language used by that group. The third chapter will introduce the
subjects of research of this dissertation (the protagonists in the documentary Venus Boyz
whose language will be analyzed) and describe the method of analysis. The fourth chapter
contains the analysis, in terms of gendered language, of the speech of the people
introduced in the previous chapter. The English original version as well as the German
subtitles are analyzed to determine if and to what extent they make use of the gender
features indicated in chapter 2, and what notion of gender is created by the use of such
2 BACKGROUND
The Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1960s started to sensitivize people in the
Western world to the disadvantageous position women held in society, professionally,
politically, culturally and socially. Linguistics was no exception and only with the rise of
feminist studies did the field of gender linguistics emerge as a serious discipline. When
women started to define themselves as a political group, they became one whose linguistic
behavior was the focus of analytical interest, and linguists started to pay more attention to
the differences in the way the genders use language (Trömmel-Plötz, 1997: 236).
Feminists saw the origin of female powerlessness in the way we speak. They believed that
language presented them in a way creating inferiority, and women’s use of language itself
When the subject of study is one the linguist is personally affected by or has her own
agenda for, the danger of personal interests confusing an objective view cannot be
excluded. A feminist linguist may be biased when interpreting gendered language and may
conceive of it either as more or less gendered than it actually is. Robin Lakoff, for
example, did not base her findings on empirical research, but on introspection:
introspection in a world with what she perceived to be an existing power imbalance
Gender linguistics has reached a broad audience through popular titles such as Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships (1992) by John Gray, or Jennifer Coate’s
Woman Talk (1996) and Men Talk (2003). These topics focus mainly on the failure of
communication between men and women due to their different styles of communication.
The more scientific research on how the genders talk and differ in their discourse analyzes
the forms of speech, topics, intonation or grammatical features which make the language
of men and women distinct. Examples of this would be Robin Lakoff (2004), Senta
Trömmel-Plötz (1997), or Anthony Mulac (1999).
2.1 (Fe)male Speech Features
One of the earliest linguists to examine gendered ways of speaking was the Dane Otto
Jespersen, in his article The Woman (1990). His analysis dates from 1925 and is therefore
to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, it serves as a useful starting point in this
exploration of the study of gendered language and its ideologies, and to a certain degree
anticipates Cameron’s deficit framework (Cameron, 1990: 14; see 2.2 below).
According to Jespersen, women’s speech is clearly deficient to men’s (Jespersen, 1990:
234-240). Reasons for this value judgment could be that there was no adequate record of
the speech of both genders produced in comparable situations or that his analysis is the
result of pre-conceived stereotypes. What is clear, however, is that Jespersen’s article is
extremely judgmental and it has been cited by many feminists to cover “a whole tradition
of patronizing and sexist commentary by male linguists before feminism” (Cameron,
50 years later, Robin Lakoff established a set of gender features that seems to be a
confirmation of an existing power imbalance reflected in linguistic expression (Lakoff,
2004). Although counting as one of the first – if not the first – contribution to feminist
linguistics, some of Jespersen’s sexist assumptions are carried over into her work.
Lakoff’s data does not originate in empirical research, but is based on observations and
introspection and thus does not necessarily reflect the reality of the (fe)male speech
community. Especially her lexical gender markers lack accuracy and stand as mere
stereotypes, possibly rooted in women’s socialized role from the past. She claims, for
example, that women use weaker and almost sweet-sounding swear words such as “oh
dear” or “goodness,” whereas men use stronger expressions such as “shit!” or “damn!”
(Braun, 2004: 13). Any person overhearing conversations of men or women in a variety of
social classes, situations and English dialects would find this very hard to accept. It seems
that such assumption can only be valid for certain social contexts. Along the same lines,
women are said to use adjectives evoking frivolity and triviality. Despite the fact that such
features fail to reflect the true nature of women’s speech, they are nonetheless a
representation of actual stereotypes based on existing ideologies of women’s speech in
Newer data based on empirical research by Anthony Mulac (1999) and others rendered
more concrete insights into gendered language. Although all features identified and
presented here are used by both men and women, there are clear differences in the
frequency of usage between the genders (Braun, 2004: 16). Firstly, women tend to use
more intensifying adverbs such as “very” or “really” (Braun, 2004: 15). Women’s
sentence structures involve the more frequent use of tag questions, questions in general,
and hedges (Braun, 2004: 15). Together with a female style of conversation that is more
polite and contains indirect orders rather than imperatives (Braun, 2004: 15), this could be
categorized as an absence of dominant behavior. Men, on the other hand, use more
directives (Braun, 2004: 15). They also behave more competitively in conversations, for
example interrupting and talking more often than their female conversational partners
(Braun, 2004: 15). By contrast, women display a more cooperative style of conversational
interactions including minimal reaction to mark interest with such devices as “yes” or
“mhm” (Braun, 2004: 15). In terms of sentence structure, women adhere more closely to
the norms of the standard language. Men, on the other hand, are seen to talk more
colloquially and make greater use of dialect. Women talk in sentences of average length,
often introducing their sentences with an adverbial clause, and their sentences contain
subordinate clauses. Men’s ways of speaking are less grammatical and more elliptic.
When it comes to the actual subject matter of the utterances men and women make,
women relate what they say to emotions and they speak more personally. Men’s speech is
less emotional and more factual, using a greater amount of locatives and terms relating to
quantity. They are also more judgmental in their utterances and relate more consistently to
themselves, something that Friederike Braun, in her article Reden Frauen anders? calls
ich-Bezüge (Braun in Duden, 2004:15), and that will from now on be referred to as I-focus
The two anthropologists Maltz and Borker have studied the interactions between children
when playing together (Maltz and Borker, 1982: 196-216). They have found that girls
learn to create and maintain relationships of closeness and equality, to criticize others in
acceptable ways, and to interpret the speech of other girls accurately (Maltz and Borker,
1982: 205), while boys learn to assert their position of dominance, to attract and maintain
an audience, and to assert themselves (Maltz and Borker, 1982: 207). Other female speech
features found by Maltz and Borker, such as females speaking more personally and using
more inclusive pronouns such as “you” and “we,” have been corroborated in the work of
2.2 Three Ways of Interpreting the Differences
Linguists agree that the way we speak is gendered, and that women and men do talk
differently from each other (see, for instance, Frederike Braun, 1997; Anja Gottburgsen,
1997; Ulrike Grässel, 1997; Robin Lakoff, 2004). The speech of men is usually considered
the norm, and women’s speech to be deviant from the norm. An example of this can be
seen in the frequently encountered stereotypical opinion that women talk a lot, but never
Linguists’ opinions differ as to the extent to which these distinctions exist. Also the
interpretations as to why the differences exist are based on widely different theories. Three
generally accepted approaches, also referred to as frameworks, have been established for
analyzing female speech; these can be explained broadly by concepts of deficit,
dominance, and difference (Cameron, 1990: 14-15).
• The “deficit framework suggests that women’s ways of speaking are, whether by
nature or nurture, deficient in comparison to men’s” (Cameron, 1990: 14). Robin
Lakoff supports this view of gendered female language. Sometimes, women who
feel that their way of speaking is deficient and that they lack something (e.g.
credibility or power) due to their language usage go to classes offering such
subjects as assertiveness training, which basically teach them to “talk like man.” In
the documentary Venus Boyz, Diane Torr teaches aspiring drag kings how to talk,
move and behave like males in order to gain respect, power and credibility. Like
the assertiveness training for women, her course confirms the notion of the deficit
framework: Women lack something that men have.
• The “dominance framework suggests that women’s ways of speaking are less the
result of their gender per se than of their subordinate position relative to men: the
key variable is power” (Cameron, 1990: 14). In this case, female speech is an
interlocutionary device signaling subordinance.
• Finally, the “difference framework suggests that women’s ways of speaking
reflect the social and linguistic norms of the specifically female subcultures in
which most of us spend our formative years” (Cameron, 1990: 14). It was the
anthropologists Maltz and Borker who originally created this framework (Maltz
and Borker, 1982: 196-216). They compared sex differences to culture differences,
and in those two “cultures,” boys and girls “learn to do different things with words
in a conversation” (Maltz and Borker, 1982: 200). Proponents of this framework
(e.g. Maltz and Borker, 1982 or Deborah Tannen, 1990) often base their research
on data from interaction between and among same sex groups only. When
criticized for ignoring the factor of dominance or power imbalance between the
sexes, they claim that this factor may exist on the locutionary level, but it is not
intended by the speaker. Knowing that their research does not consider the
interaction of mixed sex groups, it is not surprising that they do not find an
intended dominant linguistic behavior of males over females (Uchida, 1990: 285-
Sometimes it is not completely clear which of the frameworks a theory belongs to because
they may interplay and cannot be seen as totally isolated from each other (Ulchida, 1990:
289). When Shelly Mars, a protagonist from the documentary Venus Boyz, says: “So what
we do when we are in a gender is perform an already socially constructed script,” (Venus Boyz, 2001) this can justifiably be regarded as an opinion confirming the difference
framework. However, the actual performance of that socially constructed script may
indicate dominance of males over females and thus confirm the dominance framework.
The differences in speech between men and women discovered by Lakoff, such as the
“female register” marking politeness and non-assertiveness, both being an expression of a
weaker role or position compared to the male, could likewise be interpreted according to
the deficit framework or the dominance framework.
The frequent use of questions, tag questions and hedges in women’s speech is often
interpreted as insecurity, weakness or confirmation-seeking. In her article Conversational Insecurity, Pamela Fishman advocates another interpretation of those same linguistic
features (Fishman, 1990: 255-256). In the case of the questions and tag questions, she
argues that an interrogative helps to sustain a back and forth in a conversation, thus
contributing to a cooperative conversational style (Fishman, 1990: 255). She also
maintains that asking a question is a request or demand for the other to talk, and thus does
not necessarily have to be rooted in a power imbalance but stands for a “female way” of
expressing demands (Fishman, 1990: 255). Fishman (256) also considers hedging to
derive from women’s cooperative style of conversation.
’You know’ displays conversational trouble, but is often an attempt to solve the trouble as well. ‘You know’ is an attention-getting device, a way to check with one’s interactional partner to see if they are listening […].
Thus, according to her, questions, tag questions and hedges present a compensation for
men’s failure to cooperate in conversations.
Deborah Tannen presents a contradictory interpretation of the indirectness of female
speech (Tannen, 1990: 268f). She claims that being indirect does not necessarily reside in
perceived powerlessness or a lower position in hierarchy, but may be just the contrary. In
her judgment, indirectness is ambiguous and polysemous, because “indirectness […] is not
in itself a strategy of subordination. Rather, it can be used either by the powerful or the
Ali Ulchida strongly criticizes the one-sided view of many proponents of the difference
framework. However, she does not want to advocate using another approach instead. She
points out that the approaches of difference and dominance are to some extent contiguous,
and to gain a realistic insight into the reasons for differing speech behavior of men and
women, she suggests establishing a new, holistic framework to see how we “are doing
gender through use of language” (Ulchida, 1990: 289).
Ulchida also finds fault with the difference framework for ignoring the existence of other
identity markers such as race, class, age, or sexual orientation (Ulchida, 1990: 184). All
these markers may influence the linguistic behavior of people. In fact, this criticism can be
applied to all frameworks, since whenever an utterance is made it is not only made by an
individual of this or that gender, but by an individual consisting of many different identity
markers that all influence the way we speak.
As we have seen, the linguistic behavior of women in relation to that of men can be looked
at from different angles. Depending on the viewpoint, the social role of the genders varies
somewhat. Interpreting female speech with the deficit framework theory, we can see that
women are deficient in relation to men. This is, of course, the position taken by Jespersen
(1990), unconscious or otherwise (see 2.1 above). Women represent the inferior gender
which lacks something the other gender has or can do. The theory of the dominance
framework also implies that women are inferior to men, but the difference between the
two frameworks is that the dominance variant shows them not to be inferior due to
something they lack but portrays their inferiority as rooted in passive or active
subordination. The theory of the difference framework is the least judgmental. It simply
accounts for the fact that the genders do have different roles and a different status in
society, and that this variation in upbringing or training is the explanation for the
In addition to the theory of those three frameworks, other interpretations of varying speech
norms have been presented that relativize the inferiority and suppression of women
(Fishman, 1990; Tannen, 1990). Yet, whatever the roots and reasons for women talking
this way and men talking that way, their speech does vary. The following section will test
the aforementioned speech markers presented in 2.1. The interpretation of these will be
based on one, or a combination, of the three frameworks.
2.3 Revealing Gender: A Brief Case Study
In this section, a series of e-mails will be analyzed. The writer of the e-mails is Rhonda*, a
female pretending to be a male she calls Rob*. The language in the e-mails will be
examined under the aspect of the use of the gender indicators identified in section 2.1. If
they should be able to reveal the writer’s true gender, the features identified as markers of
that gender are valid. Although written text, the e-mail interaction is considered suitable
for the analysis of gender features of spoken text because, in this context, it presents a very
informal and spontaneous text similar enough to spontaneous oral discourse to be
The language of the e-mails is German (originally Swiss-German translated into German),
whereas the features established in 2.1 were mostly identified and formulated for the
English language. In applying them to the following text, we shall also be testing their
validity for the German language because the same features will be used in 4.2 as tools for
analyzing the German translation of gendered language.
Appendix A contains the full series of e-mails. In the following, certain passages revealing
the writer’s gender have been selected for use in the analysis.
* Names have been changed to preserve anonymity
Passages from e-mail written by Rhonda alias Rob:
“Hey schreib mir doch bitte zurück… bitte…”
The repetition of “bitte”is both a marker of politeness as well as a reference to the writer’s
emotions. It overtly shows the writer’s wish to receive an answer.
“endlich!!! Das hat ja jetzt aber seeeeeeeehr lange gedauert”
Here, the punctuation is a substitution for what would be stressed intonation in spoken
text. Three exclamation marks after “endlich” make it obvious that the writer is relieved
and happy to have received an answer to her mail. So again, there is an overt revelation of
emotions. The extra “e”s in the word “sehr” would also represent a stressing of the word if
articulated aloud, and therefore likewise reveal an emotional response in the writer of the
“ui”is in itself an exclamation of astonishment, most likely of an unhappy or unpleasant
nature. In any case, it indicates the writer’s emotional state.
“aber ich gönn’ dir dein glück natürlich.”
In this sentence, the writer seems more concerned about the addressee’s feelings than her
own. It displays sympathy, benevolence, and generosity. Although the addressee never
directly mentioned her happiness, the writer automatically equates her having a boyfriend
with that emotion. This shows that the writer tries to be sensitive to the addressee’s
The rest of the e-mails contain more spots of excessive punctuation and exclamation
marks that can be interpreted as unhidden emotionality. This emotionality was the main
marker to betray the writer’s gender as different from that claimed, although an absence of
sentences or phrases with I-focus also suggests that the writer is not male.
On the basis of this short analysis, the speech markers and conversational patterns
discussed in 2.1 do seem to be effective in identifying the performance and in reinforcing
its perception of gender. Although the features which revealed the gender of the writer in
this e-mail conversation are almost exclusively reduced to over-emotionality, they will be
used as the foundation for analyzing genders in the documentary Venus Boyz in chapter 4
of this dissertation. The reason for this is that the e-mail conversation is restricted to one
person and one topic, so the span of linguistic action is likely to be smaller than that of
many people expounding on multiple subjects. The features used serve as representative
samples for the whole model, and this model, with all its constituents, will be used for
2.4.Reversed Roles
The gender features we have looked at in 2.1 serve to mark a woman as female and a man
as male. In 2.3, someone trying to pass herself off as a male has been unmasked as being
of the female gender due to the presence and absence of such features. This now brings us
to the subject of research of this dissertation: the speech of the individuals portrayed in the
documentary Venus Boyz. The protagonists are drag kings and drag queens. Similar to the
writer in 2.3, they seek to believably represent the other gender. Unlike the writer in 2.3,
they do not wish to do so to deceive others but as part of a visible stage performance. They
are performing as drag kings or queens to entertain their audience. Before their speech is
analyzed, a note on what drag actually is will be included here to clarify what it is that
they want to perform as well as what effect they wish to achieve with their performance.
Chapter 2.4.2 will be devoted to camp, a constituent of drag, because “[d]rag and camp are
the most representative and widely used symbols of homosexuality in the English
speaking world” (Newton, 1979: 10), and the triangle homosexuality–drag–camp presents
an inseparable interplay. When the theory of the three frameworks was presented in 2.2,
other aspects of identity were not considered in identity construction. Homosexuality,
however, is an important constituent of identity in reference to drag or camp since it
automatically calls social gender roles into question and thus presents an important factor
2.4.1 Drag
There are differing definitions of what drag is. Most associate drag with homosexual
transvestites. Whereas between 72 and 97 percent of male transvestites in the general
population are heterosexual, drag queens are almost exclusively homosexual (Bullough &
Bullough, 1993). Drag queens are gay men dressing up and performing femininity; drag
kings are lesbians in men’s clothes. The majority of the drag scene may well be
homosexual, but there are heterosexual drag kings and queens. If the key determinant of
drag is not sexuality, it must be something else. It is hard to make clear distinctions
between, or formulate definitions for, transvestites and drag, because it is hard to
categorize individuals who are by nature of their gender identity not easily placed into
categories. The term transvestism generally applies to individuals having a desire to dress
up as the opposite sex. This desire usually occurs at an early stage in life, gradually grows
stronger, and is usually of erotic nature (Docter, 1988: 9-38). Drag, then, is a sort of
subgroup of transvestism. It also includes a desire to dress up as the opposite sex, and
although it may be exciting to the individual drag performer, there is another desired effect
to it: Drag kings and queens perform an alter ego of the opposite gender to an audience
with the purpose of entertaining. Unlike “normal” transvestism, drag does not mean that
one wants to pass as a member of the opposite sex, because drag queens or kings do not
try to hide their true sex, producing instead an adequate and realistic “image of a particular
type of woman” (Barrett, 1999: 316) or man. Rusty Barrett (1999: 314) describes the
overall goal of drag queens as the believable production of an image of hyperfemininity.
The effect of their performance may best be described in the words of a few individuals
who are themselves part of the drag king scene.
Maureen Fishman, an actress in her thirties, says about Mo B. Dick, one of her drag king
He’s a really cheesy kind of guy, he’s opinionated, macho, always thinks he’s right, and is quite riled about any injustices: but he’s also sexy and “ruff and tuff”; it’s actually taken me a long time to come into my own as him. But once I am on stage, his total schmuck attitudes come all too naturally to me, it’s scary. […] He’s a typical Brooklyn guy who mouths off, “I ain’t no homo” and “suck my dick” and “fuck you.” The crowd love that, they love to hear me say that stuff, it’s so funny to me because I see this as total parody and I get off on emulating maleness in such an extreme and crass way (Del Lagrace Volcano, 1999: 114).
The character traits of this male stage persona can be seen as a reflection of Fishman’s
view of masculinity. She uses the negative aspects of male behavior to entertain her
Like Maureen Fishman, Diane Torr is another persona appearing in the documentary. She
teaches drag king workshops and is highly regarded by other women in the drag king
scene. Many say that she was the one making it possible for them to even be a drag king
and helping them create a male alter ego of their own. The characters Diane Torr plays in
her drag performances she calls a composite of a variety of “ghostly” men she has seen
and met in her life (Venus Boyz, 2001). These performances are an accumulation of their
negativity, stereotyped into oneman who embodies all features of the masculine sex. Her
performance is a parody, as she says, but it is also true to life.
Gabriel Baur, the director of the documentary, comes to the conclusion that drag is
ambiguous (Venus Boyz, 2001:Bonus Features). It is, in her view, a matter of constructing
as well as deconstructing masculinity. She says that drag is the joy of playing a man while
criticizing machismo. Everyday male behavior becomes absurd when seen like this on
Transvestites do make use of stereotypical gender roles to produce the desired effect
through their performances. In reference to the conventions of linguistic gender, Anna
Livia (1990: 363) points out that speakers adopt the conventions of the gender to create a
gender identity. Accordingly, transvestites adopt the conventions of the opposite gender to
create an identity opposite to that of their biological sex. Regardless of whether these
stereotypes represent the reality or only society’s perception of gender roles, they do
create gender in the minds of the people witnessing a performance.
Barrett cites a viewpoint on the element of parody in drag queen performances other than
[… ] [S]scholars argue that drag is not “about” women but rather about the inversion or subversion of traditional gender roles. These scholars often praise drag queens for demonstrating that gender displays do not necessarily correlate with anatomical sex and typically see drag as a highly subversive act that deconstructs traditional assumptions concerning gender identity (Barrett, 1999: 315).
Since drag queens and kings, by definition, do not conform to society’s gender roles
through their sexuality or through their gender identity, it makes sense that the element of
parody in their performances is a means of fighting against those roles.
If the definition of drag is cast more widely, it could also include individuals who do not
necessarily purposely perform the gender opposite to their biological sex on stage, but
who simply show the manners and behavior of their opposite sex because of their personal
gender identity. Examples for these would be so-called butch femmes or dykes. Asked
what “butch” was, gender theorist Judith Halberstam, appearing in Venus Boyz, answered:
“Butch is masculinity as an identity in women” (Venus Boyz, 2001). “Femme” is usually
used to signify the contrary of butch. Widening the definition in the other direction, that is
by defining it rather through male parody than through the imitation of male physique and
appearance, we may say that even biological men can be drag kings. It seems that, like the
range of gender identity felt by the individuals in the drag scene, the range of drag has as
Reasons for performing drag vary. For some it may be simple joy of acting. For others it
may present a possibility to express a part of their identity they feel that they cannot
express in their everyday gender role. In Esther Newton’s Mother Camp,another reason
for performing emerges: Whatever the reason for choosing to be a professional drag
queen, it is also a means to make money (Newton, 1979: 1-19).
Newton’s research only covers drag queens, not drag kings. It dates from the 1960s, a time
when drag kings had not been in identifiable existence. They are a newer manifestation
which is still in the process of formation. Because of their unparallel origin and
development, drag queens and drag kings may also not be identical in definition. In a
footnote of her Mother Camp, Newton accounts for a loosening of the definition of drag
by saying that “any clothing that signifies a social role, for instance a fireman’s suit or
farmer’s overalls. The concept of drag is embodied in a complex homosexual attitude
towards social roles” (Newton, 1979: 3). According to her, to succeed as a professional
drag queen, one has to “possess skills that are widely distributed and prized in the gay
world: verbal facility and wit, a sense of ‘camp’ (homosexual humor and taste), and the
ability to do both ‘glamorous’ and comic drag” (Newton, 1979: 3). If drag queens are
mainly homosexuals, and homosexuals have a particular humor and taste that is subsumed
under the name of camp, then drag kings and queens also use camp. Camp stands for
various modes of expression, and language is one of them. This will be examined more
2.4.2 Camp
As we have seen, camp is a form of expression of the homosexual scene. It expresses their
humor and taste, but it also plays on the gender roles in society, while at the same time
presenting a critique of those roles by the homosexuals who are, by definition, themselves
critiqued by society’s norms for performing those roles (Newton, 1979: 100). Camp is
another form of parody, or as Shelly Mars from Venus Boyz puts it: “Drag is camp is
parody” (Venus Boyz, 2001). Unlike drag, camp is not necessarily a parody of men or of
women as such, but rather a parody of the status masculinity and femininity have in
society. It is parody of the existing gender roles and of the relationship between men and
women. Camp is the language of those people who do not conform to the expected gender
roles. It is the language of homosexuals and it is a language that creates humor because the
speaker surprises listeners by adopting a mode of speech that is unexpected for his or her
biological sex. It also creates humor because it ridicules the stereotypical way this or that
sex speaks. Since drag is mostly performed by homosexuals and its performers do not seek
to hide their true gender behind their performances, camp must be considered a component
One of the most famous and most cited works on camp is Susan Sonntag’s Notes On Camp (1964), written at the beginning of research in the field. According to her early
description of this form of speech (and behavior), “all camp objects, and persons, contain a
large element of artifice. Nothing in nature can be campy […].” (Sonntag, 1964). In the
documentary Venus Boyz, Diane Torr goes even further by referring to it as something
As has been shown, it is already hard to categorize people doing drag as such. It is even
harder to define the group of people speaking camp. Some argue that everybody who is
homosexual is automatically assigned to camp (Barrett, 1997: 182-189). Others say that
there needs to be a conscious choice made by the individual to “join” camp (Barrett, 1997:
182-189). In other words, to belong to the homosexual speech community, one does not
just have to be homosexual, but one has to “do homosexuality.” This categorization may
not be of much importance for the analysis and translation of the gendered language in the
documentary later in this dissertation. Nonetheless, it is something that needs to be
considered when gendered language is translated in other contexts.
Locating the beginnings of camp in time could help to explain its existence. In order to see
who brought camp to live and why, hence who its speakers and its functions are, the next
section will be on the history of the phenomenon of camp.
2.4.2.1 History of Camp
In the seventeenth century, the so-called “mollie houses” were the first form of an openly
gay scene (King, 1994: 27). The people frequenting those places, the mollies, “were an
underground society of men who met in taverns to have sex with other men and to parody
in improvised performances the increasingly normative concept of companionate
heterosexual marriage prevalent among the Puritan bourgeoisie” (King, 1994: 27). Clearly,
this – for the purposes at hand – speech community, differed in its form from the existing
norm. Whereas in the world outside the mollie houses, social identity markers such as
gender, age, and rank played an important role in defining social interactions and
hierarchy between people, that was erased in the mollie community. Hence, such
communities were able to establish new means of interaction, including a new form of
communication. This might be one thing that led to camp. The absence of hierarchy in this
new social order threatened the existing status quo and thus created antipathy among those
holding power. The aristocracy criticized the effeminate behavior of the mollies. King
(1994: 23) describes the mollies as the new aristocracy, indeed, as an aristocracy of taste –
a parallel to today’s homosexual community, which also is stereotyped as being very
conscious of style and fashion, possessing a sort of snobbery when it comes to their tastes.
According to King, the mollie houses were what led to camp. That would bear out Susan
Sonntag’s assertion that camp had its origin in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-
century Europe (King, 1994: 23). In the same way as the language of women described
above, camp is a marked form of speech. This is not to say that camp has not been
investigated thoroughly enough to prove its markedness, or variation from the norm,
however, it may be that part of its difference is based on the investigator’s perception. The
mollies’ (sexual) behavior does not conform to society’s standard behavioral rules, so they
are perceived as different before they even open their mouths. In King’s article, it can be
seen that the homosexuality was the main reason for scrutiny (1994: 30-32). However, the
question remains whether the ruling class was truly bothered by the mollie’s
homosexuality, or if they just used this as an excuse for scrutinizing them in public
because it felt the need to defend its status. The historian Jack Babuscio (1993: 20-21)
suggests that camp was the gay response to the penchant of the society at the time for a
labeling which polarized individual types. Hence, camp was an answer to society’s
branding of those branded, with the intention of criticizing the branders.
Although the history of camp shows that its community consisted of people connected by
certain common attributes in their nature, it was also partly a conscious choice of that
community to “use” camp. Camp was an intentionally triggered reaction by a group of
people joined through their nature. Like their performance of camp, everybody’s identity
is the result of a certain performance. In this dissertation, the performance of gender is of
2.5 Performing Gender
Since the listener might respond to camp as language incongruent with sex and gender, we
have seen that language can – together with paraverbal features such as props (wigs,
make-up, fake mustache, etc.), mimicry, intonation, or other – evoke gender. It therefore
follows that a speaker can steer the way he or she is perceived. As Anna Livia (1990: 363)
Speakers are not passive with regard to language and the possibilities its system of distinctions and similarities sets up. […] They may use the conventions of linguistic gender to create different gender identities.
Thus, gender is not necessarily a biological given, but can be a conscious choice. A
speaker may choose what degree, or what form, of gender is to be perceived by the
listener. This performance includes much more than only language itself, including
mimicry, gesture and posture; and very often, this “choice” of what personal gender
identity one wants to transmit, and others to receive, is subconscious. In the cases of drag
performances, it is a conscious performance of identity. Even though the way of speaking
(and other behavior) is not a given by destiny or genetics, but an active performance
(Braun, 2004: 17-20), boys and girls are trained and socialized into this or that side of the
two poles of gender. According to Ulchida, gender is not something we are but something
we become after we have been assigned to this or that based on our biological sex
To construct one of the binary genders, then, a person will use the conventions of
linguistic gender. Yet, there are clearly other possibilities of gender construction, other
forms of outcome, than simply man or woman.
In the very concepts of the signifiant, different languages possess the potential to construct
something other than the poles of gender. The Lakota, for example, know more than only
two accepted concepts of gender. Next to men and women, the concept of man-woman
and woman-man exists as well (Trechter, 2004). In India, the hijras are an established
gender in, or at least on the margins of, the community (Trechter, 2004). In Thailand,
glamorous and attractive men who have turned themselves into women are a modern
tourist attraction under the name of ladyboy cabarets. Their origins lie in an archaic Thai
tradition: In Thai culture, they are called kathoey and form a sort of third sex (Totman,
2003). In these cases, the existence of a signifiant has created a place for those individuals
who do not fit into the binary concept. In one instant, there are four spaces to occupy, in
the others, there are three. If the number of spaces in this “grey zone” varies, so must the
degrees of gender variability. This is the fundamental rule of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
In most Western societies, there are only two established genders. The concepts
transsexual and transgender are not recognized as genders in their own right, though there
is evidence that this may be changing: In American passports, for instance, individuals
can now have “ O” for “other,” or “I” for “intersexed” entered under sex (Venus Boyz,
2001). Yet, this shift is hardly one taking place in society as a whole, remaining merely a
means of personal freedom on a formal level. A male who feels like he is caught in the
wrong body and who expresses his otherness through camp is still perceived as a man, or
in terms of male-ness (he is “not a real man”). English cannot cope adequately with
transgenders, since the choice is either to reinforce polarity using masculine or feminine
pronouns, or else to completely depersonalize transgenders by using the neuter “it”.
2.6 Universal (Western) Gender?
In 2.5 we have seen that cultures different from those of industrialized Western countries
leave room for the existence of other gender concepts. These concepts are rooted in the
culture, tradition and beliefs of the society in question. In most Western countries,
however, including the United States and the German-speaking countries of Europe
(which will be relevant for the analysis of the language in this dissertation), the concepts
of gender are defined by biological sex. So the basics for comparative gender research are
given and comparison is possible with regards to the speech of the two defined genders.
Possibly because gender cultures are very similar in those parts of the world, the way the
genders speak in those cultures is very similar as well. The societies in the English- and
the German-speaking world have very similar ideologies of gender roles, and thus the
stereotypical male or female behavior, including speech norms, shows the same markers.
This can be explained with the difference framework, in the same way that boys and girls
are socialized to behave as females or males. For the purpose of this dissertation, the
English and the German languages in particular will be compared on the basis of their
gender features. Even though most of the features in 2.1 have been formulated for the
English language, the analysis of the e-mails in 2.5 demonstrates that it is applicable to the
German language as well. Both the English original and its translation into German of the
documentary Venus Boyz will therefore be analyzed by means of the same constituents
mentioned in 2.1 and presented in a more clearly arranged table in 3.2. 3 DATA & METHOD Venus Boyz is a documentary by the Swiss filmmaker Gabriel Baur. She accompanies and
interviews members of the drag king scene on and off stage in New York. In this
undergraduate dissertation, eight extracts, each under one minute of duration, will be
analyzed on the basis of the gendered language they contain. The first of the sequences is a
drag queen performing for the documentary only, but not on stage. The second sequence is
a drag king performance on stage. The third and the fourth sequences are a biological male
getting dressed in one sequence, and being dressed in the other, as a drag queen. He is
talking for the purposes of the documentary, answering questions that he has been asked
by the director. The last four sequences are all one and the same person, a biological
female, but in two different gender roles. In the first of those four sequences, the person
talks about an incident when waiting for a cab on the street – once as a woman and once as
one of her male stage characters. The last two sequences are this same person talking,
again once in the role of a female and once in the role of a male, but these last sequences
are not connected thematically as the preceding two are. The eight sequences have been
selected for the representative quality of the linguistic gender behavior observed in
previous research. The gender performances in these sequences range between male and
female and include possibilities along the male-female continuum. The gender identities
have the same range as well. This range has been chosen to see how language manages to
construct a perception of gender that is not only male or female, but also something
All individuals whose speech will be analyzed in chapter 4 are briefly introduced by their
real name and that of their drag persona, their sexuality, and their personal position on the
issue of gender. Physical appearance will also be commented on if it appears to be a
significant statement on the gender issue. If known, a note is added on the choice of their
drag persona as well as on their decision to perform drag in general. What they all share is
the desire to entertain an audience, the joy of entertaining, and to parody existing gender
roles. They all form part of the drag king (and queen) scene in New York and many of
*Anonymous
This first sequence presents the speech of a male in drag. It is assumed that he is
homosexual. His drag queen persona is wearing a blond wig. The wig has bleached hair
with roots showing, which gently ironizes the drag queen he performs. The person in this
sequence interprets the binary gender behavior of the Western culture he lives in as a
universal wish to conform (universal, that is, for the aforementioned Western world he
lives in). His worldview on the issue of gender behavior corresponds very closely to the
difference framework, and he believes that people are socialized into gender-based forms
of behavior. He criticizes the consequences of that framework and states that it is the
outsiders who, in the end, make what they want of themselves and do not let themselves
be pushed into an expected gender role. They are the winners (at least personally) in this
system. This can be seen as his motivation for doing drag. Gender, to him, is an undefined
concept: “It [gender] is what you make of it” (Venus Boyz, 2001).
*Shelly Mars – Damian Corson
Shelly Mars is a homosexual female, although her homosexuality is not explicitly stated
but only assumed. She believes that there are many different degrees between the two
gender poles, but that society does not allow such differentiation. It is erotic for her to
perform as a man. In this sequence, her Drag King persona is Damian Corson, whom she
calls “dot-com-digital-guy,” a young man who has a passion for film and poetry.
* Zanthony Preston – Queen Bee Luscious
Zanthony Preston is a male African American who performs in the Drag Queen persona of
Luscious. Although his comment on line 10 of the second sequence (see 4.2) suggests he
may be attracted to Mildred and could thus verbally indicate heterosexuality, his overall
appearance suggests homosexuality. Also his statement “gay mean happy” in combination
with the comment “[a]s long as you’re not bothering nobody […] you do what you want”
indicate him as being homosexual and as having experienced hostility for this reason. The
choice of the name of his female alter ego is an unmistakable indicator of female
*Mildred Gerestant – Dréd Gerestant
Mildred is a female homosexual African American who performs as a drag king. Dréd is
her masculine alter ego. She says that “Everybody has a masculine and a feminine side but
not everybody chooses to explore the other side” (Venus Boyz, 2001). She herself does
want to explore both her sides; she wants to experience them according to how she feels at
the moment: It is impossible for her to put herself into one category or the other because
her gender identity is very fluid. Likewise, her performance includes a mixing of genders,
for example by showing some cleavage in a drag king performance. She states that drag
kings make fun of the characters they play. Nonetheless, Dréd seems to be less of a parody
of the male images she has in her mind than a side in her that has become a character she
really likes and that has helped her to like herself better. In the sequences in which her
speech is analyzed for its gender features, she talks twice as Mildred, and twice as Dréd.
Dréd in this case is not a stage performance, and thus may be considered a milder
performance of a masculine gender identity. She is made up fully in drag, but she is not
“officially” performing. Nonetheless, she is Dréd at this point and not Mildred, although
Dréd’s masculinity does not come across as strongly as it does when she is performing on
3.2 Method
The chosen extracts were transcribed from the screen, with the same standards for
transcription that Thorsten Schröter used for his article Quantity and Quality in Screen Translation being applied (Schröter, 2003: 106). The German subtitles were copied as
they were displayed on the screen. The spoken English original version accounts for
everything that is uttered. Punctuation was added to reconstruct the natural flow of speech
for the reader, and the generally accepted symbols to mark paralinguistic features such as
intonation or non-verbal utterances were used.
The symbols used are specified in the following: A question mark indicates questions and
a rising or high ending intonation; a full stop indicates an ended thought, usually implied
when the intonation of the voice falls; a comma indicates a short hesitation but
continuation of the same thought; a semi-colon indicates that a thought has been stopped
and is followed by a new thought. If a word is not completed, this is indicated with a dash;
if the speaker pauses, this is indicated by one or more dashes in a bracket, depending on
the length of the pause. The length of one dash can be determined by seconds, but for
simplicity’s sake, one dash marks a short pause, two dashes mark a medium pause, and
three dashes mark a long pause in this dissertation. Where the speech of a sequence is
interrupted on the DVD, this is indicated according by standard ellipsis ([…]). The reason
for printing a sequence as a linear monologue in this dissertation although it is not, strictly
speaking, the same on the DVD is that sometimes during a selected sequence, other
material fades in and out for artistic or supportive reasons. When easily definable gestures
or mimicry was involved and this was relevant for the creation of gender, this has been
Personal pronouns referring to the speaker indicate the performed gender. Should that
gender not clearly be male or female, the personal pronoun refers to the speaker’s
The length of each analyzed sequence is indicated before the analysis itself by the precise
time (hh:mm:ss) of its appearance on the DVD, marking the time it starts and ends. The
dissertation will first present an analysis of the spoken English language of a sequence
and, immediately after, an analysis of the German subtitles of that same sequence. Such a
scheme facilitates a comparison between the two versions. The analysis will be based on
the gendered speech features first introduced in 2.1. The constituents of the model of
analysis are indicated according to their grammatical function in the table below.
Table 1: Male and Female Speech Features
-differentiated vocabulary in trivial areas
-adjectives evoking frivolity and triviality -more intensifying adverbs Syntax:
Even though the focus of this dissertation is on language conveying gender, notes on
paralingual features are made as well. The reason for this is to explore, by comparison,
how important the role of language itself is when gender is constructed.
3.3 Note on Subtitling and Translation of Gendered Language
Subtitling is one form of Audio Visual Transfer (AVT) (Gottlieb, 1992:162-164). The type
of subtitling realized in Venus Boyz is interlingual subtitling. It integrates two kinds of
transfers: From oral to written lines and from one language to another. Subtitling is subject
to certain constraints due to the media it is functioning in. Henrik Gottlieb divides those
constraints up into two categories: Formal (quantitative) constraints and textual
(qualitative) constraints (Gottlieb, 1992: 164-5). The formal constraints concern the
factors of space and time. Spatial constraints are related to the size of the (television)
screen combined with a font that is still legible to the viewer (Gottlieb, 1992: 164).
Consequently, two rows of 35 characters each cannot be exceeded. This limit reduces the
freedom of a translator and limits the possibilities of achieving adequacy. The reading
speed of the viewers must also be taken into account, since it is considered slower than the
talking speed of the characters to be subtitled. The frequency of the subtitles following
each other is thus also restricted. As a result of both the space and the time factor, the
subtitles reduce the dialogue quantitatively by about one third in most European television
subtitling departments (Gottlieb, 1992: 164). The textual constraints are concerned with
where and when the subtitles enter the screen, as well as the adequate reflexion of the
dialogue, which includes style, speed, syntax, and effect (Gottlieb,1992: 165). All
together, the translator is faced with the particular difficulty of transmitting the oral
dialogue of language A to the written lines of language B. There are several types of
strategies at hand, namely expansion, paraphrase, transfer, imitation, transcription,
dislocation, condensation, decimation, deletion, and resignation (Gottlieb, 1992: 166). For
an explanation of each strategy, see table 2 (based on Gottlieb, 1992: 166). It lies in the
nature of subtitling that the strategy of condensation, or in other words of condensed,
concise expression, is the most commonly used.
Table 2: Types of Strategies for Subtitling
Expanded expression, adequate rendering (culture-specific references etc.)
Full expression, adequate rendering (‘neutral’ discourse – slow tempo)
Identical expression, equivalent rendering (proper nouns, international greetings etc.)
Anomalous expression, adequate rendering (non-standard speech etc.)
or visualized language-specific phenomena)
Condensed expression, concise rendering (normal speech)
Abridged expression, reduced content (fast speech of some importance)
Omitted expression, no verbal content (fast speech of less importance)
Another important aspect in considering the subtitles of the documentary Venus Boyz is
that of transferring gendered language. Keith Harvey has addressed this topic in his article
Translating Camp Talk: Gay Identities and Cultural Transfer (1998). He mentions those
difficulties specific to the translation of gender identities which a translator is faced with,
such as the close examination and knowledge of
identities and communities predicated upon same-sex object choice in the target culture; […] the existence or absence of an established gay literature in the target culture; […] the stated gay objectives […] inherent in the undertaking of the translation and publication of the translation (for example, whether the text is to be part of a gay list of novels); […] the sexual identity of the translator and his or her relation to a gay subcultural group, its identities, codes and political project (Harvey, 1998: 296).
Harvey’s article examined speech in fictional dialogues of purely male gay characters.
Yet, because of the triangle of homosexuality, camp, and drag, it touches on some of the
same issues as those covered in this undergraduate dissertation. The languages of his study
are English and French, both being once the source and once the target language. Even
though the languages of study in this dissertation are English and German, the creation of
gender identity and the translation of this gender identity into another language is
undeniably relevant to the subtitling of Venus Boyz as well. Harvey cites examples of
linguistic features creating femininity, such as emphatics and hyperbole (Harvey, 1998:
299), that need to be rendered adequately in the target language to have an equivalent
perlocutionary effect on the listener. In Harvey’s article, the ultimate aim of this effect is
the creation of a homosexual identiy through camp. Although camp and drag are closely
intertwined, this undergraduate dissertation is more concerned with the effect of gender
creation and performance. Camp may well be a constituent of that performance, but the
focus shifts from camp to the type of gender identity that is created. Translation from this
point of view may not be equally important to the aforementioned difficulties specific to
the translation of camp. Harvey’s investigation of the translation concerns the homosexual
context. The creation and translation of sexuality is what is important. This dissertation
investigates how gender identity is created and translated. In both cases, gendered
language plays a role in creating an identity, because the issue of gender is important for
both identities, although the result achieved with the use of such language differs.
4 RESULTS 4.1 Anonymous Venus Boyz, Sequence 1; Time: 00:13:48 – 00:14:01
(01) Well, I’d like to stay hang out with the drag kings all night long,
(02) but I’m off to L.A. to see Hugh Hefner,
(03) to be the first drag queen ever pictured in Playboy magazine.
(04) But I wanna tell all those hot sexy studs tonight:
(05) Good luck (–) drag kings. You rock New York.
In this sequence, there is little to indicate one or the other gender by means of the
locutionary act. Femininity is performed mainly through intonation and gesture, and
through semantics. The drag queen’s voice is soft-sounding and conveys sympathy and
Semantically, line one explicitly expresses the wish to share something with the audience.
It is a means by which she establishes common ground with her audience, which could
also be seen as her conversational partner. The expressive function of the illocutionary act
in line one implies consideration for others, in contrast to the I-focus typical of male
speech. In line two, she introduces the real life persona of Hugh Hefner, editor of Playboy
magazine, and line three continues the Playboy theme: She announces that she will be the
first drag queen to be published in this magazine. These two lines thus imply what she
already announces through her looks: She is the stereotypical sexy woman with bleached
hair and big breasts; a woman stereotypical men are attracted to and want to see in a
magazine like Playboy. The nature of her aspirations serves to please men. In line four, the
words “hot sexy studs” create gender on the lexical level, since the preceding adjectives
and the word “stud” connote compliments and attraction expressed by a female about
(01) Ich würde gerne die ganze Nacht mit den Drag Kings abhängen,
(02) aber ich fahre nach L.A. zu Hugh Hefner
(03) um die erste Drag Queen im Playboy zu werden!
(04) All den heissen Hengsten hier sage ich:
(05) “Viel Glück, Drag Kings, ihr lasst New York beben!”
Because of the short length of the spoken text of this sequence, none of the strategies
specific to subtitling had to be applied here. The German subtitles are an almost literal but
adequate translation of the English version. Thus, the effect and the creation of gender are
very close to the English. The illocutionary act in line one, containing an instance of the
expressive function also found in the English version, is a little modified by the word
“abhängen.” It even loses some of the gender-identity performance, because while “hang
out” is a very common expression for individuals of most gender, status and age, the
German “abhängen” has an air of being somewhat artificially constructed. It also connotes
the slang of teenagers, and not the speech of a superficial woman in her twenties, which is
the character the drag queen seeks to parody. The German translation of line one is too
marked. Line two and three also introduce Playboy magazine, stressing the speaker’s
attractiveness and connoting sex in a manner identical to the English version. In line three,
the explicit mention of “being pictured” in the English version is lacking. However, the
perlocutionary effect does not suffer as a result, since the audience will still be able to
imagine her picture in Playboy magazine. Line four translates the “hot sexy studs” as
“heissen Hengsten,” leaving out the “sexy.” This is probably done for space purposes, and
because time and reading constraints precluded the use of a second line. Semantically,
both denotations are covered in the German “heissen.” A further reason to not translate the
“sexy” may have been to maintain the alliteration in the source text. The illocutionary
expression attempts to flatter the audience, and although the expression is not as idiomatic
4.2 Shelly Mars –Damian Corson Venus Boyz, Sequence 2; Time: 00:15:20 – 00:16:03
(02) I’m an independent (–) digital (–) filmmaker.
(05) I’m makin’ a’ independent film.
(08) I’m writin’ a’ independent film.
This sequence shows a number of markers of male speech. The whole sequence is
dominated by self-importance shown through I-focus phrases. Each phrase (except for the
key-word utterance in line three) contains either the personal pronoun “I” or the possessive
pronoun “my”. Line nine is loaded with male speech markers in every word: the
imperative “read”, followed by the possessive pronoun, and then “you idiot,” which
presents a judgment of the audience. The whole sequence is very repetitive; only lines one,
two, and nine introduce new information. As far as pronunciation is concerned, the
sequence is also marked with what is considered a feature of male speech. All –ing forms
become –in’: makin’ in line four and five; writin’ in line seven and eight. The language
used in this short text is therefore very colloquial, which is further supported by the
excessive repetition that gives the impression that Damian is speaking as he thinks,
without caring about the form of his utterances. This sloppiness can also be interpreted as
rudeness towards the audience, thus presenting another marker of the negative judgment
the speaker makes of them. All Damian’s sentences are either very short, or elliptical, as in
Intonation and mimicry also play an important role in constructing Damian. The word
“film” is given special emphasis through the slowness and prolongation of its locution.
Five out of nine phrases end with the word “film,” adding further stress to the word.
“Film”or “filmmaker” relate to Damian himself –what he is or what he does. Therefore,
this particular stress on the word can be seen as an I-focus achieved through intonation.
Damian’s mimicry reveals self-importance and arrogance. He appears to feel almost
revulsion at the audience, with a clear implication that he detests all people other than
himself. This adds to the I-focus and the judgment of the audience, both of which serve to
further construct masculinity in the way described. The over-stereotyping of these
character traits is used to humorous ends so as to ridicule the male gender’s self-
importance. The perlocutionary effect is achieved: The audience laughs at Damian, the
(02) Ich bin ein unabhängiger digitaler Filmemacher…
(05) Ich mache einen unabhängigen Film.
(08) Ich schreibe einen Independent-Film.
As in the previous one, this second sequence also contains only sentences and phrases
short enough to fit on one line each without the need to use the subtitling strategy of
condensation, with the result that the semantic meaning of the English version is contained
fully in the German subtitles. Because it was possible to translate this sequence with
Damian quite literally and make it remain equivalent at the same time, the gender features
on the locutionary level match their original. The German subtitles also contain numerous
phrases with I-focus, and the same number of personal pronouns. Also the imperative
“Lest” in line nine and the exclamation “ihr Idioten!” at the very end are as gender loaded
as the English original. However, the subtitles fail to translate the colloquial endings of the
verbs in lines four, five, seven, and eight. The German version of these verbs is completely
unmarked, following the standard spelling of the conjugated forms of the verbs, even
though the option of abbreviating them with an apostrophe (mach’; schreib’) would have
been available. Therefore, on these four occasions, the translation lacks the gender
markings that the English version contains. Considering the German’s absence of the
channels available to the spoken version, such as intonation, stress, or prolongation, the
whole sequence with Damian is much more gendered in the English version than in the
text of the German subtitles. The fact that the audience sees his mimicry and hears the
aforementioned vocal features may compensate for this to some extent.
4.3 Zanthony Preston – Queen Bee Luscious Venus Boyz, Sequence 3; Time: 00:29:12 – 00:29:22
(01) So she’s like, uhm, “excuse me, excuse me.”
(02) So, I was like (–) “yes?” (covering lower half of face with hand)
(04) so I didn’t want her to see my face.
(05) So she was like, uhm: “excuse me?”
(07) “Oh, how you doin’?” You know, ‘cause she see
Here, Luscious is in the process of getting ready for his drag performance. He is wearing
women’s clothes and make up. But the transformation into his drag persona is not yet
complete, and he is not performing. He is telling the interviewer about the time when he
and Mildred met in his natural mode of speech. Other than the “so she’s like and so I was
like…,” which, partly through its hedging, has overtones of teenage girl talk, there is not
much within the text itself to mark one gender or the other. Moreover, a certain femininity
is evoked by the gestures of his hands and by his playfulness. Since he is still more man
than woman visually, this femininity is perceived as a marker of sexuality rather than of
Prior to the indicated sequence, Mildred has commented on his appearance: “… in front of
me there was this beautiful ass.” Zanthony’s flirtatiousness could be interpreted as a
reaction to this compliment. His mimicry indicates both amusement and joy at what has
been said and at his own narration. The extensive hand gestures underline what is being
said and evoke a sort of humorous artificiality. Although the sum of Zanthony’s gestures
do not necessarily mark the feminine gender, they do mark a variation of the stereotypical
masculine gender, and although perceived as a man without doubts, his manners do not
conform to stereotypical male behavior. As described in Thomas A. King’s Performing Akimbo or Susan Sonntag’s Notes on Camp, the non-polar, and therefore unbiological,
unnatural, and artificial, or marked, position of gender performed by Zanthony presents a
shade that is read as homosexuality. Narrating the event of him and Mildred meeting in a
very theatrical manner (performing what they both said in the way they said it) adds to the
perception of him as artificial, and ultimately as homosexual.
In her article on African American drag queens, Rusty Barrett (1997: 321-323) points out
that they do not usually use African American Vernacular (AAV), but rather attempt to
talk like white, middle-class women. Zanthony may not be performing his female persona
in this sequence, but he is performing a gender shade that is different from, and perceived
as more feminine than, the one following. Here he does almost never use AAV, whereas in
the subsequent sequence he does. Contrary to the African American drag queen
performances described by Barrett, Zanthony does not speak formally or like a white,
middle-class woman. The reason for this may again be the degree of gender he is
performing. The ambiguity of his costume at this point is underpinned by the fact that he is
not clearly speaking like a woman nor like a man. He is speaking camp.
(07) “Oh, wie geht’s?”, da sie sah, dass
As seen in the analysis of the English version of this sequence, much of the construction of
gender and sexuality is realized through paraverbal features such as voice, mimicry and
gesture. The German subtitles cannot account for any of this, only the audience’s
awareness of these features can compensate for the unavoidable loss of identity creation in
the transfer from oral English text to written German text.
Other features marking gender and sexuality in the English version are Zanthony’s use of
AAV. Much of the AAV used involves pronunciation features, but in line seven, the
presence of an unconjugated verb in “cause she see (that I was a man)” makes a
sociolectical marker visible in the locutionary act itself. The German does not account for
this in any way, the translator using strategy number nine – of deletion – or number ten –
resignation (it is not clear which of the two was used, see table 2 above, p. 26). Reasons
for this may well be the cultural difference and the fact that the German-speaking world
does not have a black population comparable to that of United States, with no equivalent
to AAV existing in German. Also, the numerous hedges rendering Zanthony’s speech
somewhat agitated are not accounted for in the subtitles. All in all, the German on its own
shows no gender or sexuality marker other than the explicit statement in line seven and
eight “da sie sah, dass ich ein Mann bin.” However, except for the aforementioned
problem in line seven, it is the transfer from oral to written text that prevents these features
from being translated into the target language, partly because the features are of a
paraverbal nature, and partly because of space constraints.
Venus Boyz, Sequence 4; Time: 29:59 – 30:33
(02) ‘s long as you’re not bothering nobody (–) hey, you do what you want.
(03) You ‘bout to go into town now (–) and start (–) a riot?
(09) Oh, we good friends, good good friends.
(10) She thought she’d be my girlfriend, unfortunately (–) I was a man,
In lines one to five, Zanthony’s appearance is the same as in the previous sequence. In
lines six to eight, he is not visible. Finally, in the last three lines, he is fully dressed in
drag. Regardless of the interplay of speech and image, he is throughout perceived as more
masculine than in the sequence before, when his looks were consistently less female.
Thus, the perception of masculinity has much to do with the sound of his voice. Compared
to the previous sequence, the pitch of his voice drops and is calmer than before. Voice and
a complete absence of gestures lead to an unmarked performance which, as we have seen,
indicates the unmarked norm, masculinity, or indeed heterosexual masculinity. Only the
female clothes, wig, and make up lend Zanthony an air suggesting that the perceived
heterosexual masculinity may not be for real. This time it is not only the paraverbal
features that create this perception, but also markers within the text itself. Lexically, “start
a riot” in line three and “I was a man” in line ten hint (in the case of the former) or
explicitly state (in the latter case) that the speaker is male. The adverb “unfortunately”,
possibly feeding the argument that Zanthony neglects his masculinity semantically, relates
to Mildred’s point of view and does not actually detract from his maleness. The
unconjugated verb in line one (“Gay mean happy”), the use of “nobody” instead of
“anybody,” and the absence of a verb in line nine (“we good friends”) demonstrate the use
of AAV. The abbreviations in line one (“’s long”) and two (“’bout”) reveal Zanthony’s
colloquial speech. All in all, even though the pun in the locutionary act of the first line
(“Gay mean happy”) almost explicitly identifies Zanthony as a homosexual, his speech
renders his identity as that of a heterosexual male.
(02) Solange du keinen störst, kannst du tun, was du willst.
(03) Gehst du jetzt in die Stadt und legst los?
(07) Sie hält mich auf Trab, versethst du?
(09) Sie wollte meine Freundin sein, aber leider war ich ein Mann
The German subtitles of this section tend to be unmarked by gender. The semantic content
remains the same as in the English version, but the sociolectal features from the spoken
version fail to be translated. However, since the audience will see the paraverbal features
marking masculinity and his calmness, and hear his voice over the subtitles, he will be
perceived as more masculine than in the sequence before, even by German speakers.
Nevertheless, the actual subtitles do not contribute to the construction of gender. With the
exception of line nine, which contains the words “[…] war ich ein Mann,” they are kept
4.4 Mildred Gérestant – Dréd Gérestant
Sequence 5 consists of Dréd talking about an incident when trying to catch a cab and
about the difficulties he experienced because of his race. Sequence 6 portrays Mildred
talking about the same incident. The two scenes are set up in a very similar way. Both
Dréd and Mildred are lying on the couch as they talk about their experiences, Dréd is
facing one side and Mildred the other, with the two scenes blending into each other. These
two sequences will not be analyzed individually but in comparison.
Venus Boyz, Sequence 5; Time: 00:37:47 – 00:38:11
(01) You know, the first time Dréd was tryin’ – I was tryin’ to catch a cab,
(06) and this (–) white woman comes in front of me and is trying to catch a cab
(07) and I’m like: “look (?) you don’t see I’m staying here tryin’ to catch a cab?”
(08) And she’s like: “Oh, I’m sorry man, I’m sorry man.”
(10) (–) but it’s just very frustrating, so –
Venus Boyz, Sequence 6; Time 38:13 – 38:29
(02) when I, you know, realized that it was, you know,
(03) the stereotypes they have in their heads
(06) or they’ll rob ‘em or something like that, which is really stupid and –
(07) So sometimes it’s really hard for me to – (–) for Dréd
In both of these sequences, the blending of the images of Dréd and Mildred strongly
suggests that her identities are not clearly separated. This is further underlined by lexical
mistakes made by the speaker. In the first line of sequence 5, Dréd, already visually in the
masculine role, starts talking about Dréd in the third person. A correction is added in the
same line and, as the name of Dréd is used in the first person, the speaker’s voice changes.
It becomes deeper and more masculine: The biological female has transformed into the
male Dréd now. In sequence 6, Mildred mixes up her personas briefly in line seven, but
other than her correcting this immediately afterwards, there are no further gender-related
changes. The pitch of voice in the two sequences, however, is very different. Dréd talks in
a deeper voice and sounds more determined, whereas Mildred talks in a very soft way and
in a higher tonal range. Other striking paralingual features are the gestural hand
movements used by both Dréd and Mildred, though there are clear differences between
these. Dréd’s hands operate individually. Their movements can be described as the typical
gestures hip hoppers use. Mildred’s hand gestures can be described as a sort of play
between two hands: They roll around each other and they touch each other. Her
movements are much less hasty than Dréd’s, adding to her softer appearance.
There are other strong differences between the two sequences. Dréd’s narration is marked
by almost complete absence of hedges, whereas Mildred hedges a total of four times;
twice in line two, once in line five and once in line six. Dréd’s hedge in line three (“uhm”)
is much less stressed than the “you know”s in Mildred’s speech, making her hedging much
more obvious, while Dréd is hardly seen to hedge. The pace of speech differs as well.
Dréd talks faster and without hesitations, lending his speech a more determined air than
Mildred’s, which is slower. Together with the soft-sounding voice, this slower pace gives
her narration a notion of chattiness. Dréd pauses two times in his speech (lines four and
six), each time with rhetoric effect, to stress a particular detail of his narration. Mildred
pauses once in her speech in line seven, but this is caused by her confusing Dréd and
Mildred. These two different reasons for pausing add to the perception of Dréd’s greater
resolution and of Mildred speaking more randomly.
Dréd abbreviates all –ing endings in his speech, which can be seen as colloquial use of
typically male language patterns. There are no comparable –ing forms in Mildred’s
speech. There, “them” becomes “‘’em” in line six, but this is not necessarily a marker of
colloquial language, since elision of this kind is very common and natural.
There is also a difference in the grammatical correctness of Dréd’s and Mildred’s speech.
As the gender features imply, Dréd’s speech shows syntactical mistakes, whereas Mildred
talks in grammatically correct language.
When talking about the feelings this incident evoked, they use different expressions. Dréd
calls it “frustrating,” and Mildred says that it “felt really bad.” Frustration implies some
form of aggression, whereas “feeling really bad” suggests merely sadness. Dréd’s lexical
choice is therefore clearly more indicative of the male gender, Mildred’s of the female
gender. Also interesting is the time when these two expressions appear. Dréd waits until
the very end (line ten) to add the comment that he experienced the incident as frustrating.
Mildred, on the other hand, expresses her emotions at the very beginning, in line one, with
rhematic focus on the words “felt really bad.”
(01) Als Dréd…, als ich mal versuchte,
(04) das Warten eine gute Stunde gedauert.
(07) Dann ‘ne weisse Frau, stellt sich
(08) vor mich, und ich: “Ich warte hier!”
The translation of these two sequences by Dréd and Mildred manages to include some of
the gender features of the source text. As in the English version, the illocutionary
expressives in line twelve and one respectively adequately translate the notion of the
masculine gender in sequence 5 and the feminine gender in sequence 6 because of the
word choice and their position in the monologues as a whole. What is more, the subtitles
of Dréd’s speech are more factual than those of Mildred’s speech. The sentences in
sequence 5 are shorter and the text comprises five sentences. These are not always
syntactically well-formed but rather a telegram-like enumeration of what had happened,
which achieves equivalence to the English version. Mildred’s speech contains only two
sentences distributed over ten lines, which makes them longer than Dréd’s. The translation
also accounts for the difference in the grammatical accuracy of the two sentences.
Moreover, Mildred’s longer sentences are better formed.
Dréd’s use of “in’” for the -ing forms is somewhat compensated for by the technique of
using the elliptical “’ne weisse Frau” in line seven. All the words in the German subtitles
of Mildred’s speech are spelled correctly. Her speech appears more accurate, and thus
accords with the gender features indicated on p. 24f as marking femininity. In line six, she
says “solchen Unsinn,” a rather weak expression considering the implications of the
prejudice and racism she experiences. This expression adds a notion of triviality to her
statement, which again could be interpreted as modesty or the unwillingness to express the
true emotional effect which that incident had on her.
Venus Boyz, Sequence 7, Time: 00:26:33 – 00:26:55
(01) A lota people think that Dréd have all the women
(03) But it’s not even like that I’m – I’m very shy
(06) Like I go I perform and the ladies all screamin’
(07) and sometimes they throw their bras at me
(09) but that’s as far as it goes pretty much at the shows.
As in the preceding sequence, this one shows Mildred hedging: “and all that” in line two,
“like” at the beginning of line six, “and stuff” in line eight, and “pretty much” in line nine.
The “I feel” in line five does not refer to her feelings as such, but it does qualify the
objective truth of her statement that Dréd is respectful, which could also be interpreted as
another hedge. Mildred overtly states that she is shy in line three, by which she admits a
weakness. The I-focus of this sentence is thus relativized, since the illocutionary force of
this utterance is not self-importance but the contrary. Her speech is very colloquial in this
sequence. Her voice is again soft sounding and shows a wide range of pitch: In lines three
and four, for example, her voice rises to lend weight to the illocutionary force of what she
says, by means of which she plays down the assumption that others might have of Dréd.
(01) Viele denken, dass Dréd alle Frauen
(05) Dréd ist vor allem sehr respektvoll.
(06) Bei Auftritten kreischen die Frauen,
(09) Aber viel weiter geht es nicht in den Shows
In the spoken version of sequence 7, female gender identity is created through accoustic
elements and the use of the female speech feature of hedging. Naturally, the accoustic
elements cannot be transferred to the translation of the subtitles. The hedges are also
substantially reduced, only line eight containing a hedge (“und so was”). The “I feel” from
line five of the spoken version is not represented in the German at all, which makes the
statement in the same line of the subtitles one without qualification or any trace of
hedging. There is a clear loss here of some of the aspects of feminine speech. All in all, it
can be said that the German subtitles of sequence 7 are not as gendered as their English
spoken version, partially because of the transfer from audio-visual to visual only, but also
because the speech acts indicating the female gender have not been translated.
Venus Boyz, Sequence 8, Time: 00:45:13 – 00:45:29
(01) Yeah, what does masculine mean, what does feminine mean?
(03) She matching me today, we’re wearin’ the green today,
Sequence 8 shows Dréd speaking again. As when talking about the cab incident, he is
lying on the couch, fully dressed in drag. This time, however, he seems more absent-
minded and less concentrated. This can be seen by his elliptical way of speaking: Lines
five to seven seem to be mere outbursts of thoughts expressed just as they occur to him.
Such unorganized speech behavior has already been observed in sequence 2, with Damian
Corson. Although Dréd does not appear to be revolted by his audience, he does not seem
very interested in achieving proper communication with his listener, who is in this case
Gabriel Baur, the filmmaker. He seems absorbed by his own thoughts, and is almost
The locutionary “yo” in line two and the “you know what I’m saying?” in line four
indicate gender and culture at the same time, because as a woman, Mildred does not make
use of AAV to this extent. Dréd’s speech thus categorizes him as an African American
male. The absence of a conjugated verb in line three can be interpreted the same way, and
the plural “s” in “peoples” also adds to the chain of AAV male speech markers. The
abbreviated –ing form in line three, the short “o’” and the abbreviation “’er” are not
necessarily sociolectal markers, but they do count as colloquial speech, and thus as
features of masculine speech. Due to ambiguous pronounciation in the last line, it is
possible that instead of “gave ‘er a little bell,” Dréd actually just says “gave a little bell.”
In that case, he would use an elliptical sentence structure that also indicates masculinity.
(01) Was heisst maskulin, was feminin…
(05) Etwas spirituelles von meinem Volk.
As has been seen earlier, the translation of AAV into German presents a problem. As a
result of the combination of male and AAV indicators, the male speech features of the
subtitles of this sequence are significantly reduced. The subtitles completely ignore the
expression “you know what I’m saying,” and they only produce well-formed locutionary
utterances without any coloring of identity. The only feature that has been transferred to
the subtitles is the elliptic sentence structure. The broken thoughts are marked with “…”
and capitalization of the first word of the subsequent phrases.
In this chapter it was shown that the speech of all four protagnoists containd some of the
identified gender features. Sometimes it was also the absence of the features of the
oppostie gender that indicated gender, like for example in the first example of the drag
queen in 4.1. In 4.2, the I-focus was the predominant feature indicating masculinity in the
speech of Damian Corson. The use of colloquial language, AAV in particular, by
Zanthony Preston in 4.3 created the masculine gender. Finally, in 4.4, Mildred and her
male alter ego Dréd performed gender through language features such as emotional or
colloquial speech. Next to the language features, other elements played an important role
in constructing and performing a gender identity. Their importance in relation to the
language features will be examined in the next chapter of this dissertation.
5 DISCUSSION
To create a certain identity of themselves, people will consciously and unconsciously
perform that identity. Language is one form of performance. The conventions of linguistic
behavior of men and women are drawn from for the performance of the felt and desired
gender identity of a person. The aforementioned conventions are based on the natural
speech behavior of the genders as well as on the ideologies of gendered speech behavior
within a society. A number of speech features marking masculinity or femininity are listed
in section 3.2. In the analyzsis of the speech of four people appearing in the documentary
Venus Boyz, several of those features have been shown to indicate gender: The
performance of conventions has created a gender identity. Depending on how often or how
obvious features of one or the other gender were used, the speakers were perceived as
The first person whose speech was analyzed was that of a drag queen. If it was her speech
that created femininity, than it was more the absence of male speech features than the
presence of female speech features. Mainly though, the desired effect of femininity was
achieved through paraverbal features: The sound of her voice and her appearance.
The second person whose speech was analyzed is Damian Corson. The most outstanding
feature of his speech was the frequent use of I-focus. However, paraverbal features such as
mimicry and intonation were equally important in constructing masculinity in his
performance. Some of those paraverbal features could be interpreted as the basis of the
gender features indicated, for example his mimicry, which implies additional I-focus, or
the judgment passed on the audience. But even if some of the implications of the speech
features concord with the interpretation of paraverbal behavior, the chief factor pointing to
the masculine gender was not the speech features themselves. In the case of Damian
Corson, only in combination with paraverbal features did gendered language manage to
Zanthony Preston’s speech was analyzed next. As in the preceding examples, Zanthony
performs his gender mainly through paraverbal features like his posture and movements.
Unlike the other two examples, Zanthony’s appearance is ambiguous because he is in the
process of changing from his biological sex to his female stage character. Therefore, the
listener does not interpret the appearance of feminine speech features as a performance of
femininity, but of sexuality. Zanthony creates a (homo)sexual identity rather than a gender
identity. These findings would indicate that paraverbal features are the main indicator for
sexuality and gender, and linguistic features play merely a subordinate role in this identity
creation and performance. However, when the second sequence of Zanthony’s speech is
analyzed, although his appearance portrays complete femininity, he is perceived as
masculine by the way he speaks. The main indicator for masculinity of femininity in
Zanthony’s linguistic behavior are the presence or the absence of AAV, while in his
paralinguistic behavior is is the level of calmness he conveys.
Finally, in the analysis of Mildred and Dréd’s speech, calmness and determination are also
prime indicators of gender, together with the pitch of voice. Linguistically, it is again the
presence or absence of AAV that marks the masculine or the feminine gender.
Generally, most of the findings for the creation of gender through speech are valid for both
the English original and the German subtitles. An exception is the use of AAV; there is no
socio-linguistic community comparable to the African American speech community in the
German-speaking community. AAV thus remains untranslatable. Since the German-
speaking audience will receive the paralinguistic elements such as intonation, pitch of
voice, mimicry, and gesture to the same degree as an English-speaking audience, the
inability of interlingual transfer to account for such elements in the source text is by-
passed. A deeper voice accompanying the language of the subtitles – gendered or not – is a
type of gender performance that will help create gender in the minds of both English- and
German-speaking viewers. In the case of the second sequence with Zanthony Preston, for
example, where AVV used is not rendered at all in the target language, it is the paraverbal
feature exclusively (a deep, calm, determined voice), that creates gender in the German
viewers’ mind. It is very likely that the perceived masculinity is the same for both. Here,
too, it seems that the paraverbal features are more relevant in gender creation than the
Interestingly, much of the material showing the actual on-stage performances of the drag
kings on the Venus Boyz DVD contains no spoken text other than song lyrics. Most of the
time, the drag kings on stage are shown singing or miming, and dancing. Thus, it can be
said that the drag kings confirm the greater relevance of paraverbal features in the creation
and performance of gender. Their performance of masculinity relies on movement rather
than on gendered linguistic conventions. When Esther Newton speaks of the drag queens’
Unresolved Anger The 7 deadly sins will literally KILL you! Unresolved anger and all other kinds of negative emotions like resentment, jealousy, fear etc acidify the Cancer Truth body the same way unhealthy foods do. They also give off negative Your Body Can Heal Itself! energy and draw negative energy into your life. Cultivate love and joy! Forgive those who have hurt you! Denial /
British Association of Dermatologists’ guidelines for themanagement of bullous pemphigoid 2012V.A. Venning,1 K. Taghipour,2 M.F. Mohd Mustapa,3 A.S. Highet4 and G. Kirtschig51Department of Dermatology, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, U.K. 2Department of Dermatology, Whittington Hospital, Magdala Avenue, London N19 5NF, U.K. 3British Association of Dermatologists, Willa