Social functions of gossip in adolescent girl’s talk

Abstract

Research has shown that gossip plays an important role in establishing and supporting group values and behaviors. However, gossip also plays a role in the development and social construction of identity. In particular, gossip is a discursive resource that enables participants to create what Kyratzis refers to as practice communities: discursive contexts where speakers can explore the acceptability of social behaviors and values with their peers. This study analyzed excerpts of gossip taken from conversations involving 16-year-old high school girls to examine the role gossip plays in negotiating adulthood.

Keywords

Adolescent girls,gossip,social development,social identity

Introduction

At some point in their lives, most people begin to use some form of gossip in their everyday conversations; indeed it is often an integral part of adult social communication. Gossip is considerably more than a basic feature of social communication and thereby merits investigation, in contrast to Bergman’s (1993) claim that it ‘does not need to be (or tolerate being) problematized or instructed’ (p. 70). Much of the early literature (Brenneis, 1984; Dunbar, 1996; Gluckman, 1963; Harding, 1975; Haviland, 1977; Rosnow and Fine, 1976; Rysman, 1977; Yerkovich, 1977) suggested that gossip acts as a means of social control that reinforces group membership by enforcing social values. However, in addition to establishing ‘solidarity through shared values and agreed ways of seeing the world’ (Eggins and Slade, 1997: 276), gossip also reflects aspects of an individual’s cognitive and social development over time, and reflects emerging social identities.

Although there has been some discussion of the role of gossip in the friendship groups and social development of younger women and girls (Baumeister et al., 2004; Cutler et al., 2002; Fine, 1977; McDonald et al., 2007), it is more limited than research in adult populations. This article reports on data collected in a study that explored the role of gossip in the everyday conversations of teenage girls. The two aims of this report were to consider (a) how gossip might reflect stages of social development and (b) what gossip might reveal about emerging adult social identities.

The interactional structure of gossip

Gossip is talk that involves the discussion of a person, or persons, who is/are not present during the time the interaction takes place (Bergman, 1993; Bok, 1983; Guendouzi, 1996, 2001, 2004, , 2005, 2006; Jones, 1990; Levin and Arluke, 1987). In its most neutral form, gossip functions as a means to share news regarding the lives of family, friends or colleagues. Grice (1975) suggested that generally conversations and conversationalists operate under the shared assumption that what we say is what we believe to be ‘true’. However, in the case of gossip, there is always the risk that the story being told is not actually true, and even when a gossip item is a statement of known facts, it is always open to a range of moral judgments or evaluations. Thus, the successful management of gossip requires that interlocutors have a certain level of linguistic competence, social awareness and a degree of shared common ground (Clark, 1996). Furthermore, the manner in which interlocutors discursively manage a gossip item depends on whether the information has positive, negative or neutral connotations.

Gossip involves telling stories but although it shares some characteristics with narrative structure, it also has some noticeable differences. It does not follow the classical Labovian format (Labov and Waletsky,1967 ) and in some respects may have more in common with small stories (Bamberg and Georgakopoulou, 2008; Grossi and Gurney, 2019). As Clifton (2014) noted,

small stories are characterized by the fact that they are: short; told in interaction; not necessarily about the speaker; told in everyday settings; and are designed for an interactional purpose … Moreover, small stories are also seen as a site of identity construction. (p. 102)

As with any form of talk, gossip involves the social construction of identity (Marra and Angouri, 2011). However, the speaker is not directly presenting or positioning (Davies and Harre, 1990; Guendouzi and Williams, 2010) their own identity in their stories. It is the characteristics or behaviors of the gossip target that are the focus of attention; the interactional goal is to discuss and evaluate the acceptability of specific social behaviors. However, speakers may attempt to, discursively position the gossip target within the story in a way that reflects their own identity in a more positive manner. Gossip relies on acknowledgment from the audience in order to validate a speaker’s judgment that the item under discussion is worthy of evaluation. For example, the two adolescent girls in the interaction described below position themselves in opposition to the behaviors of a peer.

Example one

Aimee: oh oh did I tell you (.) did you hear (.) Kayley cheated on Chad at the game last week

Krista: who with?

Aimee: James Thomas (.) she didn’t even try to hide she was with him and Chad’s brother saw

Ashley: that’s just not on (.) you have to break up first it’s not fair

Krista: yeah I would never do that

Aimee: yeah I wouldn’t either

When telling gossip stories, speakers tend to not hold the conversational floor for a lengthy period because other interlocutors are likely to interrupt with requests for clarification or to add evaluative comments. Gossip items are often introduced by pre-alert statements (Guendouzi, 2001) such as ‘did you hear about John’ or ‘guess what happened to Mary’. These statements often signify that something of importance or relevance to the audience is going to follow. Gossip can then be introduced overtly as the opinion of the speaker or indirectly as the opinion of a non-present other. Introducing gossip items in a direct manner involves a situation where a speaker is presenting his/her own belief within the gossip story. This type of gossip story typically uses the first person ‘I’ pronoun. For example, to say, ‘I think she was acting like a bitch to him no wonder he left her’ expresses the direct belief or opinion of the speaker. Direct gossip suggests certainty about the matter under discussion. In contrast, in the case of indirect gossip, the gossip initiator may use third-person reports such as ‘Stacie told me that Aimee and Josh got into a fight and he hit her but Stacie said she bet it was Aimee’s fault’. Indirect gossip evaluates social actions through the words of others, allowing the speaker to put forward potentially negative judgments of non-present others without the risk of being censured by his/her audience. Thus, indirect gossip can provide a discursively safe context to receive feedback on a social or moral issue with perhaps less risk to the speaker’s positive self-image (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

It has been noted (Eggins and Slade, 1997; Guendouzi, 2001) that the structure of gossip (in English-speaking datasets) often involves four main conversational moves. Initially, there is a pre-alert or third-person focus (e.g. ‘Did you hear about Chris (.) he broke up with Sue’), followed by the introduction of substantiating evidence (e.g. ‘well they did argue a lot’). The other two common moves are pejorative evaluations (e.g. ‘well she always was a bitch’) and justifying evaluations (e.g. ‘well he did ignore her at work’). A justifying evaluation is a comment typically offered when one of the participants may support a particular action or social behavior that is being scrutinized or questioned by others in the group. Table 1 below illustrates examples of gossip forms.

Table 1.

Forms of gossip.

Forms of gossip	Examples
Neutral statements without added evaluative comments (although these may function as a topic opener for later evaluative comments)	‘By the way Susan’s going to Spain for the summer’
Direct information about non-present other with a positive comment/evaluation of the person	‘Susan’s going to Spain she deserves a break after all her hard work’
Direct information about non-present other with a negative comment/evaluation of the person	‘Susan’s going to Spain I don’t think she deserves it she is so lazy’
Indirect information about non-present other with positive evaluation	‘John said that he thought Susie deserved to win that trip to Spain’
Indirect information about non-present other with negative evaluation	‘John said that he thought Susie cheated on her weekly sales to win that trip to Spain’

Most adults are likely familiar with such forms of gossip and would recognize many of the examples above as comments that frequently occur in casual conversations. However, in the case of children and adolescents, it is less clear when gossip starts to emerge, what role it plays in social development, and whether it reveals similar social values to those of the dominant adult discourses.

Adolescent gossip: Rehearsing adulthood social roles

Children and adolescents use talk to create social meanings that shape their reality and construct a sense of self (Adler and Adler, 1998; Corsaro, 1997; Eckert, 1990; Eder, 1991; Gaskins et al., 1992). Kyratzis (2004) noted that the talk of both children and adolescents reflects processes of social development. In her extensive review of the literature, she suggested that the interactions of children and adolescents are a means by which they actively participate in ‘practice communities’ (2004: 627). Practice communities are contexts where conversations provide a discursive opportunity to construct identities that may both reflect or resist the dominant discourses of adult cultures. Adolescents, in particular, begin to use their social interactions to explore their peers’ reactions toward the acceptability of certain social behaviors and life experiences. Issues such as peer status and group hierarchies become more salient during adolescence and the discussion of the actions and opinions of peers is more common than in childhood (Corsaro and Eder, 1990). Blakemore and Mills (2014) suggested that young people at both ends of the adolescent spectrum (ages 13–21) are influenced by the social information gained from, and shared with, their peer networks. Wolf et al. (2015) reported that adolescents are very ‘sensitive to peer influence’ (p. 5); therefore, it is not surprising that discussion of other peers and their behaviors are frequent topics in the conversations of teenagers.

Younger children often practice social behaviors in their ‘pretend’ play routines, whereas adolescents ‘practice’ life through discussion of life events or gossiping about peers. Indeed, the transition from role-playing in ‘make believe’ games to discussions about their own lives is a notable developmental change in adolescents. Thus, gossip may be a developmental extension of the pretend or symbolic play of children (Lillard et al., 2013; Piaget, 1962) that we associate with increased social awareness and the development of competent social skills. Early stage models of psychology (e.g. Erikson, 1959, 1968; Kohlberg, 1984; Marcia, 1966, 1973) suggested that adolescence is a developmental period that involves role confusion. Erikson called this a period of fidelity; a stage where the individual may experience identity diffusion in the process of learning his or her identity. Erikson (1959, 1968) believed that successful maturation developed through the achievement of self-certainty as opposed to self-doubt or self-consciousness. A question arises from this notion – how do children and adolescents go about the business of acquiring self-certainty and learn to play adult roles? The games of younger children provide an environment where it is possible to engage in ‘play acting’ (i.e. children’s games allow them to literally dress up or mimic social roles). When adolescents enter high school, these forms of games are less acceptable, and thus, they begin to seek other ways in which to assess social norms. Adolescence is a developmental stage where meta-awareness of social norms starts to emerge more rapidly; a period where a greater amount of time is spent chatting with peers (both face to face and through social media) rather than engaging in physical play. During this period, young people’s conversations become more concerned with topics that discuss social issues, particularly those that involve relationships, family or peers. In that sense, gossip may provide them with opportunities to ‘rehearse’ social situations and establish belief systems.

Early research noted that younger children’s talk does include gossip (Fine, 1977; Harness-Goodwin, 1990), but it is more likely that they report an action or behavior that has upset them at that moment in time (e.g. ‘Ashley hit me I hate her’; ‘Jamie’s mean he took my candy’). When children move from the stage of simply reporting their feelings regarding a peer’s behavior to the stage of discussing the implications and/or morality of another’s actions, they are reflecting a higher level of cognitive reasoning and awareness of self-identity in relation to others. This process involves characterizing a person X through the reporting of a behavior Y that s/he has committed. In addition, the process supports the speaker’s need to consider the implications of behavior Y and its potential actual and/or emotional consequences on other events or people within the boundaries of one’s own social context.

Methods

The participants who took part in this study were five teenage girls aged 16 to 17 years old. Four were still at high school, and one was attending community college. Prior to the collection of data, the researcher obtained permissions (parental consent and participant assent) from an Institutional Review Board. The girls agreed to independently audio-record their Friday evening social conversations over a period of 12 months. The girls met at one of the participants’ houses every second Friday evening to prepare for a regular night out at a local restaurant-bar. The author gave the girls a small Sony audio-recorder that they were able to operate themselves. At no time was the author present during recording sessions; accordingly the girls had full power to edit, delete or stop recording at any point in the study. The study was designed to attempt to capture ‘naturalistic’ data that was not subject to the researcher’s influence or presence.

Following a review of the self-recorded sessions, the author carried out a post-study interview with the girls in order to collect further background information and clarify the social relationships between people mentioned during the recordings (e.g. if someone was a relative or close friend, etc.). The participants knew they were being recorded and this may have had an effect on the content of their conversations. However, in the post-study interview, the girls stated that once the audio-recorder had been running for 5–10minutes they forgot that the audio-recorder was in the room. The consensus of the participants was that they felt the data represented a true impression of their regular conversations.

All place names, personal names and identifying markers were changed to protect the participants’ identity. The author reviewed, transcribed and annotated the recordings independently. The recordings were then given to a second researcher, to independently review. Both researchers then met to discuss the transcripts for consensus. The author used transcription methods associated with discourse analysis and interactional sociolinguistics (e.g. Schiffrin, 1994).

Transcription conventions

1. (.) = minimal pause

2. (2.0) = timed pause

3. ** = overlapping or latched speech

4. (italics)= contextual information

5. She = stressed word/syllable

6. ? = rising intonation signifying question

7. And = Upper case letter indicates beginning of new turn

Speech Act notation

1. [question] = square brackets and boldface type indicate speech act or conversational move.

2. [TPF] third person focus

3. [SB] substantiating behavior/fact

4. [PE] pejorative evaluation

5. [JE] justifying evaluation

The data

Three main categories of talk emerged in the corpus of data and accounted for the majority of topics discussed by the girls. The first category of talk related to topics that dealt with current trends (e.g. music, fashion, movies), the second category consisted of comments related to physical appearance or clothing choices and the third category included topics related to personal gossip items. Personal gossip involved people who were members of the participants’ families or known to the participants and their peer group. Examples of personal gossip included neutral topics (e.g. letting the others know a family member had recently married) or potentially sensitive topics (e.g. telling the others about the breakup of a peer’s relationship). The neutral gossip segments typically included lengthy descriptions of items (e.g. fashion) or routines associated with an event (e.g. the type of service at a wedding or the bride’s outfit). The sensitive gossip topics involved evaluative comments that often expressed a speaker’s affective feelings toward the social actions or opinions of others. An example of an evaluative comment would be a remark such as ‘well I never thought she was all that good anyway’ in response to a question about a former school peer. The percentage of topics in the corpus of data was 15% physical appearance and grooming, 20% general social or media news and 65% gossip segments.

When all five girls were present, there were fewer examples of sensitive gossip than on occasions when only two or three were present. This may be a reflection of the group dynamics or because the girls considered a smaller group a ‘safer’ context for revealing sensitive gossip topics. Only three (Ashley, Krista and Aimee) of the five girls were present during the particular examples of conversation presented here. The girls always met at Ashley’s family home when they were getting ready to meet with other high school friends at a local restaurant. The reason for meeting at Ashley’s home was due to convenience, since the restaurant was in walking distance of her home. Although under the legal age for drinking, the girls had parental permission to share a bottle of wine while getting ready. Based on the author’s observations at the school while collecting some ethnographic background information, the three girls appeared to be very popular. Ashley appeared to maintain the role of alpha female, and based on comments collected in the ethnographic interviews, information recorded suggested that the others actively sought her company.

There were some differences noted in the conversational structure of the various topic types. Conversations involving topics about current trends contained a greater number of minimal responses (e.g. mhm or uh huh), more interruptions, more overlapping talk and typically shorter turns on the part of each speaker. Such topics were short-lived and rarely introduced with a pre-alert question/statement such as ‘have you heard’, ‘by the way’ or ‘did I tell you’. For example, topics relating to current media trends were introduced with a neutral declarative statement such as ‘I like Ryan Reynold’s new movie’, or ‘that new song of Katie Perry’s is not too bad’. This suggested that the girls had no problem expressing certainty of opinion in relation to matters of music, films or fashion. However, in the case of personal gossip, the girls typically introduced the topic with either a pre-alert question or statement that signified the new topic might be important or interesting. There were also more examples of requests for further information to elaborate on the story. This suggested greater importance was given to topics that involved the personal relationships of people who were known to the girls.

Discussion

Four examples of gossip from the corpus of audio-recorded conversations are discussed below. The four segments involved topics related to parental authority, sibling behavior, marital relationships and romantic relationships.

Extract 1. The driving story: Resisting parental authority, the voice of childhood

1. Krista: You know the length of my hair at the front? [pre-alert statement]

2. Ashley: Yeah?

3. Krista: My mom reckons I should grow the back down to that length [TPF]

4. Ashley: Why? [request for further information]

5. Krista: Cause she says it’s all (.) like you know (.) different lengths (0.2) she’s pissing me off now [SB + PE]

6. Ashley: Go on (.) I think you can take it [JE]

7. Krista: Oh she’s just like (.) she reckons I can’t use the red car (.) [SB] I don’t see the point in learning to drive cause I won’t be able to take the car out anyway [JE] (0.1) she reckons it’s too big for me (.) she says it’s too big for you [indirect PE] (.) an so I said well I drive it now and I haven’t even passed my test yet (.) [JE] and she says well you’ve got an experienced driver in the car with you [indirect JE] (0.1) but he doesn’t tell me what to do! [JE]

8. Ashley: Who doesn’t? [request for further information]

9. Krista: My Dad when I’m ** [response]

10. Ashley: **why doesn’t he tell you what to do? [request for further information]

11. Krista: Cause I can drive on my own without him telling me what to do! [JE]

12. Ashley: What’s that got to do with anything (.) if you got in an accident cause you’ve no control [JE]

13. Krista: Yeah (sighs) I know

The central topic in this segment focused on an ongoing dispute between Krista and her mother regarding Krista’s ability to drive the family car. Krista appeared to be seeking peer confirmation that she was mature enough to be trusted with driving the car. Krista narrates the story using reported comments from conversations with her mother. She initiates the main gossip topic by use of a side topic – her mother’s opinion of her current hairstyle. Krista’s mother is introduced as the third-person focus in both stories but after two turns-at-talk, Krista does not pursue the initial topic and closes it down with a pejorative evaluation of her mother (turn 5). Ashley’s suggestion that Krista is strong enough to cope with her mother’s interference (turn 6) triggers a lengthy turn-at-talk where Krista elaborates on the central issue that is causing conflict with her mother (turn 7). When referring to their conversations, Krista overtly stresses the pronoun ‘she’, thereby positioning her mother as a central figure of opposition. Krista reports that her mother insisted she was only safe when her father was present in the car. Krista then uses this reference to her father to reinforce her own opinion by suggesting that unlike her mother, her father trusts her driving skills (turns 7, 9). In retelling this story, Krista ‘ventriloquizes’ (Clifton, 2014: 100) her mother’s comments to recreate their dialogue, thus both her own and (her version of) her mother’s viewpoint on the issue are presented within this interaction.

Ashley’s requests for information during this segment help to scaffold the story but rather than sympathize with her best friend, Ashley’s comments allow her to take on the role of parent voice (turn 12). Ashley’s comments appeared to be an attempt at reframing the topic as a safety issue rather than one of parental control. Krista eventually acknowledges this point of view (turn 13) and the topic ends. In this extract, Krista and Ashley were able to assess an issue that was causing friction between Krista and her mother. Rather than supporting Krista’s negative comments about maternal control, Ashley’s contributions represented an established social discourse, the adult voice of reason (turn 12) challenging Krista’s claims. The seven justifying evaluations in this short segment of gossip reflect the importance of the two issues discussed. Having access to a car for young adults is often a milestone equated with independence and adulthood but reluctance to allow a teen to drive due to concern for safety is a common reaction by parents. In this particular case, gossip involving her mother resulted in the girls reframing the issue from one of control to one of safety. Although the manner in which Krista discursively portrayed her mother reflected the voice of a defiant child, it is clear that rational adult opinions are emerging in both girls’ belief systems.

Extract 2. The smoking story: The voice of parental values

1. Krista: Need to sort mine out she’s a bitch [pre-alert comment] if I ever catch her in my room touching any of my stuff again I mean it that’s (0.1) it’s over she** [PE]

2. Ashley: **she was smoking down the roller skating the other week [SB]]

3. Krista: did you have any of them? [did she catch them] [request for further information]

4. Ashley: crap no! they ran off (.) she goes don’t tell anyone (.) I’ve got to stop her hanging round with those girls cause they’re too old for her (0.1) at school they are sluts [SB + PE]

5. Krista: They’re too old for her Ashley they’re (.) she’s thirteen nearly fourteen er fourteen [SB]

6. Ashley: I (0.2) like we all hang round with older people but (.) it doesn’t mean that**[JE]

7. Ashley: Yeah I know what you mean but Blaire is the same age as your sister** [SB + JE] well how old is that girl Keely in the third year? [request for further information]

8. Krista: **yeah but we’re already old enough [JE]

9. Krista: mhm well it all depends on how fast (mature) they are [JE]

10. Ashley: but she shouldn’t be drinking and stuff [PE]

In the smoking story, the two girls discussed their younger sisters’ behaviors. Within the ten turns-at-talk, there are four justifying evaluations and three pejorative evaluations. Initially, Krista’s sister was the third person focus of this story but as the dialogue continued, the conversation shifted to the topic of Ashley’s sister and a school peer group. Krista introduced the topic of sibling bad behavior with an insulting reference to her sister (turn 1) and then proceeded to report her sister has been in her room uninvited and had been going through her belongings. Following recent renovations to the family home, Krista was given her own room (she had previously shared a room with her younger sister). The allocation of her own room marked her maturity in the family hierarchy and her comments here suggests she resented the intrusion to her newly gained privacy. Ashley then reciprocated with a story about her own younger sister smoking at the roller-rink. The two girls extend this discussion to the larger issue of negative peer group influences. Although only 16, Krista and Ashley’s comments suggest they view themselves as adults when compared to their younger sisters who are 13 and 14 years old.

The discussion in the smoking story reflects a common difficulty that teenagers encounter during high school years – how to deal with peer pressure. Both Krista and Ashley admit that they associate with friends who are older (turns 6–7). To counteract this potentially contradictory statement, the girls note that they themselves had reached an age where they were mature enough to have friends who were older. In the follow-up interview, the girls confirmed they were referring to a group of male college students aged between 19 and 21 years. The girls’ initial assessment of appropriate age difference appeared to be relative to the starting point of the age difference. For Krista and Ashley, 16 appeared to be old enough to associate with people 4 years their senior but 14 was not mature enough to associate with other teenagers who were 2 years older. At one point, Krista concedes it is not the age of their sisters’ peers that matters but how ‘fast they are’ (turn 9). This remark implies that appropriateness is less about overall chronological age and more about how you behave in public. Ashley closed down the topic by noting that her sister ‘shouldn’t be drinking’ which was ironic as both girls admitted in their interview they had regularly drunk alcohol since the age of 15 and were drinking wine during this particular recording. However, Ashley and Krista told the researcher they did not display their underage drinking (and occasional smoking) in public. In the follow-up interview, the girls noted that public displays of risky behaviors were more acceptable for male peers; a viewpoint that suggested the societal norm that holds females to higher standards of morality was still at play within their peer group.

By jointly censuring their sister’s behaviors, Ashley and Krista appear to be discursively playing with a parental voice of authority. They express moral judgments that align more closely with those of their parents than their peers. They did not provide any evidence in their conversation of their own claims of behavioral maturity; rather, this belief appeared to be based solely on the statement that they themselves are ‘old enough’ (turn 7). Krista and Ashley are beginning to negotiate their own adult personas but they are still quite close in chronological age to their sisters and it appeared important to them to demarcate the 2 years of age difference.

In this selection, there is an element of cognitive dissonance in relation to some of their own behaviors (i.e. smoking, drinking and associating with older peers) and the censorship of their sisters’ behaviors. Both girls claimed they were able to make rational decisions about such choices without any negative side effects. In this segment, there are more evaluative statements than in the previous example and the girls’ statements mirror each other’s viewpoint. Similarly, both girls appeared to share the same opinion about their sisters’ behaviors and their contributions jointly construct an authoritative parental voice throughout the dialogue. In this particular conversation, the girls appear to be attempting to establish their right to claim maturity and the adult voice has more primacy. This segment of gossip reflected adult opinions and viewpoints emerging in the girls’ discursive repertoires.

Extract 3. The stepmother story: Assessing marital relationships

1. Ashley: My Dad you know he got back with Helen (stepmother) did I tell you? [pre-alert question] you remember they got back together

2. Krista: Yeah

3. Ashley: He left her again now [TPF]

4. Krista: Serious? [request for information]

5. Ashley: Yeah serious (.) he left her again now (.) he’s living down at Aunty Jan’s [SB] (0.1) he’s going to do what he did to my Mom (.) he’s going to keep going back and forth as he pleases (.) [PE] but he went out with all the boys apparently** [SB]

6. Krista: **she won’t take that for long (.) knowing her she won’t [PE]

7. Ashley: Well apparently she was hysterical (.) you know crying an all [SB] this but (.) er he was mm oh he was supposed to of er gone out that night look that he left her again and bought a new outfit and everything (.) going out on the town [SB] he said oh tell Aunty Jan to tell my mom to tell me that if I was going out he’d be down the bar at seven if I wanted to see him [SB]

8. Krista: That’s disrespectful! [PE]

9. Ashley: Yeah mm he’s bought a new outfit and everything so we all think he’s got another woman [SB] (0.2) I said what would you say Carol (.) she said I’d go up to her and say ‘you marriage wrecking bitch” [PE]

10. Krista: Like that? [request for information]

11. Ashley: Yeah but if he hasn’t got a woman he’s obviously looking for a woman [PE]

12. Krista: He ain’t got a woman cause he’d starting buying those clothes long before now if he had another woman wouldn’t he? [JE]

13. Ashley: Yeah [agreement]

14. Krista: He’s obviously going out looking for a woman [PE]

15. Ashley: Yeah I don’t care [JE] (.) he er thinks like (.) well like (.) I think whether he stays now or he doesn’t as long as he doesn’t meet anybody else oh (sighs) I am so tired [JE]

The stepmother story was a potentially sensitive topic because it related to the behavior of Ashley’s father toward her stepmother. Ashley’s parents were divorced and each had remarried. Ashley’s father appeared to have an on-off relationship with her stepmother. He had separated from his second wife on two previous occasions and was at that time living with Ashley’s aunt. Although Krista was aware of the past situation, Ashley updates her friend on her father’s current relationship issues. She notes that her father had a record of behaving badly toward both her own mother and his second wife Carol (turn 5). Ashley told the author that she was not particularly fond of her stepmother; however, in this conversation, she offered no discursive support for her father’s behaviors nor did she offer any comments about her stepmother that might justify his behaviors.

The main topic in Extract 3 was introduced with a pre-alert statement (turn 1) from Ashley. In this particular interaction, there are fewer requests for further information and a greater number of pejorative evaluations. Both girls’ comments reflect criticism of the father’s behaviors. Ashley’s remarks (turn 5) suggested she may still resent the behaviors he exhibited toward her own mother. The girls’ discussion regarding the buying of new clothes suggested that this was a novel aspect of the father’s behavior. Based on the patterns of intonation, volume and speech rate, the girls’ contributions during this topic segment appeared more emotionally charged than on other occasions. This was particularly noticeable when Ashley reported a comment her stepmother Carol made about the ‘alleged’ other woman who was referred to as a ‘marriage wrecking bitch’ (turn 9). There is an underlying irony here because Carol as the other woman who broke up her own parents’ marriage was once the target of Ashley’s anger. At this point, the girls’ comments are more resonant of a collective female attitude toward infidelity than an assessment of the individual life choices of Ashley’s father. Krista’s comments (turn 12) suggested she was trying to diffuse the evidence of guilt against Ashley’s father, perhaps to be supportive toward her best friend. Ashley’s final remark (turn 15) was accompanied by a heavy sigh that may have been reflective of unresolved issues related to her father’s behaviors toward women.

The girls exhibited strong feelings during this gossip story. Ashley’s initial contributions show she is discursively positioning herself as an adult and her comments suggested that she feels her father’s behavior was not appropriate for a married man. In this segment, the girls jointly constructed a viewpoint that is consistent with a traditional social belief that typically opposes marital infidelity, to the point where Ashley is supportive of her stepmother rather than her own father. In her final remark, however, (turn 15) her comments reflect the voice of a child who is still confused by her father’s behaviors and there are echoes in Ashley’s comments of the ‘hurt’ or ‘resentful’ child who may have felt abandoned by her father. Her final comment (turn 15) suggests that although she is beginning to view this through an adult lens, she still has unresolved issues about her father’s behavior and the likely effect it has had on her family. The girls’ comments in this conversation reflected issues relating to gender roles and marital relationships that were likely to affect them in the near future. Gossip on this occasion provided them with an opportunity to evaluate how they felt about the father’s behaviors and allowed them an opportunity to construct discursive identities that aligned with women in general and were opposed to marital infidelity.

Extract 4. The boyfriend story: Evaluating romantic relationships

1. Ashley: I don’t want it to get around that I got off with him (.) I don’t know why? [gossip pre-alert + TPF]

2. Krista: There’s nothing more like a boy than him! [PE]

3. Ashley: He’s nice though [PJ]

4. Krista:/\So! [request for further information]

5. Ashley: Well I went out with Brad and he was a complete dick [PE]

6. Krista: Yeah but (.) is there enough hot water? (turns on shower) [side comment] Ryan (.) Ryan would be nice to you [JE]

7. Ashley: Yeah expect he would but I (.) I okay I well you know (.) I’m not exactly tied down [JE]

8. Krista: And who else have you rejected then? [request information]

9. Ashley: Taylor Smith [response]

10. Krista: Yeah

11. Aimee: Oh he would (smiling) [JE]

12. Krista: No (.) no (.) who else Jordan Goodwin? [request information]

13. Aimee: He would be nice to you Jordan is all right [JE]

14. Ashley: Oh he’s just a boy an he’s big headed [PE]

15. Krista: Oy (.) oy hang on a minute so is Ryan [JE]

16. Ashley: But I don’t like Jordan [JE]

17. Krista: Ryan’s younger than you at least Jordan’s older than you [JE]

18. Ashley: Yeah but Jordan’s childish (.) and he’s shorter than me [PE]

19. Aimee: no no Jordan is really boring [PE]

20. Ashley: Yeah [agreement]

21. Aimee: All he can talk about is football [PE]

22. Ashley: He doesn’t even talk that much about football he’s sad [PE]

23. Aimee: No he is (.) he’s boring (.) what I was gonna say was did you actually reject Ryan then? [PE + request for further information]

24. Ashley: No I said yeah [response]

25. Aimee: You said yeah? (.) you said yes? [request for further information]

26. Krista: No but I had to persuade her it was right to do that [JE]

27. Ashley: well yeah

28. Aimee: Do you like him at all? (.) cos if you don’t like him at all well? [request for further information + PE]

29. Ashley: Yeah yeah a bit but I just don’t know (sighs) [JE]

30. Aimee: Meet Ryan and**

31. Krista: ** it’s a free date anyway [SB]

32. Ashley: Yeah but he’s not gonna pay (.) like I went out with him an I had my own money (.) it was as friends I was gonna pay my own way (.) I was! [SB + JE]

33. Krista: Oh he should do (.) he should do [JE]

34. Ashley: He’s (.) well he has no money [JE]

35. Aimee: He does work [JE]

In the boyfriend story, the girls discussed potential romantic relationships with boys from their high school peer group. Ashley introduced this topic with a pre-alert statement relating to a boy she had recently dated. The pre-alert statement was immediately followed by a self-directed question about her own motives (turn 1). Ashley’s reluctance to have this news circulate may reflect a fear of gaining a bad reputation. In the post-study interview, the girls explained that they are at risk of negative judgments from their peers if they date too frequently. Krista’s response, however, suggested another potential reason – the boy is too immature for them – ‘there’s nothing more like a boy than him’ (turn 2). Krista’s comment initiated a discussion on the merits of several boys who Ashley dated from their high school peer group. At one point, Krista challenges Ashley to reveal the names of all the boys she has rejected (turn 9), which leads to a more general discussion of the boys in their peer group.

The conversation then focused on the topic of which of their male peers would be suitable enough to date. Ashley’s comment (turn 15) that one of their male peers is ‘just a boy’ reflects the girls’ perception that maturity and perhaps chronological age are important qualities in a prospective boyfriend. In the latter half of this segment, the girls also note that some of the boys are ‘really boring’ (turn 19) and only able to talk about football. Ashley (turn 23) then notes that one boy is not even able to talk about football, an attribute that, in the girls’ eyes, appears to lower his social capital further (Bourdieu, 1987; Eckert, 1990). The girls’ discussion then returns to the topic of a potential date between Ashley and a boy called Ryan. When Aimee asked whether she had refused Ryan’s offer of a date, Ashley’s reply is contradictory (turn 24), and she does not respond to a query from Aimee to confirm the date (turn 25). Krista informs Aimee that Ashley did say yes but only because she (Krista) had persuaded her it was the right thing to do. Krista’s comment (turn 26) allows her to position herself as an influential figure in Ashley’s life. This appears to prompt Aimee to establish her own role as adviser in Ashley’s life (turn 28) by questioning the wisdom of this decision. The hedging evident in Ashley’s response (turn 30) reflects some confusion. As noted above, having frequent dating partners was a behavior that could be perceived negatively, but for young people of this age, there is also a great deal of peer pressure to show they are ‘in’ a relationship. The conversation in this segment of talk suggested the girls are uncertain about how to proceed in romantic relationships, particularly because whom they date may result in either negative or positive evaluations by their peers.

In Extract 4, there are eight pejorative evaluations that negatively describe characteristics or behaviors of male peers. The pejorative evaluations suggest that the girls were quite critical of their male peer group. There are also 13 justifying evaluations that may reflect the girls’ need to establish the validity of their viewpoints. The conversational structure is more argumentative and takes the form of one girl introducing a particular boy for comparison (e.g. turns 6 and 12) and the other girls offering either a pejorative evaluation (e.g. turns 14, 18 and 19) or a justifying evaluation (turns 6 and 13) to support or challenge the boy’s acceptability as a romantic partner. As the girls’ conversation continues back and forth, specific characteristics of male partners and dating behaviors emerge. For example, Krista’s comment about a ‘free date’ (turn 31) reflects a traditional social expectation, that males are responsible for paying when on a date. Ashley resisted this idea (turn 32), but Krista’s response (turn 33) reinforces support for this social norm. Ashley then attempted to justify her position by saying Ryan has no money to pay for her. Aimee also appeared to support Krista’s idea that males should pay for dates and notes that Ryan has a part-time job, implying he should have money. Although Ashley’s comments showed evidence that equality was something she thought was important in romantic relationships, the other two girls’ remarks suggest social stereotypes, associated with traditional male roles that were deeply embedded in the girls’ perceptions of male–female roles.

There was no mention on this occasion of the other two girls’ romantic involvements, rather the topic developed specifically through discussion of Ashley’s social life. Based on the comments about the number of boys who had asked Ashley for a date, she appeared to be popular with their male peers. However, there did not appear to be any envy in the comments of the other two girls, suggesting that they were both attempting discursively to position themselves as Ashley’s closest friend, the person who could provide her with the best advice. This particular discussion also provided the girls with a context in which they could compare the qualities and characteristics of boys in their high school peer group. It afforded them the opportunity to discuss what they liked or disliked in a potential romantic partner. It may also have allowed Aimee and Krista to claim social capital because of their association with Ashley who as the others noted in the ethnographic was at that time, one of the most popular girls at their school.

As Kyratzis (2004) noted, adolescents frequently look to their peers to establish consensus regarding their own perceptions or judgments of others. In the boyfriend story, the girls sought to explore certain characteristics that were preferred in potential romantic partners; a process that did, to some extent, reinforce certain stereotypical characteristics associated with the ideal boyfriend. Based on this conversation, it appeared that for these girls an ideal romantic partner epitomized some traditional qualities that included paying for dates.

Conclusion

Bergman (1993) suggested that gossip is a form of talk that does not need to instructed and in considering the structure of the data presented here it was clear that, at sixteen, the girls were able to manage gossip topics in a way that is similar to older adults. However, one noticeable difference is that the girls appeared to be less certain about their beliefs regarding some of the issues discussed. Social interactions within adolescent peer groups are highly influential, formative events that help with the transition from childhood to adulthood. For the girls in this study the transition was evident through a dialectical discursive shift that oscillated between adult and child perspectives. The talk reflected the developmental life-stage associated with identity diffusion or role uncertainty (Erikson, 1959, 1968; Marcia, 1966, 1973). For example, on some occasions the girls’ comments reflected a childlike or rebellious attitude yet on other occasions, the talk reflected adult voices mature enough to censure the rebellious behavior of younger siblings or comment on the marital infidelity of Ashley’s father. Thus, the gossip sessions appeared to provide the girls with an opportunity to create a discursive practice community (Kyratzis, 2004) to discuss and consider social issues affecting their lives.

Recognizing at what age ‘adult-like’ gossip emerges in the conversations of children and adolescents can help us better understand stages of cognitive and social development. To engage in gossip, participants need to be able to analyze the cause and effect of others’ behaviors, be able to understand the social implications and outcomes of certain behaviors and to move beyond the more egocentric perspectives of childhood and acknowledge other points of view. Gossip displays high levels of meta-awareness of social norms and the consequences of particular behaviors. When assessing the social and pragmatic development of children and adolescents, it is important to consider how they communicate in informal settings without adults present. At what age do girls progress to this type of talk and how does gossip differ across gender? For example, the conversations examined above reflected many traditional gender biases regarding male–female roles and the acceptability of certain behaviors for young females (and males).

Gossip as a form of talk does not bear power in its’ own right, but it is a potentially powerful genre of talk that reveals both individual belief systems and many ingrained social norms. It provides an ideal discursive environment to rehearse and practice social roles and evaluate acceptable social behaviors. A final point to note is that the conversations analyzed in this article were representative of how conversations unfold in face-to-face interactions. The topics discussed in this particular dataset may have played out very differently in a social media platform and reveal divergent aspects of teenage girls’ social growth. It would prove useful for future research to compare how the girls would manage similar topics in the digital age via text message, Facebook or other social media outlets.

Footnotes

Author biography

Jackie Guendouzi received her PhD from Cardiff University. Currently, she is Department Head of Health and Human Sciences at Southeastern Louisiana University. Her research and publications have focused on socio-pragmatic and qualitative approaches to discourse in women’s talk and communication disorders.

References

Adler

(1998) Peer Power: Culture and Identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bamberg

Georgakopoulou

(2008) Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and Identity analysis. Text & Talk 28(3): 377–396.

Baumeister

Zhang

Vohs

(2004) Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology 8(2): 111–121.

Bergman

(1993) Discrete Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Bok

(1983) Secrets. New York: Vantage books.

Bourdieu

(1987) Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press.

Blakemore SJ and Mills KL (2014) Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing?. Annu Rev Psychol 65: 187–207.

Brenneis

(1984) Grog and gossip in Bhatgaon: Style and substance in Fiji Indian. American Ethnologist 11: 487–517.

Brown

Levinson

(1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Clark

(1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Clifton

(2014) Small stories, positioning, and the discursive construction of leader identity in Business meetings. Leadership 10(1): 99–117.

12.

Corsaro

(1997) The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; Sage.

13.

Cutler

Parker

La Greca

(2002) Developmental and gender differences in pre-adolescents’ judgements of the veracity of gossip. Merrill Parker Quarterly 48: 105–132.

14.

Davies B and Harré R (1990) Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20: 43–63.

15.

Dunbar

(1996) Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber & Faber.

16.

Eckert

(1990) Cooperative competition in adolescent ‘girl talk’. In: Tannen

(ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–61.

17.

Eder

(1991) The role of learning in adolescent peer culture. In: Cahill

(ed.) Sociological Studies of Cultural Development. London: JAI Press, pp. 181–197.

18.

Eder

Corsaro

(1990) Ethnographic studies of children and youth: Theoretical and ethical issues. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28: 520–531.

19.

Eggins

Slade

(1997) Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell & Co.

20.

Erikson

(1959) Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: International Universities Press.

21.

Erikson

(1968) Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Inc.

22.

Fine

(1977) Social components of children’s gossip. Journal of Communication 27: 181–185.

23.

Gaskins

Miller

Corsaro

(1992) Theoretical and methodological perspectives in the interpretative study of children. In: Corsaro

Miller

(eds) Interpretative Approach to Children’s Socialization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers, pp. 5–23.

24.

Gluckman

(1963) Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology 4: 307–316.

25.

Grossi

Gurney

(2019) ‘ Is it ever enough?’ Exploring academic language and learning advisory identities through small stories. Discourse Studies 22: 32–47.

26.

Grice P (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P and Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41–58.

27.

Guendouzi

(1996) Gossip: Problematics for definitions and gendered talk. In: Papers in linguistics from the University of Manchester, Vol. 1, pp. 61–74. Manchester: Department of Linguistics, University of Manchester.

28.

Guendouzi

(2001) ‘ You’ll think we’re always bitching’: The functions of cooperativity and competition in women’s gossip. Discourse Studies 3(1): 55–77.

29.

Guendouzi

(2004) ‘ She’s very slim’: Talking about body-size in all female interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1635–1653.

30.

Guendouzi

(2005) ‘ I feel quite organized this morning’: How mothering is achieved through talk. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender 7: 17–36.

31.

Guendouzi

(2006) ‘ The guilt thing’: Balancing domestic and professional roles. Journal of Marriage and Family 68: 901–909.

32.

Guendouzi

Williams

(2010) Positioning identity in clinical interviews with people who stutter. Communication & Medicine 7(2): 108–119.

33.

Harding

(1975) Women and words in a Spanish village. In: Reiter

(ed.) Towards an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 238–308.

34.

Harness-Goodwin

(1990) Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

35.

Haviland

(1977) Gossip as competition in Zinacantan. Journal of Communication 27: 186–191.

36.

Jones

(1990) Gossip notes on women’s oral culture. In: Cameron

(ed.) Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 193–198.

37.

Kohlberg

(1984) The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). New York: Harper & Row Books.

38.

Kyratzis

(2004) Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 625–649.

39.

Labov W and Waletzky J (1967) Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: U. of Washington Press. pp. 12–44.

40.

Levin

Arluke

(1987) An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex Roles 12: 281–286.

41.

Lillard

Lerner

Hopkins

, et al. (2013) The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin 139(1): 1–34.

42.

McDonald

Putallaz

Grimes

, et al. (2007) Girl talk: Gossip, friendship, and sociometric status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 53: 381–411.

43.

Marcia JE (1966) Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3(5): 551–558.

44.

Marcia JE (1973) Ego-Identity Status, in Michael Argyle (Ed.), Social Encounters. Penguin: pp. 340–353.

45.

Marra

Angouri

(2011) Investigating the negotiation of identity: A view from the field of workplace discourse. In: Angouri

Marra

(eds) Constructing Identities at Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16.

46.

Piaget

(1962) Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood (Trans. Gattegno

and Hodgson

). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

47.

Rosnow

Fine

(1976) Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of Hearsay New York: Elsevier.

48.

Rysman

(1977) How the gossip became a woman. Journal of Communication 27: 176–180.

49.

Schiffrin

(1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

50.

Wolf

Bazargani

Kilford

, et al. (2015) The audience effect in adolescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder. Journal of Adolescence 43: 5–14.

51.

Yerkovich

(1977) Gossiping as a way of speaking. Journal of Communication 27: 192–196.