258 Boo/i revicw~

Sabine Biirsch, Fremdsprachenstudium - Frauenstudium? Subjektive Be- deutung und Funktion des Fremdsprachcncrwerbs und -studiums fur Studen- tinnen und Studenten. Tiibingen: Stauffenberg Verlag, 1982. 218 pp. Dhl 38.00.

Modern language departments of West German universities appear to be a domain of female students. At Hamburg University, for instance, 40% of all students are female, whereas the portion of female students of English or French is 68% and 75%, respectively. (These numbers even exceed the percentages in pedagogics, another subject traditionally preferred by women.) This numerical overrepresentation of women could be interpreted in different ways, e.g. as a result of historical forces and social conditions (particularly as an expression of traditional role behaviour). Other explanations are hardly ever considered, not even in treatises on the specific situation of female students or in works about the development of academic studies for women. Investigations .into the connections between motivations for choosing a particular subject of study, foreign language learning, and sex are non-existent. Research on women and education has often been directed toward sex-specific role-behaviour and the resulting disadvantages for women. Gradually, other points of view emerge which do not show women as victims of outside forces any longer. With her study Fremdsprachenstudium .-. Frauenstudium?, Sabine Borsch intends to turn away from the woman-as-victim scheme and at the same time to present a contribution to an interdisciplinary oriented research in foreign language learning.

Borsch investigates the motives for choosing a modern language as a subject of study by asking students about the personal experience they consider relevant for their choice. The hypothesis of women’s superiority in language - often mentioned and controversially discussed in the literature on the subject - stimulated Borsch to relate this hypothesis to the students’ choices of study. She announced a course Van der sprachlichen oberlegenheit der Frau - oder. Warum studiertfjau Fremdsprachen at Hamburg University. 13 female students took part in this course. They discussed their personal motivations for their studies and also the significance of the foreign language for the individual. Male students had obviously not been attracted by the course announcement. A comparable group of male students was to meet later.

Borsch chooses the method of group discussions and a hermeneutic mode of interpretation after a comprehensive discussion of possible methodological approaches. She describes three meetings of the female and male groups, respectively, and one meeting of both groups together.

The discussions of the women’s group focus on language - no matter whether native or foreign. The female students value stays abroad as experien- ces of great importance to their relationship to the foreign language and thus

to their choice of study. Another important factor in this choice is a dislike for natural sciences (an attitude at least partially influenced by sex stereotypes).

Various aspects are touched upon when members of the women’s group speak about subjective functions and the significance of the foreign language: the ability of speaking a foreign language gives some of them the feeling of being able to ‘conquer the world’; they become acquainted with different cultures; they feel that language is something like a living object; using a foreign language gives them the opportunity of distancing themselves from other people and of compensating for feelings of inferiority. The women in this group feel more restricted in communicating in their native language and have a less constrained relationship to the foreign language. Moreover, these students feel that it is easier for them to express emotions and to deal with taboo subjects in the foreign, rather than in their native language. This emotional significance is not necessarily connected with an actual stay abroad. When the foreign language is used at home, its ‘liberating’ function remains intact. On the whole, the female students see the connection between language and personal identity as a very close one.

As far as the hypothesis of female superiority in language (learning) is concerned, the discussions of the women’s group need to be more differentia- ted. As to their native language, the female students regard themselves as superior to male students with respect to the ability to express one’s own feelings. They also consider themselves more sensitive in their handling of subtle means of expression; but they feel inferior to males in the application of rhetorical strategies when it comes to making a point. In foreign languages women see themselves as possessing more Sprach~~$tihl.

Like the female’students, members of the male group regard stays abroad as an important factor in their choice of academic subjects. The male students stress their affinity to the foreign country, the different way of life and mentality, but they characterise this affinity as ‘irrational’. Not the foreign language itself, but language in connection with the stay abroad brings about reflections about personal as well as national identity.

When using the foreign language abroad, the male students often have a feeling of being detached from their everyday ‘real’ lives. But they also feel restricted, as their insufficient command of the foreign language limits their scope of expression. The students strongly doubt that they (or any adult learner) will ever be able to speak the foreign language in such a way that they cannot be distinguished from native speakers, though this is what they aim for.

In contrast to the women’s group. the men are hardly aware of any sex- specific differences in their use of the language. Male students are a minority in modern language departments. They show different reactions to this situation. Most of them do not enjoy it; some perceive their female fellow students as rather ‘cold’. In spite of their being a minority, the few men participate much

more in seminar discussions than women, but they do not regard this as an instance of sex-specific behaviour.

Apart from the topics discussed at the group meetings, the author also describes the emotional atmosphere of each meeting, because she wants to take individual attitudes and emotions into account. These descriptions function as a kind of frame for the contents of the group discussions and sometimes also as a complement. On the whole, the discussions of the female students seem to have been more open, more animated and cooperative as well as more relaxed than those of the male students. Furthermore, female students seem to have differentiated less between their own privacy and objective circumstances. This type of sex-specific behaviour in conversations has frequently been discussed in research on language and sex. In this connection, it is rather surprising that at the joint meeting of both groups the female students tended to take the initiative and to act in solidarity, thus polarising the positions. (This becomes particularly interesting when compared to the self-assessment the women displayed in earlier discussions -. see above.)

It is my impression that the author’s descriptions of the male students’ meetings are somewhat biased. Borsch sometimes seems to interpret rather than to describe the course and the atmosphere of the discussions, and she notes every inconsistency and interruption.

In her concluding comments on her findings, Borsch states the following sex- specific differences: all in all, the female students are more capable of talking about themselves and their male fellow students. This result is very much in accordance with stereotyped images of female/male behaviour. Besides, the women appear to be more aware of the significance of their native as well as the foreign language. They also feel the need to speak about emotions in connection with the foreign language, whereas the men tend to avoid discus- sions on this kind of topic.

In their search for personal identity, language has not the same importance for men and women. Similarities and differences between the native and foreign languages arc assessed differently by male and female students. The foreign language gives the female students the opportunity of stressing their individuality and of obtaining emotional relief. The male students, on the other hand, sometimes see the foreign language as a painful barrier in commtmica- tion. The women define their relationship to the foreign language almost as one to a living organism, while the men view their attitude to the foreign country as something constituted by their experience with speakers of the language.

Borsch emphasizes that the findings of her study are tentative and should not lead to rash generalisations. Consequently, when she relates her study to biological, cognitive, psychological, and socialisation theories, she does not primarily speak about results, but about open questions and hypotheses for further research. Finally, Borsch discusses a psychoanalytically oriented

approach. Even if the reader (like myself) feels doubtful about this approach or parts of it, at least one still has to agree that a more detailed elaboration of such a psychoanalytical concept of (first and second) language acquisition could provide a suitable theoretical framework for studies like Biirsch’s.

Borsch demonstrates the importance of including cognitive as well as affective factors in research on foreign language learning. When dealing with affective and emotional attitudes and processes, one is almost always concerned with interpretations which cannot be judged objectively, but are more or less plausible. In my opinion, some of Borsch’s interpretations are not entirely convincing. For instance, in their discussion of their situation, the male students often compare their own behaviour and views to those of their female fellow students. Borsch considers this as ‘taking a female perspective’ or even as ‘female identification’ on the part of the male students. Another example: every participant in foreign language seminars (in West German universities) is familiar with the students’ reluctance to speak up in classes, or ‘speechlessness’, as Borsch calls it. In her view, this passive behaviour is not due to a lack of motivation but rather expresses the (esp. female) students’ disappointment: the academic treatment of the foreign language does not fuhil their expectations and does not comply with their emotional needs. (Incidentally, the chapter I am referring to - chapter 5 on interpretations -- contains several repetitions and summaries which do not add anything new to what has already been said.)

On the whole, it becomes clear from the text that it is the author’s intention to present women not in the role of the victim, but rather as active, indepen- dent, and autonomous individuals. Therefore, she interprets passive behaviour as a kind of resistance against unsatisfactory circumstances, or suggests that, in a sense, men are oriented towards women in their search for their own identity. Other similar examples are numerous. To my mind, these interpretations are not always supported by evidence and the reported data allow other explana- tions as well.

All in all, the book does not offer definite results; it is what the author intended it to be: an explorative study which may stimulate further research.

Ulrike Behrens Seminar fur deutsche Literatur und Sprache

Universitlt Hannover BRD

Lucia Vaina and Jaakko Hintikka, cds., Cognitive constraints on communica- tion. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Reidel. 1984. xix + 428 pp. Dfl. 160,-, $54.00 (cloth).

The editors, at the close of their ‘Introduction’, suggest that “in spite of their apparent differences the different papers often have more in common than