Surname choices - a hot topic!

We had an incredible response to our survey on the choices that people make in relation to their surnames and marriage. Over 1,000 people completed our survey in just four weeks, meaning that we've now got plenty of data to go through in order to learn more about how people feel about changing their name (or not) if or when they marry. Of course, the survey doesn't reflect the whole opinion of the UK, but it can certainly tell us about some popular ideas. Some of the things we hope to learn from our data include:

• How do many women in heterosexual relationships feel about the tradition of women taking their husband's surname upon marriage?
• How do many men in heterosexual relationships feel about the same tradition?
• What are the views of those in same-sex relationships, and what decisions would they take/have they taken?
• Can we see any trends in our data in terms of what women in same-sex relationships would do/have done upon marriage or civil partnership, compared to men in same-sex relationships?
• What about bisexual people who are in either same-sex or opposite-sex marriages? Does their sexual identity have an impact on their views?
• What alternative options have those in heterosexual marriages chosen from? For example, how common is it to find a man that has take his wife's name, or a couple who have both double-barreled their surnames?
• What impact does it have on people's choices if they have children?
• How common is it for a couple or an individual to change their name without getting married/civil partnered?
• Do the views of younger respondents seem to differ to those of older respondents?
• Do those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual typically articulate different feelings about marriage and surnames to those who identify as straight?
• What relevance does a person's gender identity (whether transgender or cisgender) have on their views about naming strategies?

What we know already, judging by the huge response we've had, is that lots of people have an opinion about this issue! When we've talked about the survey on Twitter, it's prompted a lot of discussion and debate - it seems that everybody has something to say! Even before we're able to share any results, the survey has also been discussed elsewhere in the media - we've been on BBC Radio Sheffield to talk to Rony Robinson about the study, as well as on Liverpool City Talk FM to discuss the issues with Larry Neild. We've been mentioned in a fantastic essay on marriage and identity by Sophie Coulombeau ('Why should women change their names on getting married?') as well as in a feature on a Chinese news blog ('What's in a name?').

We're delighted that the issue of married names has sparked debate and discussion, and look forward to reviewing our data and reporting on our findings. Thanks again to all those who took part!

The surnames choices survey is now closed!

Our surnames choices survey is now CLOSED! We'd like to say an enormous thank you to all the people who completed it and told us about their views and experiences. We've got a lot to work our way through (with just over 1,000 people completing the survey) but will report back via this blog as soon as we've got some facts and figures we can share. We're delighted with the positive response and can see that the question of surname choices is of concern to lots of people - whether gay or straight, old or young, unmarried or married, female or male....we can't wait to delve deep into the data!

Thank you to all who completed, shared, and promoted the survey: watch this space!

Lucy Jones
Georgina Turner
Laura Paterson
Laura Coffey-Glover
Sara Mills

Surname choices survey

The Discourses of Marriage research group have now embarked on an additional project, in which we hope to investigate the choices a range of people in a variety of situations have made (or would make) in relation to their surnames if/when they marry. With same-sex marriages now recognised in England, Wales and Scotland, marriage traditions appear less one-size-fits-all than ever, so we'd like to know what impact this might have on our names. We've got a survey *out now!*, in which we hope to find out how widespread various practices are, and what sorts of things - such as putting children into the equation - might influence the decision.

Please complete our survey! It's available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/surnames. We'll be back to share our findings soon....

Thanks!

The Discourses of Marriage Research Group

Thank you!

We would just like to say thank you to the great audience at the BAAL Gender and Language Special Interest Group conference last week. Three members of the Discourses of Marriage Research group presented our first article on implicit homophobia at the end of a very long day full of interesting research papers. It was great that the audience, many of whom had been up since the crack of dawn, were so receptive to our work and engaged in a thought-provoking debate! The feedback we got on our paper was very useful to us and we’ve tried to incorporate much of it into our final article. Furthermore, as our work on discourses of marriage is ongoing, you gave us lots to think about for the future...watch this space!

Our transcriptions of the Moral Maze

The Discourses of Marriage group have now prepared and submitted a full write-up of our analysis into equal-marriage discourses in the Moral Maze. The abstract for this paper, now submitted for review to the Journal of Language and Sexuality, is below.

We're also pleased to be able share the full transcripts of the three Moral Maze broadcasts. These can be downloaded from Google Drive by clicking here. 

'Implicit Homophobic Argument Structure: Equal Marriage Discourse in the Moral Maze

This article analyses the linguistic and discursive elements which contribute to the production of implicit homophobia. Explicit homophobia has been well documented and strategies for countering discriminatory language have been developed (Baker, 2014; Leap, 2012). However, our interest here is in documenting implicit homophobia, where homophobic beliefs are only hinted at, are disassociated from the speaker, or are embedded within discursive and argument structures.

We decided to analyse the debate in the media around the introduction of equal or same-sex marriage legislation in the UK. We focused our analysis on a series of radio programmes on BBC Radio 4, The Moral Maze, where the issue of same-sex marriage was debated with a team of panellists and invited guests from a range of different organisations. Different perspectives on same sex marriage were discussed, in a seemingly objective and dispassionate way, where the interactants distanced themselves from homophobic beliefs and yet, implicitly subscribed to implicit homophobia. We used an analysis drawing on argumentation structure (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012) and through focusing on stance, recontextualisation, imaginaries, and metaphor, we developed an analysis which made the way that implicit homophobia works more visible. In this way, we hope to foreground implicit homophobia, and develop a linguistic and discursive `toolkit’ which will enable it to be challenged and countered.

Implicit homophobia in the Moral Maze

Since our last post, we have continued to work on the analysis of three episodes of the Moral Maze, in which the question of same-sex marriage is debated. This is our current focus, though future strands to the Discourses of Marriage project will include the analysis of how the debate has been represented in the print media.

From the Moral Maze broadcasts that we have analysed, we have concentrated to date on the strategies which are used by speakers taking an anti-same-sex marriage position to justify this stance without being explicitly homophobic. However, we have found that, typically, these strategies lead to implicitly homophobic discourse; the argument against equal marriage for gay and straight people is based, in these broadcasts, on the assumption that gay and straight relationships are different. Indeed, the arguments put forwards by those opposing same-sex marriage tend to rely on discursive strategies which position same-sex couples as deviant when compared to heterosexual couples; though words such as 'deviant' and 'normal' are not used, heterosexual relationships are defined in terms of biological complementarity, social cohesion and historical normalcy. Through these strategies, it is implied that same-sex relationships do not fit a 'natural' model, pose a threat to social order, and are 'other'. Importantly, this rhetoric enables marriage between same-sex couples to be defined as illogical, dangerous, risky and with unknown consequences - allowing marriage to be extended to same-sex couples is presented as being a slippery slope, based on the argument that the law would redefine marriage and thus could potentially endanger it.

Our current work is focused on the development of a clear framework for the analysis of implicit homophobic argument structure. This will focus on linguistic strategies but consider them in relation to the level of discourse, in order to understand how they may, in a given context, serve to position homosexuality as deviant or 'other'. We hope that this work will emphasise the fact that homophobia exists in often hidden ways; strategies which imply that same-sex relationships are not equal to opposite-sex ones are less visible or obvious than those which overtly demonize lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but they play an equally important role in the reproduction of homophobic discourse.

The Discourses of Marriage research group are:

Isabelle van der Bom (Sheffield), Laura Coffey-Glover (Huddersfield), Lucy Jones (Hull), Laura Paterson (Leeds) and Sara Mills (Sheffield Hallam).

Time to celebrate!

(image from http://www.stonewall.org.uk)

On Wednesday 17th July 2013, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was officially made law when it received Royal Assent from the Queen. We're delighted to be able to carry out our discourse analysis of the equal marriage debate from this perspective, though remain as motivated as ever to reveal the linguistic strategies of homophobia used by many opponents of the Bill during their discussions in the media.

Key issues that we're focusing on, in our analysis of the Moral Maze broadcasts, include the following:

- How is indirectness used as a strategy to produce 'disembodied' arguments? Opponents of the Bill are often reluctant to speak directly about the nature of same-sex relationships or why same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and so make quite significant use of imaginaries and imagery in order to produce what appears to be a more objective stance. In doing so, explicitly anti-gay statements can be avoided, though the implicit message remains clearly homophobic. For example, the likening of same-sex relationships to incest or bestiality.

- How is metaphor used to define marriage as fundamentally heterosexual, thus 'simply not an option for gay couples'? Marriage is represented as a frail, vulnerable object which is at risk of being 'unravelled' or 'eroded'; what weight does this offer to the argument that straight marriage should be 'protected' from homosexuals?

- What argumentation structures and tactics are employed by those who are anti-marriage equality? We believe stance-taking to be central to this, and that indirectly homophobic stances in particular are enabled by the use of imaginaries and metaphor. By investigating these stances via discourse analysis, we hope to show the means by which implicitly homophobic messages are presented as logical, moral, and normal. In turn, we hope to examine how such messages continue to carry weight in our society.