The effect of the workplace on women’s language: A view from Jordan

Abstract

This study explores the effect of the workplace on language use by Jordanian working women in terms of variety, lexis, and pronunciation. To this end, the study adopted a triangulation of research methods utilising qualitative and quantitative analyses, i.e. a questionnaire, ethnographic field notes, and interviews. Ethnographic field notes were taken for Jordanian working women in two different settings over three weeks. The questionnaire was distributed to two groups: an experimental group of 246 Jordanian working women in three different working environments in Amman, Jordan and a second group of 54 non-working women as the control group. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 working women from the experimental group. The recordings of the interviews were transcribed and analysed. The results show that the workplace strongly affects Jordanian working women’s language use, and that solidarity and professionalism are the main reasons that drive Jordanian women to change their language in their workplaces.

Keywords:

• women’s language
• accommodation theory
• interactional sociolinguistics
• the workplace

1. Introduction

The way people use language in society is influenced by many factors, including gender, age, social class, educational level, and the workplace (Bécares et al., 2015). These factors affect how we speak in varying social contexts (Coulmas, 2013) and how we use language to function by conveying social meanings and constructing our identity. Indeed, our choice of language has an important social function that fosters feelings of solidarity and social identity (Hassen, 2016). However, this choice is deeply affected by several factors and is subject to change over time as our social network changes. Moreover, the choice is influenced by the people we interact with through different life experiences (Trudgill et al., 2017). The present study aims to investigate the role that the workplace plays in women’s language in Amman, Jordan. Notably, this study shows how the linguistic features of women’s language (variety, lexis, and pronunciation) may change according to the workplace. Therefore, this study focuses on the workplace as a significant sociolinguistic factor that substantially shapes the person’s language and identity.

Linguistic research in the Jordanian context has mainly focused on the pragmatic and persuasive use of language (e.g., Alghazo et al., 2021; Alkhalidi & Alghazo, 2023; Benyakoub et al., 2022; Rabab’ah et al., 2020) and theoretical analyses of language structures such as discourse markers (e.g., Harb et al., 2022; Jarrah et al., 2019). Sociolinguistic analyses of language use have rarely been explored (cf. Alshboul et al., 2022). This study touches upon another sociolinguistic area that has scarcely been explored in the Jordanian (and Arabic) context—the role of the workplace in shaping the linguistic identity of women. In addition, research in sociolinguistics has examined the impact of social factors such as gender, age, social class, and ethnicity on the construction of one’s linguistic and social identity. These studies have shown the significant role of women in shaping the language of society. In general, existing studies have considered the linguistic features that emphatically differentiate men’s from women’s language. However, there are no studies that discuss the role of the workplace in shaping women’s linguistic and social identity in Jordan. This study aims at exploring how the workplace affects women’s language in terms of the linguistic features and codes used. It also investigates the motivations behind this effect which might be related to certain conditions, such as change in the working environment. The study looks into the choices women make in their language in the workplace and studies the influence of the working environment on their choices. More specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What linguistic features (variety, lexis, and pronunciation) are affected by the workplace?

2. What are the motivations behind the modification of Jordanian women’s language in the workplace?

2. Theoretical framework

This study draws upon the Accommodation Theory, which was developed by Howard Giles, who thought of it as “part of successful social interaction” (Giles, 2016, p. 36). The theory stipulates that speech gets imitated or accommodated in multiple directions by interactants and that this shift is needed to make them feel comfortable and lead to speech convergence in vocabulary, pronunciation, and variety. Moreover, this shift can be partial or complete and can be for an extended period of time or a short term (Giles, 2016). Language use in the workplace reflects the organization culture that is spread among the employees. The organization culture refers to the suitable means to reinforce, behave, and deliver the shared values and beliefs of the organisation by its employees. On the other hand, some groups in the workplace may have no desire to modify their language and accommodate others’ speech norms. They want to maintain their cultural distinctiveness and language variety without any adjustment, which is, an essential part of their identity. A third group might adjust their linguistic behaviour to be more unlike others (Giles, 2016).

In addition, the study falls within the Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) approach, which is based on the reduction of sociolinguistic dissimilarities (Giles et al., 1991; Kiesling, 1998). From this perspective, what is being reduced includes the cultural and social boundaries between identities through the stylistic selections made by the speakers. Gumperz (2001) argues that IS immensely focuses on the “ability to interpret what participants intend to convey in everyday communicative practice” (p. 309). IS offers an excellent tool for interpreting different daily interactions or habits that take place in different contexts and for showing that differences in such habits can create conflicts with respect to workplace relations when they are misinterpreted (Jaspers, 2012). Therefore, to prevent this, interpretation should be significantly based on prior knowledge of other’s beliefs and values and ways of speech. IS works on “studying the interrelationship between language, language use, and sociocultural processes by focusing on situated, context-bound processes of interpretation” (Günthner, 2008, p. 54). Utterance’s meanings should be interpreted within their contexts. This process is called contextualisation. For this purpose, the sociocultural knowledge has to be stored and shared. Gumperz (2001) explains that researchers should work by a set of procedures in empirical studies using IS. The first stage is to understand the local communicative diversity. The second is to conduct interviews or to observe participants by doing recordings to document the spontaneously occurring speech, and the third is to analyse and discover the moment-to-moment interactions. Consequently, IS thoroughly helps point out those moments which “are closely connected to social processes and cultural assumptions” (Günthner, 2008, p. 69).

3. Literature review

This section reviews the studies that explored the relationship between women’s language and the workplace. These studies vary in the perspective they used to examine the issue. Moreover, they differ in the factors which are considered when studying women’s language in the workplace. Based on the extensive review of existing studies, it is evident that most of the studies were conducted in western contexts. For example, Baxter (2017) studied gender and language use by a female leader in the workplace in an engineering company in the UK by investigating the experience of a female leader and the communication problems she had with other workers in a company. The study found that the problem had arisen from “women’s ‘silence’ in workplaces, both literally in terms of women’s lack of vocality in forums such as meetings and metaphorically in terms of their invisibility and exclusion at senior level” (Baxter, 2017, p. 144). The study focused on the female’s authority was resisted.

McElhinny (2003) investigated the language of women in men-dominated workplaces by examining narratives told by male and female police officers in Pittsburgh and the integration of seven women police officers into a traditionally masculine occupation. The study analysed grammatical structure, including adverbs and adverbials and their semantic roles, which showed that “police officers construe themselves not as particularly powerful agents but instead as hapless victims, and as adopting a mask of anger, rather than being intrinsically angry people” (253). As such, the study found that many men and some women embrace the aggressive fighter model of policing because it makes them seen as professional in their jobs. On the other hand, others who embrace an alternative risk are seen not as qualified but as unskilled. This integration emphatically leads to the re-inscription of transformation of certain ideologies about how interaction should proceed.

McDowell (2015) investigated men’s language in women-dominated workplaces by associating male nurses’ linguistic behaviours with gender, professional communication, and workplace culture. Particularly, the study was interested in whether these male nurses’ use of language was reflective of a masculine identity in line with hegemonic characteristics, or an identity more representative of the environment in which they work as nursing is considered a female-dominated occupation. The researcher conducted one-to-one interviews with approximately 20 male general care nurses. The interviews were audio-recorded, and their interactions were collected over six months. The analytical approach taken was IS. The study concluded that each participant is “doing” being a nurse to deeply emphasize their identity as a nurse. Their linguistic features had been determined by their workplace culture, which is associated with a “feminine” style to let speakers communicate successfully.

Hultgren (2017) discussed the linguistic prescription and compliance in call centres by examining 187 call centre interactions, including official documents, interviews, and observations in two European companies. The study compared quantitatively and qualitatively the rule compliance as a linguistic behaviour of male and female workers and asked questions about whether female call centre agents comply more than their male colleagues with the institutionally prescribed speech style and how the differences in rule compliance between the two genders can contribute to the prescribed speech style indexing normative femininity. The researcher used the recorded calls in the two companies to show the interactions and the differences between males and females, in addition to doing interviews. The results showed that female agents were found to comply more with the linguistic prescriptions that the company imposed than the male agents.

Sheridan and Metcalfe (2007) examined the link between gender, language, and the workplace and explored the role that gendered talk plays in both task and non-task interactions. The researcher used qualitative and quantitative methods in a single case study examining mixed-gender employees working in an American multinational corporation. The study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences between women’s and men’s speech patterns in the workplace. This study proposed the ways of speaking at work and how men and women talk differently at work. The researcher used recordings of the participants’ habitual meeting settings at the habitual times to thoroughly analyse the conversations that took place. The findings showed that men and women use language differently and presented how men and women interact with each other at work and tended to focus on the degree of involvement and hegemony throughout the conversation, and this required the evaluation of some linguistic strategies, such as the frequency of occurrences of speech acts and talk time to examine such involvement of the participants. Moreover, the results showed that organisations might need to move away from cultures that favour particular talk norms to ones that facilitate the integration and assimilation of different types of talk. However, the study ignored the social backgrounds of the participants and their status.

With this literature review in mind, one can notice that most previous studies had highlighted the linguistic features in one or two workplaces. The current study is different from the previous studies in that it explores the effect of the workplace on women’s language in Jordan. In addition, the study focuses on certain linguistic features to show the effect of the workplace. These features include language variety, lexis, and pronunciation. Another point is that the study examines non-working Jordanian women’s opinion of the workplace’s effect and compares it to that of Jordanian working women. The last point is that no studies discuss the effect of the workplace on women’s language in the Arab region, particularly in Jordan.

4. Methodology

To achieve the study’s objectives, the researchers used a multi-method research design combining qualitative and quantitative analyses. The first tool was the non-participant observation, through which the researchers got ethnographic field notes in two contexts in a certain period. The second tool was a questionnaire distributed to two groups: working women and non-working women. The third one was semi-structured interviews with working women from the experimental group (see Appendix A). The use of three data collection tools was necessary in order for researchers to provide a holistic view of the effect of the workplace on women’s language and to gain deeper insights into the way women’s language is affected by the workplace because each of the three methods has its drawbacks if used on its own. A non-participant observation occurred in two different settings at a public university in Amman. The researchers had taken the participants’ permission to take ethnographic field notes for a daily one-hour session over two weeks.

The second tool was a questionnaire that included a five-point Likert scale distributed to 246 Jordanian women in three workplaces in Amman (see Table 1 below). The questionnaire included three sections. The first one investigated the opinion of the participating women on the influence of the workplace on their language. The second section explored the way Jordanian women think about the advantages of changing their language/code if it happened. The third one explored the effect of the working environment on changing women’s language. The questionnaire consisted of three sections in addition to a section of demographic information of the participants. It was about the social variables of the study: age, years of experience, residence, workplace, and educational attainment. The three sections discussed the questions of the study, which clarified the influence of the working environment on the language of Jordanian working women.

Table 1. The sample

The variable	The category	Number	Percentage
Age	From 20–30	40	16.3%
	30–40	97	39.4%
	41 and older	109	44.3%
	Total	246	100%
Years of Experience	From 1–5	36	14.6%
	6–10	43	17.5%
	More than 10 years	167	67.9%
	Total	246	100%
Place of Residence	Amman, the Capital	161	65.4%
	Other governorates	85	34.6%
	Total	246	100%
Workplace	School	80	32.5%
	University	98	39.8%
	Military forces institutions	68	27.6%
	Total	246	100%
Educational attainment	College diploma or less	37	15%
	Bachelor’s degree	132	53.7%
	Higher studies	77	31.3%
	Total	246	100%

4.1. Validity and reliability

To assure the internal construct validity of the questionnaire’s items, the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between the scores of each item under the dimension, the total score of the dimension to which this item belongs, and the total score of the measure. The dimensions’ correlation coefficient was calculated in relation to each other and to the total score of the measure.

Table 2 shows that the dimensions’ correlation coefficient calculated with each other and with the total score of the measure is statistically significant at the level (α = 0.05). Dimensions’ correlation coefficient ranged between (.552–.570), and dimensions’ correlation coefficient of the total score of the measure ranged between (.811–.877). All these values are statistically significant, which profoundly indicates the consistency of the internal construct of the questionnaire.

Table 2. Dimensions’ correlation coefficients in relation to each other and to the total score of the measure

Dimension	Influence of work environment on women’s language dimension	Motivations behind the change in Jordanian women’s language in the workplace	Differences in the work environment dimension	The total score of the measure
Influence of work environment on women’s language	1	.552**	.570**	.811**
Influence of Jordanian women’s variety on the work dimension	.552**	1	.653**	.870**
Differences in the work environment dimension	.570**	.653**	1	.877**

As for the measure’s correction key, it should be noted that the five-point Likert scale used in the study was graded according to the rules and characteristics of the scales as follows:

Table

Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
5	4	3	2	1

Based on the above, the values of the arithmetic averages reached were dealt with as follows, according to the following equation: The highest value—the lowest value of the answer alternatives divided by the number of levels, i.e.:

$\frac{1-5}{3}$ = $\frac{4}{3}$ = 1.33

This value (1.33) is equal to the class interval. Therefore, the low-level ranges from 1.00 to 2.33, the average level ranges from 2.34 to 3.66, and the high-level ranges from 3.67 to 5.00.

As for the interviews, 10 participants from each of the three workplaces were randomly chosen from participants who answered the questionnaire as a focus group to participate in the interviews. The researchers have worked on getting official permission to enter the military organisations, the public security departments and schools to conduct the interviews there. Afterwards, the results were compared to explore the effect of the workplace on Jordanian women. It is found necessary to conduct the interviews to validate the results and elicit deeper codes. At the beginning of each interview, the researchers began with a short introduction about the theme of the study and a small talk with the participant to break the ice and to make the participant feel more relaxed. The participant is also informed that the interview was used and archived for academic and research purposes only, and the names will be hidden (anonymous recordings).

4.2. Data analysis

The framework that was used to analyse the data extracted from the ethnographic observation is the thematic qualitative analysis framework of Miles and Huberman (1994). The thematic qualitative analysis allows the researchers to screen, examine, and interpret patterns (codes) and themes from the researchers’ point of view. The aim of qualitative analysis is a complete, detailed description which suits ethnography and interview approaches since they deal “with” and “in” words. This method focuses on identifying themes and patterns of meaning. During the data analysis stage, we used open coding, axial coding and selective coding as steps of the thematic analysis approach. We read the data many times to search for themes and identify patterns of themes. This allowed us to establish recurrent meanings for additional interpretation. As for the data from the questionnaire, SPSS was used to analyse the items in the questionnaire quantitatively.

5. Results

5.1. Results of the observations

The first data collection tool was the observation conducted in two settings and lasted for three weeks. The language used during the observation was Arabic, and the observer coded the expressions used in groups as formal and informal to extract the suitable theme. From the notes taken, the participants’ speech was found to be a mixture of many codes, depending on the context and the necessity of use. In some contexts, the participants used the local code, and in others, they used some terms of the modern Ammani code. The first setting was one of the medical schools at the university. The chosen participant was a lady in her late forties who had been working at this school for about 15 years. She was noticed to have friendly and welcoming behaviour. Her language variety is described to be a mixture between the Bedouin code and the rural code. However, her parents use a rural Jordanian variety as she told one of the researchers in a previous conversational session. She is influenced by her colleagues who use the same variety, although she feels so proud of her language and does not think that she has to change the way she talks. On the other hand, she also has admitted that one of her colleagues has been why her language was modified. Her colleague has also affected her by changing the pronunciation me words such as/ʔassajjaarah/(car) instead of/ʔissajjaarah/. She was also observed using a different language in greetings: Good morning”, the English greeting term instead of the Arabic morning greeting/s^ʕ abaaħ ʔalχeir/. However, the new language change is always used as she continues to say, but only in specific contexts, especially when she meets new people. For example, many medical graduates came to her office to verify some of their credentials, and she used a more formal style of speech and spoke in a modern variety. Her language was affected by adding English words to her work vocabulary (repertoire). The reason is the influence of her bosses who use written and spoken English most of the time. This addition to her repertoire affected her language even outside her workplace. She used idioms and some funny sentences in her speech. An example of this is:

Example (1)

daχalna: fiħoud ^ʕnaʕnaʕ

We enteredinpool mint

‘We were in trouble.’

The second setting was a university training centre. The participants were Jordanian women who had a long work experience at the university; the permission for taking notes had been taken by telling them that in a particular lecture at a specific time, the researchers would take notes of their speech and their participation during the lecture. This was to avoid the observer’s paradox so that the participants would feel free to speak naturally. Notes were taken in two contexts: during the lectures while the participants were taking part in a task in the course, and during the breaks when the participants had some talks and friendly chats. The researchers noticed many words and sentences such as idioms to be in Modern Standard Arabic. Some English words were used too to introduce the terms of the course and to profoundly enhance the ability of the participants to understand the information in the lectures. Some examples of the idioms and words in Standard Arabic are as follows:

Example (2)

Ɂiða: ɁaradtaɁantutˁa:ʕfatˁlobelmostatˁa:ʕ

If you want to be obeyed then ask the possible

‘If you want to be obeyed, ask for something possible to happen.’

There have also been some idioms that have been said in the local Jordanian language, such as:

Example (3)

ʃarawi:ɣarawi:

Eastwest

‘Speak nonsense.’

Another sentence as the participant used the Modern Standard Arabic (MSA):

Example (4)

Ɂinnalħaðˁajatala:Ɂamomaʕʔelʕoqu:lelmostaʕiddah

thatthe lucksuitswithmindsready

‘Luck suits the open minds.’

Example (5)

ʃarawi:ɣarawi:

Eastwest

‘Nonsense’

Example (6)

ha:tɁiʕlagmaʕoh

go stuck with him

‘You will have an endless argument with him.’

As one can notice, the speech fluctuated between the Jordanian local varieties and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) whenever the context required. Another important note is that the local variety used is not usually related to a certain region; it is just plain Jordanian without specifying any specific feature of a certain local variety. We can say it is a sort of “neutral” Jordanian variety. The data collected during this analytical process allude to several meanings that are consistent with the study questions. It was noticed during the two settings that the participants used different codes/varieties. Changing the codes depended on how convenient the situation or context was. In other words, using the local codes and not changing the local code was found in the relaxing atmosphere, where other surrounding people were using the same code or within the same gender or in less formal contexts. Some people may adjust the code or the variety they use to feel closer to others. In addition, the MSA appears regularly during the speech of Jordanian women in their workplaces. During the gatherings and when there are mixed-gender settings, it is noticed that some women use English more frequently.

5.2. Results of the questionnaire

After the data was statistically processed, the arithmetic means and standard deviations of the responses of working and non-working women were calculated to measure, the “influence of the work environment on women’s language,” as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and percentages of non-working women’s responses

Rank	Item	Mean	Std. Deviation	Level
1	I would feel comfortable and unpretentious when speaking my native variety at work	4.20	1.19	High
2	A woman’s choice of words changes if she is surrounded by men	3.89	1.22	High
3	I see that the work environment affects the variety of Jordanian women in general	3.56	1.16	Intermediate
4	The way a woman pronounces words changes if she is surrounded by men	3.50	1.30	Intermediate
5	I feel that changing the variety at work is a positive thing	3.41	1.00	Intermediate
6	My variety may be affected when my co-workers are different	3.24	1.36	Intermediate
7	I feel that, in general, changing the variety at work is necessary to get work done in a better way	3.11	1.16	Intermediate
8	The way a woman pronounces words changes if she is surrounded by female co-workers	3.00	1.39	Intermediate
9	A woman’s choice of words changes if she is surrounded by female co-workers	2.98	1.39	Intermediate
10	Changing the variety at work enhances personality and self-confidence	2.98	1.27	Intermediate
11	A woman’s tone changes at work if she is surrounded by male co-workers at work	2.96	1.32	Intermediate
12	I think variety in the work environment is related to a particular social class	2.93	1.39	Intermediate
13	The variety of a woman at work changes if she is surrounded by female co-workers at work	2.85	1.29	Intermediate
14	I see that changing the variety is a sign of development and modernity in work	2.74	1.35	Intermediate
15	In my opinion, changing the variety at work strengthens the relationship between co-workers at work	2.52	1.22	Intermediate
The total for the scale		3.19	0.68	Intermediate

Notes: * The maximum is out of (5).

5.2.1 Non-working women

In their response to the questionnaire, the Jordanian non-working women generally agreed on the great effect the workplace has on the language of Jordanian women, especially on the choice of words. This is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 shows that the overall average of the total score for the responses of the non-working women is intermediate, with a mean of (3.19). Arithmetic averages of all items ranged between (2.52) and (4.20).

5.2.2 Working women

Table 4 below represents the responses of the Jordanian working women towards the influence their workplaces had on changing their language. The overall responses show that they believe the workplace had an intermediate influence on changing their language.

Table 4. Arithmetic averages, standard deviations, and percentages of working women’s responses

Rank	Paragraph	Mean	Std. Deviation	Level
1	My work allows using the local variety	4.09	1.10	High
2	My work allows using a mixture of varieties	3.79	1.16	High
3	I see that the work environment affects the variety of Jordanian women in general	3.55	1.27	Intermediate
4	My native variety influences my choice of words used in work	3.40	1.26	Intermediate
5	My work has affected my variety in general	3.09	1.38	Intermediate
6	The way I pronounce words at work has changed	3.01	1.34	Intermediate
7	I changed my variety willingly	2.73	1.44	Intermediate
8	The variety I use at work is different from my native variety	2.52	1.40	Intermediate
9	My work imposes using a particular variety	2.30	1.31	Low
10	My work imposes using the Standard Arabic	1.89	1.16	Low
The dimension of the “influence of the workplace on Jordanian women’s language and linguistic features.”		3.04	0.76	Intermediate
1	I feel comfortable and unpretentious when speaking my native variety	4.00	1.29	High
2	I find that changing my variety at work is positive	2.70	1.31	Intermediate
3	I find changing my variety at work is necessary to get work done in a better way	2.57	1.34	Intermediate
4	I think varieties are associated with a particular social level	2.51	1.38	Intermediate
5	I think changing the variety makes a better impression on my managers at work	2.48	1.39	Intermediate
6	I find that changing the variety at work enhances the sense of professionalism at work	2.44	1.35	Intermediate
7	Changing my variety at work enhances my personality and self-confidence	2.38	1.35	Intermediate
8	I think changing the variety is a sign of development and modernity	2.07	1.25	Low
9	I seek to change my variety through my work	1.98	1.14	Low
10	I am embarrassed to use my native variety	1.74	1.08	Low
The dimension of the “benefits gained from changing language of Jordanian women in Workplace.”		2.49	.89	Intermediate
1	My variety differs from that of my co-workers at work	3.09	1.25	Intermediate
2	My choice of words changes if I am surrounded by male co-workers	2.91	1.43	Intermediate
3	My variety is affected when my co-workers around me at work are different	2.56	1.31	Intermediate
4	The way I pronounce words changes if I am surrounded by male co-workers	2.56	1.37	Intermediate
5	My choice of words changes if I am surrounded by female co-workers	2.40	1.25	Intermediate
6	The way I pronounce words changes if I am surrounded by female co-workers	2.26	1.21	Low
7	My variety at work changes if I am surrounded by female co-workers	2.19	1.15	Low
8	My variety at work changes if I am surrounded by male co-workers	2.10	1.25	Low
9	Changing my variety at work strengthens my relationships with my co-workers at work	1.97	1.18	Low
10	I am trying to imitate some of my female co-workers who use different terms at work	1.89	1.10	Low
The dimension of “the difference in the work environment.”		2.39	0.89	Intermediate
Total score for the measure		2.64	0.72	Intermediate

Notes: * The maximum is out of (5).

Table 4 shows that the overall average of the total score of the responses of working women on the measure of the “influence of the workplace on Jordanian women’s language and linguistic features” was intermediate, with a mean average of (2.64). The arithmetic averages for the dimension of the “influence of the work environment on Jordanian women’s language used at work” were average, with an arithmetic mean of (3.04). The arithmetic averages of the items that concern dimensions ranged between (1.89) and (4.09). The arithmetic means of the responses of working women in the dimension of the “motivations behind changing language of Jordanian women in the Workplace” was intermediate, with an arithmetic means of (2.49). The arithmetic averages of the items that concern dimensions ranged between (1.74) and (4.00). The arithmetic means of the responses of working women in the dimension of “the difference in the work environment” was intermediate, with an arithmetic mean of (2.39). The arithmetic averages of the dimension items ranged between (1.89) and (3.09).

As for the differences, Table 5 shows that there are statistically significant differences at the level (α = 0.05) of the responses of the study sample in the measure of the “influence of the work environment on Jordanian women’s language” between working and non-working women. The value of (T) reached (−5.152) and a level of significance of (.000), and the arithmetic mean of the working woman was (2.64), which is lower than the arithmetic mean of the non-working woman, which was (3.19).

Table 5. Arithmetic averages, deviations, and (t-Test) to reveal the significance of the differences

Work	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	df	Sig.
Working women	246	2.64	0.72	−5.152	298	0.000*
Non-working women	54	3.19	0.68

*Significance level (α = 0.05).

5.3. Results of the interviews

As noted earlier, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit data from the participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was impossible to make all of the interviews on site; some were conducted over the phone or via the Zoom meeting application. It is also important to mention that many of the participants refused to record their interviews for security reasons. In addition, to protect their privacy, the researchers used a pseudonym for each. As also mentioned above, Miles and Huberman’s (1994) framework of data analysis was used to analyse the interview data.

The analysis showed that the participants feel so proud of their original variety, and they simultaneously believe that the workplace greatly affects Jordanian women’s language. They also feel satisfied with any modification that might occur in their language through the effect of the workplace, believing that it is normal. In asking about the linguistic features affected by the change, most answered that obtaining new vocabulary is the most salient and remarkable change in their language. Others say that the modification might appear in pronouncing words differently, i.e. in other varieties; it rarely happens that the complete code/variety is changed. In answering the question concerning obtaining new words, one of the participants said:

Participant (1):

I find that sometimes changing my language is necessary, especially in new communities. It is good to be open to others; of course, it depends on the people themselves.¹

Researcher:

Give me some examples of the change in pronunciation.

Participant (1):

kalima:t mitil embareħ s^ʕ a:rat embeireħ, xobez s^ʕ a:rat xoboz, barid s^ʕ a:rat bard.

Words like:

embareħ changed into embeireħ (yesterday), xobez became xoboz (bread), and barid became bard (cold).

Other participants said that they sometimes change the /Ɂ/ to /g/ as in /Ɂa:ʕdih/ to /ga:ʕdih/ , the /ʧ/ to /k/ as in/Ɂiħʧi /to/ Ɂiħki /, the/ dˁ/to/ðˁ /as in/ muwadˁdˁaf /to/ muwaðˁðˁaf/ , and /θ/ to /t/ as in /kθi:r/ to /kti:r/. In questioning whether Jordanian women might choose certain words in their workplaces, one of the participants answered that she was using the word:/Ɂinsin Ɂillaban/instead of/numrus/, meaning “grounding yoghurt” because many of her colleagues use this word. Another participant said she was using/haðˁaak/instead of/hunaak/, meaning “there”, because she liked the word. Interestingly, she continued using this word at home with her children. Another participant said she was using a new funny sentence she had heard from one of the students at the university:

daxalna: fi ħoud^ʕʔinnaʕnaʕ

We enteredinpoolmint

Literally, ‘We entered a pool of mint.’

Idiomatically: “We were in trouble.”

On the other hand, a participant said that she avoids saying certain words at her workplace because she thinks that her colleagues will not understand them. One example is:

ʔilmasa:ri: ʕafig

Moneyuncountable

“Money is very much.”

Another word she avoids using is/dʒaxxa/, meaning luxurious or magnificent. The change can extend to other languages. For example, one of the participants was affected by a colleague who speaks German, and she kept on saluting others with “Guten Morgen”. In addition, English is used instead of the Arabic language in specific contexts concerning the nature of the work. Another participant uses “submit” or “cancel” instead of the equivalent Arabic words because she used to.

All of the participants think of the change as a type of civilisation and that it indicates a higher educational and economic status because it tells that the person is open-minded and more accepting of others. One participant said: “We have different teachers from different origins, and they might talk to each other in their original language, but not when talking to students. In my opinion, any national message that is meant to reach all citizens should not be linked to a certain language group”. The participant thinks that the change or the alteration means that the environment is young, which helps people to change. She continues that whenever a person grows older, s/he discovers that there is no need to change and begins to accept himself as is. However, the modification can cause you to be more confident and more convincing. In addition, it gives the person authority over others, but among peers, not among top management, since this does not change their assessment of your work. On the other hand, a participant says that she does not accept the change at all, and nobody has to modify his language; at the same time, the modification sometimes is necessary to mingle and communicate easily with others and to create a comfortable atmosphere.

Two interesting cases are two Jordanian women working at the university but used to work at the public security department. They are working in the University Security Section. They both think that the working environment greatly influences the language of the working women. As such, they see the university environment as more flexible and more accepting of change, which is necessary for some situations. The change can be in choosing words and avoiding using words from the original variety, such as:/Ɂilwahad/, which means “the mattresses”. Other words are used in the daily speech:

ʔawaʕi: replaces mala: bis standings for “clothes.”

ħʒa:r instead of demes standing for “stones.”

dʒakejt instead of ʕassa: ka standing for “jacket.”

In addition, some words from their previous work became dominant and used spontaneously. An example of that is:

ʔixli: ʔilʒa:mʕa

Clearthe university

“Make the university clear.”

One of the cases that caused the change of the variety to another one is dealing with students from specific regions to make them feel secure and friendly. Another case is to be more friendly and funny with colleagues. For example, when one of the Karaki colleagues attends work after vacation, she tells her/Ɂiʃtagtilki/meaning “I miss you”. Another participant from the university says that her job as a professor and leading administrative job at the university allowed her to use Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), not only written but also in her speech to other colleagues. MSA comes spontaneously in sentences, such as when she agrees with another colleague she says:

ʔattafiqmaʕaakja: ʕazi:zi:

I agreewith you oh my dear

“I agree with you, dear”.

In addition, many of the participants said that they use prayers for each other to build good relationships, make the work atmosphere more sociable, and reduce any stress by giving work instructions from a higher rank to a rank below. An example of this is:

rabna: jisʕidak

Godplease you

“May Allah bless you with happiness”.

Another participant answered the question of how the workplace affected her variety in that she uses certain words from other varieties:Participant: “I began using words from other local varieties, but not a particular one, such as: ha:ðˁ instead of ha:da and kθi:r not kti:r, while for others, the opposite is correct too.

She is also a conservative person. Despite this, she prefers the mixed-gender workplace or even the male-dominant workplace because there are borders and limits that men usually in our society do not overstep when dealing with women colleagues at the workplace.

In closing, the Jordanian working women strongly believe there is no need to change the variety since the workplace is flexible and accepts any variety the person uses. However, they think that in the workplace and through the interactions happening during work, new words become part of their lexical repertoire, and can be part of other local varieties. Not only new words, but also new ways of pronouncing them to resemble other varieties. At their workplace, it might be necessary to use MSA and English. Moreover, they think that using other varieties is not necessarily linked with economic or the educational status but rather social status. However, using the English language can be linked to a higher educational level. The change to other varieties can occur in cases such as being funny or indicating friendship to other colleagues, but without being fake. Furthermore, this change has nothing to do with higher management assessment. They are so satisfied with their workplace environment, and there is no need to change their variety, even in the existence of men colleagues.

The other salient point is that although women think the variety can be linked to a certain economic and educational status, it is important to be proud of one’s variety because it reflects the identity. However, they firmly believe that it is a significant issue for their children to cope with modernity and change their variety into the urban one. This point can be seen significantly at schools and the military and public security departments. In other workplaces, the similar variety among participants is much more valued than being different from the others as if it is surfing on the safe side of the shore. However, even if the variety is different from other colleagues at the university, it is not something to concern about. Another point is that in the military and public security departments, the variety goes to a particular variety while the modification of language at schools is towards a variety that is not linked to any group or region. It is also noticed that changing the varieties/codes is essential regarding the situation or the context itself. In other words, the more flexible the context, the more accepted the variety will be. The same point is found in the ethnographic field notes is that changing the code, or the variety is to feel closer to others. It is the identity of the community, not the identity of the individual, that matters.

6. Discussion

The first question of the study explores the linguistic features that are mainly influenced by the workplace. The linguistic features explored are the lexical, phonological features and the change of the variety. The results presented in the observation field notes show that a change has occurred in the language of the Jordanian women, especially captured in the choice of words and the pronunciation of some words. The reason for the change is the context itself in that how the context makes her feel comfortable and confident. In addition, the Jordanian women seem not to pay attention to what their variety is; rather they care about being similar to others and, at the same time, being themselves without overacting. This supports the accommodation theory in that the workplace encourages Jordanian women to be part of fruitful and positive social interaction in the suitable direction that the speech leads to (Giles, 2016). In addition, the context-bound change of language or variety is analysed within the moment-to-moment interactions (Gumperz, 2001), which in return is interpreted by the prior knowledge of the other’s background and encourages to behave accordingly, as stated in Gumperz’ Interactional Sociolinguistics. At the same time, Jordanian women tend to preserve their language/variety, emphasis representing their identity, emphasising that none is protected from intergroup changes. Accordingly, this result comes partially in line with the responses of the interview, which indicate that the Jordanian women might change their variety according to the change of the workplace environment, and not only their lexical choice or the pronunciation of some words.

Question 2 investigates why Jordanian women modify their language and are influenced by their workplace environments. This can be figured out by studying the three workplace types through the tools of this study. As elicited from the questionnaire responses, the participants show that language modification is linked with the socio-economical and educational levels, and it powerfully supports self-confidence among colleagues. From the interviews, one can extract the result that language at work can indicate a person’s social background. For example, Jordanian women think that using modern Ammani variety is considered an indication of modernity, and this variety that they want to transfer to their children at home even if they do not use it and are unwilling to change their variety. That is not considered a divergence for seeking distinction since the workplace has many different varieties. This behaviour agrees with Holmes (2013) that women are more conscious about social status than men. Moreover, women are responsible for raising their children and always teach them how to behave. That is not because they lack status in society but because they think that it is their role to change society and find themselves as guardians of its values. “They are serving as models for their children’s speech” (p.168). The change of variety is not always to the Ammani variety but also to other local varieties used in Jordan. For example, one of the participants working at the university said that she does not mind using another variety than the Ammani code, whether talking to women or men of her colleagues. She finds changing variety interesting and shows friendliness toward others. Ammani Arabic is a variety that is full of variations (see, for example, Al-Wer, 2007). Al-Wer (2007) points out that Ammani Arabic is a sub-variety of Jordanian Arabic and that it is a heterogeneous code because it was formed of an amalgamation of other Arabic dialects in the region, such as Syrian Arabic, Palestinian Arabic, and Iraqi Arabic (see also, Abdel-Jawad, 1981; Al-Wer, 1991).

The third question is about the influence of the change in the workplace type on Jordanian women’s language: girls’ schools, the military and public security departments, and the University. This question has been treated by the three study tools: the observational field notes, the questionnaire, and the interviews. At the beginning of the study, the researchers expected that women tend to modify their language or variety to a more feminine one, especially in workplaces where their men colleagues are around. The results show that this is not the case in the three types of workplaces explored in this study. Most participants’ responses at the university are almost similar in that they do not have to modify their languages or any other linguistic features, such as the lexical or the phonological aspects, whether they are working with men or women unless they think it might be more suitable to do so. Unlike the university participants, the Jordanian working women at the schools and the public security and military departments and Jordanian non-working women think that there might be a necessity to change the variety and the other linguistic features in some cases When working in a men-dominated workplace, they give more attention to choosing some words that can hold more than one meaning. There is no need to change the language at the university because there is no form of any dominant language or variety in such a workplace, and language is not connected with any social or educational status, as indicated in the responses. In the researchers’ opinion, and according to the nature of the university that contains different statuses that range from students and administrative staff to the academic staff, people have to understand the differences and the diversity of others so that there is no judgment on the language of people. It is indicated in the indifference to changing the variety and not following the prestigious one; on the contrary, the slight difference can be shown in the choice of some words and in the pronunciation to resemble other varieties. Al-Wer (2007, p. 62) points out that, in the Jordanian context, “[m]en were appointed to positions which required the use of the local dialects, and women were excluded from these positions,” which strongly affected the local linguistic features of both men and women in the workplaces.

In comparing working and non-working women, we highlight the role the workplace plays in shaping a new identity for a person. There is a new identity emerging in the workplace and is shaped by the interactions of the Jordanian women in the workplace, and that is different from the personal identity outside the workplace. The study’s results show that the participating women are experiencing a new identity which is an “interim” identity that is shaped because of the workplace, and that is different from the personal identity which they have in their normal life. Usually, speakers select from their repertoire according to situational constraints and demands. This was evident in the interviews with some of the women who said that she has adapted new words and new way of pronunciation at work that differs from the one she used to speak at home. She makes the selection of her repertoire to fit the culture of the workplace, as illustrated above. Moreover, the change in language is not by any means due to prestige, and evidence for this is the fact that some women change to a less prestigious variety because of the influence of their colleague.

7. Conclusion

The present study examines the effect of the workplace on the language of Jordanian working women in three types of workplaces. The analysis is carried out to figure out whether the workplace affects the language of women and the linguistic features that are affected. The methodology used in this research is the mixed-method research type that combines qualitative and quantitative research tools. The study highlights the importance of the workplace in changing Jordanian women’s variety or in changing the pronunciation and choice of some words for certain motivations and purposes. The first one is that the Jordanian woman wants to prove herself as professional in her workplace and that she is heard so she uses the appropriate language that workplace complies with workplace atmosphere. The second point is the role of the workplace in imposing a particular culture among employees. Another point is the feeling of solidarity, and that the Jordanian woman does not seek after the individual identity, but she proves that she cares about harmony in the workplace to make superb and fruitful communication.

The current study explores the relationships between language, women and social change and encompasses aspects of language use in the workplace. As shown in this study, participants are aware of the change happening to their language, and they consider such change as a positive one because it relaxes the atmosphere of work and breaks borders and restrictions among employees. Workplaces are local spaces where people can over- or under-perform their gender (Holmes, 2013). Jordanian women consider the workplace as a source of new words and a way of speech that affects their language outside the workplace. Their use of language in the workplace profoundly supports the accommodation theory, which implies the speech imitation towards the person that they are talking to, whether upwards as prestigious or downwards as less prestigious language (Holmes, 2013; Kiparsky, 2016; Labov, 1981, 2010, 2020).

What is found interesting while conducting this study is that each type of workplace under investigation has seen and interpreted language from its perspective. For example, language means confidence at the university, whereas it means unity at schools, and cohesion and professionalism in Public Security institutions. The linguistic shift makes Jordanian women feel comfortable and brings speech convergence in vocabulary and pronunciation. In addition, the language used in the work environment reflects the organizational culture spread among employees. In that sense, the work environment can be seen as a significant sociolinguistic factor that greatly affects the language of users in many linguistic aspects, such as lexical, phonological, and local variety. In conclusion, the power of language is illustrated to facilitate relationships and express social identities (Tange & Lauring, 2009). This study is considered a cornerstone of research in sociolinguistics that studies women’s language and workplace in Jordan under investigation. Language provides a medium for describing the contents of our conscious experience, which culture controls (Holmes, 2013). Jordanian working women strongly believe that it is important for employees to have the same culture and, eventually, talk the same language. This atmosphere drives engagement and interaction in the employees’ work, impacts happiness and satisfaction, and positively affects performance. One of the limitations that faced the researchers was the inability to perform more interviews at the workplaces of the participants because of the Corona Virus (Covid-19) pandemic, especially for teachers. Some of the participants, who have taken part in the interviews, have not been at their workplaces, but they work remotely from their homes. It would have been better to observe the participants in a real work environment as this kind of limitation has been faced in interviewing two of the participants via one of the social networks.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ola Musmar

Ola Musmar is a director of the translation centre at the University of Jordan. She holds an MA in Linguistics.

Sharif Alghazo

Sharif Alghazo is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Sharjah & the University of Jordan.

Marwan Jarrah

Marwan Jarrah is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Jordan.

Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh

Abdel Rahman Altakhaineh is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Jordan.

Notes

1. In this regard, it must be clear that all interviews were conducted in Arabic and what is included in this analysis is a translation of what the participants answered.

Appendix Appendix A:

Interview Questions

1. Do you think that the workplace can affect the tone used?

2. How do you feel about this influence? Are you satisfied with it?

3. Has your pronunciation changed from your native accent? how? Examples

4. Are some of your words used at work different from your words outside of it? Examples

5. Has your accent changed?

6. What do you think is the reason for this change?

7. Did you find this change necessary? Why?

8. Did you seek this change, or did it happen spontaneously? Why?

9. Has this change affected your assessment of your work or your superiors’ assessment of your work?

10. Has your self-confidence increased or has your personality changed as a result of this change?