Mariana Achugar Banquetry Analysis

The most recent influential paper related to the tradition of coquetry was written by Mariana Achugar and published in The Journal of Pragmatics in2001. Unlike Andrews’ study, Achugar’s work incorporated many findings from multiple Latin American countries. While much of Achugar’s study focused on the originality of the coquetry as well as the metaphoric and hyperbolic nature of the comments made, she included enlightening observations regarding the social function of coquetry (2001).Achugar based her analysis on the idea that language and discourse practices reflect and sustain culture and cultural associations that exist within any given society. By analysing the use of coquetry in Spanish-speaking countries, Achugar (2001) revealed a pronounced

The language used by conversational participants is a kind of example of people’s thoughts, thus it inevitably reflects and maintains gender differences and even social inequalities. Coquetries are also a type of social interaction, and therefore the present study specifically attempts to analyze the impact of coquetries on societal interactions with the following goals in mind:

• Firstly, to probe into the questions of how power distribution is manipulated by the use of coquetry expressions. Furthermore, this investigation examines how coquetries are often interpreted by female recipients as a public display of gender-based power differences. Thus, the research study argues that coquetries are consistently used to reflect and sustain machismo, and they consequently restrict women’s equal access to public spaces.

• Secondly, to explore the development and evolvement of coquetries in streets and detects positive changes in gender equality.

• To explore women’s diverse emotional and verbal responses to these interactions. It analyses how the use of coquetries has impacted some women’s sense of wellbeing and security in the public

All macho discourses announce the supremacy relationships between male and female partners. Male controlled ideology generates a decorative network of linguistic expressions which strengthens and rationalizes male supremacy. It was further strengthened with the notion of “gendering” in language which first began when grammarians categorized nouns as masculine, feminine and neutral. The term “sex” refers to a biological difference whereas “gender” generally refers to a “linguistic” category. Grammarians use the term “gender” to denote to structural categories based on sex, but liberated of sex difference. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010)describes sex as the biological state of being either female or male and gender as the socialcategorisation of females and males. “Sex” meant a biological difference whereas “gender” referred to a “linguistic” category. Linguists used the term “gender” to refer to grammatical categories based on sex, but independent of sex difference. The term gender will be used henceforth. Freed (2003:704) criticizes the division of people into the categories of women and men, females and males. For example, transsexuals and intersexuals are to some extent excluded from these categorisations (Freed 2003:715). Feminist theorists borrowed this term to refer to social behaviour which is not biologically innate but sociologically acquired. There is a