‘The point is that the feelings are not necessarily something women carry around with them as a result of early socialisation. Rather, the feelings arise in situations where the woman’s attempts at conversation are faltering or failing and they are forced to do considerable work for dubious results’
Gender in Conversation
I feel it necessary to identify at this point the categories of language, which are defined as ‘women’s language.’ Robin Lakoff carried out a study ‘Language and Woman’s Place’. She classified ‘women’s features’ under headings of:
1. Hedges: phrases like "sort of," "kind of," "It seems like," etc.
2. Excessive Polite forms: "Would you mind...," "I'd appreciate it if...," "...if you don't mind."
3. Tag questions: "You're going to dinner, aren't you?"
4. Speaking in italics: intonational emphasis - so, very, quite.
5. Empty adjectives: divine, lovely, adorable, etc.
6. Hypercorrect grammar: Use of Received Pronunciation and avoidance of double negatives.
7. Direct quotation: men paraphrase more often.
8. Special lexicon: women use more words for things like colours, men for sports, etc.
9. Question intonation in statements: women make statements into questions by raising the pitch of their voice at the end of a statement, expressing uncertainty.
She argued that these features made women’s language weaker and more tentative and as a result men’s language was automatically deemed more powerful and certain.
Many linguists, however, have argued that Lakoff’s theory is based on women having a ‘language deficit’ and this has been criticised quite heavily by dominance and difference theorists.
Dominance theory takes the difference in power between men and women as the main cause of discourse variation. The ways in which we talk are seen to be a reflection of the material differences between sexes but may also reinforce those differences.
Deborah Tannen offers a ‘language difference’ theory. She argues that men and women use language for different purposes. Her view is that women use language socially and their use of excessive politeness, hedging and tag questions is not a sign of weakness or uncertainty but a way of involving others in conversation and avoiding imposing views. On the other hand, she argues men use language as a way of gathering information and so their language consists of questions and answers.
A study by O’Barr and Atkins (1980) analysed 150 hours of trials in a North Carolina courtroom. They were looking at male and female witnesses use of women’s features (using the classifications given by Lakoff). They found that women’s language was not used by all women and although more women than men used it, it’s use was not restricted solely to women. They concluded that it was the speaker’s social status and previous courtroom experience, not their sex, that determined how many features of women’s language they used. They suggested that it should be renamed ‘Powerless Language’ and proposed that the reason it had been linked to women is because society usually views women as the weaker sex.
Other studies considering the view that it is status and not sex that creates the difference in language have concluded that sex was the more important factor. Candace West (1984) looked at doctor-patient conversations and found that the doctor regularly interrupts the patient unless the doctor is female and the patient a white male in which case he will interrupt the doctor. Similarly, Nicola Woods (1989) looked at conversations between colleagues of different status but found that even when the woman was of a higher status, the man still dominated the conversation.
These studies show that there is a relationship between sex and power in conversation, however I personally find Tannen’s difference argument more compelling. I will now consider another aspect of conversation that backs up the theory of the sexes using language for different purpose. There is an argument that women co-operate whereas men compete in conversation. Most studies on this area have considered the use of language in single sex groups.
Connotations
There is also the view that it is not only the features of speech that are gendered but the connotations given to particular words can be seen to be either masculine or feminine. For example the word bachelor is mostly used in a very positive way, whereas spinster carries many negative connotations due to the view that a woman should be married.
Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘female’ as:
1: relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs
2: having some quality (as gentleness) associated with the female sex
3: designed with a hollow or groove into which a corresponding male part fits
This definition is taken from the 2003 edition and shows that stereotypes are still very present in today’s society. Point 2 especially reinforces stereotypes about female characteristics. With reference to point 1, if a woman does not "produce eggs," does this make her less female? It is assumed that the production of eggs to enable motherhood is a key aspect of femininity. Similarly, point 3 suggests that women are "designed" and defined in relation to men and emphasises that they are in some way sub-ordinate.
In Roget’s Thesaurus ‘womanly’ is listed under ‘weakness’ and ‘womanish’ listed under ‘cowardice’, ‘cry-baby’ and ‘craven’. On the other hand ‘manly’ and ‘manliness’ go with ‘courage’ and ‘heroism’. These relations between words emphasise the stereotypes of masculinity and femininity and further inbreed them into current thought.
Gender-Exclusive Language
The English language can be argued to be very androcentric in that it has a built in bias towards men. The use of male normatives addresses man as the norm, for example ‘mankind’ to refer to the human race, or ‘manmade’ to refer to any product made by ‘mankind’. Female titles in the work place very often involve using the male ‘norm’ as the base, for example manager becomes manageress. It is this basis of the male as the norm that is seen to contribute to women’s subordinate position in society. Professional titles are gendered in the sense that when someone speaks of a nurse, the automatic assumption is of a woman but when it is a doctor that is mentioned, the general assumption is of a man. This type of language perpetuates the attitude that a female doctor or manager is abnormal. The rare exceptions to this rule such as ‘male nurse’ show and reinforce the old stereotypes.
Bolinger (1980) quotes a popular riddle that highlights the problem of gender-exclusion.
‘A man and his son are out fishing when the son has an accident. He is rushed to hospital where a doctor is told to treat him, but the doctor gasps in horror and says ‘I can’t treat the boy, he’s my son’. How is this possible?’
We automatically assume that the doctor is male in this scenario, however this problem can be seen in every aspect of language. The simple use of the pronoun ‘he’ to refer to both men and women results in the tendency to exclude women from our mental picture.
Another aspect of male dominance in the creation of language is the preference for female gendered profanity. If something is difficult or uncooperative, the inclination is to feminise it, for example ‘life is a bitch’ and the favourite male comment ‘women!’ On the other hand, the best way to insult masculinity is to make it akin to femininity.
Another issue that arises is what I would call ‘gender descriptive’ language which can be very easily found in media publications. Women are described by their appearance (‘busty blonde’) whereas men are described by their occupation (manager). This leads to a further implication that men are the breadwinner and enforces traditional stereotypes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a circular logic in the view that women are the weaker sex, therefore their language will be weaker. This leads to the features of language used by women to be perceived as weak and the fact that women use more of these features reinforces the view that women are the weaker sex.
I personally do not think that the study of ‘language use’ offers much insight into femininity and masculinity. For example, politeness as a ‘feminine trait’ cannot be exclusively linked to women nor explained by socialisation. Both sexes are taught to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ throughout their upbringing and I feel it is a social feature rather than a gender one.
The study of language has until very recently focused mainly on conversations in mixed groups or women only groups and ignored the features used by men only groups. Lakoff calls the female language deficient, O’Barr and Atkins call it powerless, but I think that if it is considered in a different way it can be seen to be very persuasive language. This so-called ‘co-operative’ language allows the speaker to manipulate the conversation as they do not impose on the other person. Therefore, the other party is at ease and will be more willing to co-operate in return.
Bibliography
- Talbot, M (1998) Language and Gender: An Introduction Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd
- Lowe, M and Graham, B (1998) English Language for Beginners New York: Writers & Readers Publishing, Inc
- Thomas, L & Wareing S (2000) Language, Society and Power: An Introduction London: Routledge
- Goddard, A & Meân Patterson, L (2000) Language and Gender London: Routledge
- Cameron, D (ed) (1998) The Feminist Critique of Language London: Rouledge
- Lakoff, Robin (1975) Language and Woman's Place New York: Harper and Row
Talbot, M (1998) Language and Gender: An Introduction Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Lowe, M and Graham, B (1998) English Language for Beginners New York: Writers & Readers Publishing, Inc. p87
Lakoff, Robin (1975) in Lowe, M and Graham, B (1998) English Language for Beginners p88
Maltz, D. and Borker, R. 1982. 'A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication'. In Language and Social Identity. (ed. J. Gumperz). Cambridge: CUP
Fishman, Pamela (1980) in Cameron, D (ed) (1998) The Feminist Critique of Language London: Rouledge p 258
Lakoff, Robin (1975) Language and Woman’s Place New York: Harper and Row
Thomas, L & Wareing S (2000) Language, Society and Power: An Introduction London: Routledge
Goddard, A & Meân Patterson, L (2000) Language and Gender London: Routledge p101
Merriam-Webster (2003) Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed. USA: Merriam-Webster Inc.