Understanding the Relationship between Language and Gender

 

Author: Doan Thi Ngoc

Language is the most important communication tool for human beings. It not only reflects the reality of the society, but also has various functions to strengthen and maintain social existence. Given such a view, language does mirror the gendered perspectives and can also impact and contribute to changing people's perception of gender over time. Thus, for a long time feminists and sociolinguists have shown interest in describing the differences in language use between women and men, and studies of the cultural roles ascribed to gender. However, interest in language usage differences between the two sexes has a very long tradition in attempting to explain the distinction between language and gender and how language supports, enforces, and maintains attitudes about gender in general and women in particular.

This paper attempts to discuss the following points: (1) a brief overview of key sociolinguistic approaches; (2) some important issues on the relationship between gender and language; (3) some explanations on the differences between male and female speech such as: power in gender relationships, community practice, conversational styles and strategies, attitudes and prestige, and discrimination and sexist language practices; and (4) the implications for language planning.

A brief overview of key language and gender approaches

Since the 1960s, sociolinguists (e.g., Camerron,1995; Eckert,1989; Holmes & Meyerrhoff, 1999; Labov,1994, 2001; Lakoff,1975; Tannen,1990; Trugill,1975; Zimmerman & West,1975) have been exploring the gendered dimension of language. These early works have assisted in distinguishing different aspects of sex and gender. Although many sociolinguistic researchers use gender and sex interchangeably, it is very critical to understand that sex refers to biological features such as XX chromosomes for females and XY chromosomes for males. Some studies claim that the assumptions associated with characteristics for male as masculinity, or likewise characteristics for females as femininity, are inaccurate. Such a biological view on sexual character leads to reification (making real/concrete) of male and female inequality in our society. This interpretation results in numerous sociobiological claims relative to neurological factors about the relationship of male and female speech behavior.

On the contrary, gender refers to cultural and social attributes that have been acquired via the socialization process. It is up to individuals to choose characteristics that they deem suitable for males and females and employ them accordingly. According to Wardhaugh (2010), gender is also a fact that we cannot avoid; it is part of the way in which societies are formed around us (pp.334). Therefore, Cameron (2007), Coates (1986), Crawford (1995), Eckert (1989), Tannen (1990), Holmes & Meyerhoff (1999), and other scholars have considered gender as a social construct in the study of language and gender and social sciences. Gender division is a fundamental aspect of society, as it is deeply imbedded in social organization and taught to individuals from early childhood to adulthood stages. However, numerous studies argue that gender categories have changed throughout history and varied depending on specific race, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, region, and class (Labov, 1994, 2001; Lakoff, 1975, Wardhaugh, 2010). Eckert and McConnell-Ginet claim that “The force of gender categories in society makes it impossible for us to move through our lives in a non-gendered way and impossible not to behave in a way that brings out gendered behavior in others (2003, p. 50, as cited in Wardhaugh, 2010).

The sex and gender definitions and explanations put forth the following key approaches on the relationship between language and gender:

A. The biological approach

The biological approach was the initial focus in the field of language research in the 1960s. It accounted for the distinction between men and women in speech behavior on lexical, phonological, and morphological forms. For example, typical male voice characteristics are different from those of typical female voice characteristics; women usually have a fundamental voice-frequency nearly twice as high as those of men (LIN8015, 2012; Md Sohel Rana & Osama Khalifa Moh, 2011).

B. The cultural approach

In numerous studies, such as those of Tannen’s (1990) and Maltz and Borker’s (1982),  two cultural approaches were examined. They argued that males and females belong to their own sub-culture and thus use language to maintain identity within their respective groups. Maltz and Borker (1982) indicated that girls tend to engage in pairs or small groups. Their speech aims to build an intimate friendship, loyalty, equality, support, a win-win situation, and a lack of desire to be a leader (in fact they are encouraged not to be). On the contrary, males choose to work in larger and hierarchically organized groups. They are more concerned with power, status, and control. They compete to draw participants’ attention and win games. They enjoy showing skills, size, and ability and try to express their dominance even when others speak. These cultural differences in the male and female groups lead to variance  in the ways in which they converse and convey ideas (Coates, 1986; LIN8015, 2012; Md Sohel Rana & Osama Khalifa Moh, 2011).

C. The power and dominance approach

Several scholars, e.g., Spender, 1985; Zimmerman & West, 1975; Coates, 1986; and O’Barr & Bowman, 1980, highlighted the power and dominance approach. They claim that women in a patriarchal system have a low social status and position; therefore, the employment of standard language use aims to raise their self-esteem. The difference in an interaction approach assumes as a fact that interactions between males and females are attempts toward male domination, or social inequalities between males and females. This approach allows for  intepretations of communication problems between men and women because of the unequal hierarchical statuses and gender roles held in society. Women’s speech was considered unimportant; therefore, they  used linguistic forms that were associated with their low positions in society. These forms included tag questions, question intonations, hedges, politeness strategies, and others. Conversely, men’s speech, for example, became an implicit tool of patriarchal power through conscious and less conscious gender-role training where they learned to dominate a conversation through interruptions, talk time, etc. (Spender, 1985; Tannen, 1990; Zimmerman & West, 1975). Thus, the early deficit approach was changed to a dominance approach.

D. The social constructionist approach

Last but not least, the social constructionist approach has been a particularly influential model in recent studies on language and gender (Coates, 1986; Holmes & Meryerhoff, 1999). These studies explored not only social constructs, the relationship between gender and other aspects of identity, but also the magnitude of context in determining how individuals use language (LIN8015, 2012; Md Sohel Rana & Osama Khalifa Moh, 2011; Spender, 1985). 

Some sociolinguistic issues in the field of language and gender

Is language sexist? Society’s distinction between men and women is reflected in their language. It is realized that there is a specific “language” that is used by men and women. If a male tends to speak the “language” used by women, he is considered to be crossing the boundary and is orientated by the opposite sex. That is the reason why it appears a statement such as "I would describe her as handsome rather than beautiful" would be considered crossing the boundary. Because, in the English language handsome is used only to describe males and beautiful is used only to describe females. For example, in Vietnamese the words such as willowy as ‘thuot tha’ and graceful as ‘duyen dang’ are only used to describe the beauty of women in their youth. However, these words have a negative rhetorical nuance when used to describe men (Lakoff, 1975; Nguyen, 1999; Spender, 1985).

The following issues were ascribed by Holmes (1998) that

• women and men develop different language use patterns,
• tend to focus on the affective functions of an interaction more often than men,
• tend to use linguistic devices that stress solidarity more often than men,
• tend to interact in ways that will maintain and increase solidarity, while (especially in formal contexts) men tend to interact in ways that will maintain and increase their power and status, and,
• are stylistically more flexible than men.

​These issues are still under debate and have become promising topics for interdisciplinary explanations (as cited in Wardhaugh, pp.342). 

In addition, there are issues that have been raised and are still in great need of language and gender research (Maltz and Borker,1982; Tannen,1990). They include:

·         the influence of gender on perceptions of categories,

·         the influence of gender and sex on male and female conversational discourse,

·         the relationship between women’s speech patterns and cross-cultural communication, and

·         the implication of community of practice (COP) and how COP illuminates male and female speech patterns.

Claims of differences between male and female speech are:

A.   Power in gender relations

Numerous studies by DeFrancisco (1997); Herring (1992), Lakoff (1975) and Tannen (1990) analyzed the complex relationships between women and power through interactions. Lakoff explored a discourse analysis of writing texts from three major American institutions: academia using Schegloff’s claims on the appropriate way of treating gender in a conversation analysis, and art from an Oleanna play that highlights the distribution of talk in the controversial Mamet, and proper politics in the way print media sexualizes, objectifies, and ridicules women in politics. Lakoff argues that aspects of the disruption of conventional speech convey subordinated and dominant ideologies. Herring presents gender issues in computer-mediated communication on the internet and she stresses that issues of power relationships emerge and reinforce norms of society at large and how women place and express themselves in the virtual word. Others who have viewed cross-gender communications (Spender, 1985, Zimmerman & West, 1975; Tannen, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1998) explained that male communication is the norm and that males interrupt, challenge, and control more in conversations. Such characteristics are not for women in communication. In other words, language behavior posits males into a superior status and females in subservient positions. Therefore, women have to adopt standard language forms as a means of responding to, working with, and challenging authority. 

B.  Community of practice

Community of practice (COP) is defined as another important variable in language and gender research. According to Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (2003), COP is a group of individuals who share a profession and come together through shared goals. The practice includes both global and specific aspects of structure, discourse, and interaction patterns. Thus, it extends the notion of a speech community. All practices belong to an identity group that helps members learn how to modify and shape their linguistic and other behaviors in a way that fits the perceptions of self and others. Apparently, this framework assists sociolinguists to examine three crucial dimensions: mutual engagement, joint negotiated enterprise, and a shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time. Examples of COP are research groups, sport-teams, and policy making groups (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 1999; Wardhaugh, 2010).

C.  Conversational styles and strategies

Are women more stylish in their speech or do they use more politeness strategies than do men? Lakoff (1975) on “Language and Woman’s Place” explained the deficit positions of women in language use in comparison to that of men in various ways: women are taught not to express themselves strongly, encouraged to talk in an uncertain ways, use more polite and weaker forms of directives while men’s speech is described as direct, forceful, authoritative, and confident. She pointed out that women are more likely to use too many qualifiers or intensifiers like: “I think that” or “very”; or empty adjectives such as: divine, adorable; or among others tag questions like (isn’t it?). She identified these features to reveal that the male dominant position in society places greater emphasis on differences in power of speech between men and women (as cited in Wardhaugh, 2010). 

D.  Attitudes and prestige

In his work on language, class, and gender, Peter Trudgill (1972) had research participants, who were grouped according to social class and sex, read a paragraph that consisted of words ending in “ing” sounds. He found that male speakers tended to drop the final sound of “g” and pronounced the endings as “in”. That is, they used low prestige pronunciation. On the contrary, female speakers were more likely not to drop the final sound of  “g” and pronounced the word-ending as “ing”. That is, women tended to employ the prestige pronunciation of certain speech sounds due to their hyper-correctness. To support this analysis, Trudgill adopted this view of ‘covert and overt prestige’ from Labov. Labov defines covert prestige as a low-prestige language that is used by traditional working class neighborhoods. In certain groups, standard language is not desirable because of a powerful in-group marker and the use of non-standard forms reflects the group identity and solidarity. For men, they show lack of non-standard forms because men in society are judged through their work and masculine values, so they employ the standard forms of language due to the ‘covert prestige’. In contrast to covert prestige, women are more likely to overstress the standard form due to ‘overt prestige’ as they aspire toward a higher social class. Their speech style is considered better or more hyper-correct because their social positions are lower and less secure and they are judged by their language and appearance, so they use more standard forms. But the explanation may be different if women attain a more social status through education, work, and social changes (Md Sohel Rana & Osama Khalifa Moh, 2011).

E.  Discrimination and sexist language practices

For years, feminists have argued that sexist language exists in every culture. The use of the gendered title pronounced (Mrs or Miss) reflects not only sexism but also ideas and expectations about gender roles, career selection, and goals for males and females in society. Gender bias, occuring consciously or unconsciously and which underlies sexist language, is another common error. Speakers tend to assume that man is the norm and woman the “other”. For example, “Each student does his own assignments” or using the words “congressman, policeman, or mankind for all people”, thus indicating a view of men as the first citizen regarding morality, spirituality, intellectuality, and absolute to women. In this modern era this may cause offence, therefore, these forms need to be changed (Lakoff, 1975; Talbot, 1998).

F.  Implications of language planning

Gender bias is reflected in language both structurally and in informal communication. To facilitate gender equality in the family, in the workplace and in society, it is important to create equality in language through language planning. This is the reason why eliminating expression of gender bias against women in language has rapidly become part of the planning of language with the name: “feminist language reform”, "non-sexist language reform”, "feminist linguistic intervention", "sexist language reform", "feminist language planning”, "feminist language policy", and "reform of gender-biased language” (Lakoff, 1975; Chesire & Trugill, 1998, Nguyen, 1999; Wardhaugh, 2010).

Modification and reform are two gendered language planning strategies. Modification is to change the habit of using gender discrimination in  language. For example, by eliminating the use of “man” and replacing the term with the generic: person/people, individual(s), human(s), or human-being(s) instead; and by avoiding sexism when formally addressing persons by employing Ms instead of Miss or Mrs regardless of their marital status solves the gender discrimination problem. Another strategy for language reform includes replacing forms that disregard women by the use of stereotypical roles, such as “chairman with chairperson, salesman with salesperson, fireman with fighter-fighter”. Recently, there have emerged some new gendered words: statesman and stateswoman, sportsman and sportswoman.

To create equality in the use of the two pronouns he and she, some researchers suggest varying the use of male and female pronouns or use replacing gendered pronouns with “we”. Thus, we can see the purpose of language planning by targeting equal rights for women is to gradually reduce the disregard for women in language through eliminating the habit of using language that carries gender bias. Along with changing  the habit of using gender bias language, new expressions are created that avoid gender bias. Finally, language modification must be carried out in both the written and spoken forms, for example, through curriculum change, as well as in textbooks, theses, and essays in educational school environments. The media industry is also responsible for combatting sexism by eliminating gendered and discriminatory language (Cheshire & Trugill, 1998; Nguyen, 1999; Wardhaugh, 2010).

Discussion and conclusion

This paper highlights several key approaches that numerous studies have described and raises many issues on the differences between language and gender that sociolinguists have been concerned about and have continued to find explanations and evidence for their use. In addition to analyzing a number of claims on the differences in speech behavior between males and females and gender interactions in discourse, the implications for language planning is evaluated. As such, the differences between language and gender, how gender is constructed in social practice, how gender intertwines with other social factors such as identity, age, education, community of practice, race, social class, and sexual orientation have been considered an interesting and fertile field of research for researchers during recent years and for years to come (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet,1998). 

 

References

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routleedge.

Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-921447-6.

Cheshire, J. and Trudgill, P. (Eds.), (1998). The sociolinguistics reader, vol. 2: Gender and discourse. London: Arnold.

Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. London: Longman.

Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.

Crawford, M. (1995). Talking Differences: On Gender and Language. London: Sage.

DeFrancisco, V. (1997). Gender, power and practice: Or, Putting your money (and your research) where your mouth is. In Wardhaugh (2010).

Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1: 245-67.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 461-90.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Wardhaugh, (2010).

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herring, Susan C. (1992). Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on languages and linguistics document no. ED345552.

Holmes, J. (1998). Women’s talk: The question of sociolinguistic universals. In Wardhaugh, (2010).

Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The Community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28 (2). 173-183. doi: 10.1017/S004740459900202X

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change, I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, II: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.

LIN8015 Introduction to sociolinguistics: Introductory book. (2012). University of Southern Queensland.

Maltz, D. N. and Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male female miscommunication. In John J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196-216.

Md, Sohel. Ranai. & Osama, Khalifa. Moh. (2011). Sex as an independent variable related to linguistics variables. Jazan University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Nguyen, V. K. (1999). Ung xu ngon ngu trong giao tiep gia dinh nguoi Viet. Publisher: Van Hoa Thong tin. 

O’Barr, W. & Bowman, A. (1980). Women’s language' or 'powerless language'. In McConnell-Ginet et al. (Eds.) Women and languages in Literature and Society. pp. 93-110. New York: Praeger.

Spender, D. (1985). Man made language. 2^nd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Pail.

Talbot, M. M. (1998). Language and Gender: an introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

Tannen, D. (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1998). Talk in the intimate relationship: His and hers.  Wardhaugh (2010).

Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1: 179-95.

Wardhaugh, R. (2010).  An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley. (Eds.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 105-29.