Language and Gender Flashcards
distinguish between “sex” and “gender”
In the 15th century “gender” expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join “sex” in referring to
either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning “sex” has had since the 14th century.
In the 20th century “sex” and “gender” each acquired new uses:
sex → “sexual intercourse” (early 20th century, now its most common usage)
gender → “gender roles” = behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (around the
mid-20th century)
“gender identity” = a person’s internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or
neither male nor female
“gender expression” = the physical and behavioral manifestations of one’s gender identity (toward the end of
the 20th century)
Among those who study gender and sexuality (psychology, medicine, sociolinguistics, gender studies), a clear
delineation between “sex” and “gender” is typically prescribed, with “sex” as the preferred term for biological forms,
and “gender” limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits.
In this dichotomy, the terms “male” and “female” relate only to biological forms (“sex”), while the terms
“masculine,” “feminine,” “woman/girl,” and “man/boy” relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits
(“gender”).
recall the main differences between men’s and women’s speech according to Otto
Jespersen
AND GENDER (1)
Danish linguist Otto Jespersen published the very first piece in modern linguistics concerning “women’s language.”
In his 1922 Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin, he devotes an entire chapter entitled, “The Woman,” to
describing differences in women’s compared to men’s speech and voice pitch.
According to Jespersen, women in all cultures , relative to men, avoid vulgarity and swearing (p. 246); speak more (p.
253), more hyperbolically (p. 250), with more facility (p. 253), and leave more sentences unfinished (p. 251); and have
smaller vocabularies more reliant on the central lexical resources of a language (p. 248).
The linguist discusses, among others, examples of the coinage of new words by women (pp. 245–8), although he
generalizes that men are “the chief renovators of language” (p. 247).
He attributes this to the fact that “man is slower: he hesitates, he chews his cud to make sure of the taste of words, and
thereby comes to discover similarities with and differences from other words, both in sound and in sense” (p. 249).
However, “with the rise of the feminist movement, many young ladies have begun to imitate their brothers in that
[invention of slang] as well as other respects” (p. 248).
→ Jespersen’s text is introduced into accounts of the history of language and gender studies in tones that range from
detached amusement to derision. For instance, in her 1990 The Feminist Critique of Language, feminist linguist Deborah
Cameron refers to this chapter as “Jespersen’s notorious chapter” (p. 22). However, of the 18 selections in her reader,
only one other approaches the length of “The Woman”; that Cameron reprints it in full signals her investment in its
importance.
identify the four primary approaches to language and gender
AND GENDER (1)
In Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language (1993), Jennifer Coates puts
forward a history of approaches to language and gender.
The four approaches she identifies – deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic (diversity, social constructivist) – developed in
a historical sequence, but the emergence of a new approach did not mean that earlier approaches were superseded.
In fact, at any one time these different approaches could be described as existing in a state of tension with each other.
The deficit approach was characteristic of the earliest work in the field. “Women’s language” – language as used by women –
is described as weak and unassertive, in other words, as deficient. Implicitly, “women’s language” is deficient by
comparison with the norm of male language. This approach was challenged because of the implication that there was
something intrinsically wrong with women’s language, and that women should learn to speak like men if they wanted to be
taken seriously.
The dominance approach sees women as an oppressed group and interprets linguistic differences in women’s and men’s
speech in terms of men’s dominance and women’s subordination. Researchers using this model are concerned to show how
male dominance is enacted through linguistic practice.
The difference approach emphasizes the idea that women and men belong to different subcultures. The advantage of this
model is that it allows women’s talk to be celebrated and examined outside a framework of oppression or powerlessness.
Critics argue, however, that women’s speech styles cannot be analysed accurately by ignoring the issue of power, especially
in the context of mixed talk (interactions between men and women).
The fourth and most recent approach is the dynamic one. Researchers who adopt this approach take a social constructivist
perspective, according to which gender is a social construct which is expressed/ performed through, among others, language
use. In other words, men, women, and gender non-conforming individuals engage in both “masculine” or “feminine” talk
according to various factors which do not necessarily reflect their gender identity.
- Deficit Approach
Robin Lakoff’s 1975 Language and
Woman’s Place.
Lakoff’s study suggests that “women’s language” is unassertive and, thus, deficient.
- Lexical hedges or fillers: e.g., “you know,” “sort of,” “well,”
“you see.” - Tag questions: e.g., She’s very nice, isn’t she?
- Rising intonation on declaratives: e.g., It’s really good!
- “Empty” adjectives: e.g., divine, charming, cute.
- Precise color terms: e.g., magenta, aquamarine.
- Intensifiers: e.g., I like him so much.
- “Hypercorrect” grammar: consistent use of standard verb
forms. - “Superpolite” forms: indirect requests, euphemisms.
- Avoidance of strong swear words: e.g., “fudge,” “my
goodness.” - Emphatic stress: e.g., It was a BRILLIANT performance.
- Dominance Approach
Don Zimmerman & Candace West (1975)
Dale Spender’s 1980 Man Made Language
The second approach – the dominance approach – sees women as a subordinate group and interprets linguistic
differences in women’s and men’s speech as a result of male dominance. Researchers using this model are concerned to show how male dominance is enacted through linguistic practice.
- Difference Approach
emphasizes the idea that women and men belong to different subcultures.
Deborah Tannen’s 1990 You Just Don’t Understand
The male genderlect uses
communication:
- to exchange information (‘Report’ talk)
- to show independence
- to show status.
The female genderlect uses
communication:
-to network (‘Rapport’ talk)
-to connect
-to develop intimacy
- Diversity Approach
called “dynamic” because it emphasizes dynamic aspects of interaction. Researchers who adopt this approach take a social constructivist perspective: gender is a performative social construct which is also actualized through language.
In line with this approach and the concept of “doing gender” – inspired by Zimmerman and West (1975) –, communication styles can be classified as (stereoptically) “masculine” or “feminine.” It is important to remember that, despite those terms, no style of communication is exclusive to one gender or another; all men, women, and
gender non-conforming individuals use both kinds in different situations.
Examples of masculine speech styles
- Interruptions are used to disagree with, establish dominance over, or steal the floor from a rival speaker.
- Competitive banter creates and enforces an atmosphere of social hierarchy.
- One-ups are designed to keep a speaker in a higher status ranking than another individual.
Examples of feminine speech styles
- Back channeling (“right,” “mm-hmm”) show agreement,
indicate comprehension, or encourage a speaker to continue. - Tag questions (“isn’t it?” “weren’t you?”) are used to communicate slight uncertainty or to soften the severity of a request.
- Up-talk turns a statement into a question, but without altering
the grammar of the statement. - Hedges (“kind of,” “like”) are used to lessen the impact of what
is said.
** Gender Non-Inclusive Language
The 1970s saw the emergence of the first scholarly discussions of gender-bias in language.
Robin Lakoff’s Language and Woman’s Place (1975) and Dale Spender’s Man Made Language (1980) may not have been the first contributions to the topic but their work acted as major triggers for extensive feminist linguistic activism both in and outside the academia.
Considered particularly discriminatory are practices which elevate men and the male to the status of norm,
default or benchmark. Such practices include:
- the use of masculine/male (pro)nominal forms to refer to people in general (e.g., “men” or “mankind”
and “he” to refer to women, men, and gender non-conforming individuals); - the formation of nouns referring to women (human agent nouns, occupational nouns) by means of
morphological derivation, sometimes with derogatory undertones in the case of the latter (e.g., “master”
(masc.) vs. “mistress” (fem.) = “woman in authority” and/or “extramarital female lover”)
Language reform initiatives have centred around their elimination. Two major strategies of reform have been
proposed to achieve this: gender neutralization (e.g., one, he/she, (s)he, singular “they” or “spokespeople”
instead of “spokesmen” when referring to these professionals collectively) and gender specification (“spokeswoman” instead of “spokesman” referring to women having this occupation).
