Gender and Language

Robin Lakoff (1975) - Deficit Theory:

1. Hedges: Phrases like 'sort of', 'kind of' 'it seems like'
2. Empty adjectives: 'divine', 'adorable', 'gorgeous'
3. Super-polite forms: 'Would you mind...', 'Is it OK if...'
4. Apologise more: 'I'm sorry, but I think that,,,'
5. Speak less frequently
6. Avoid coarse language or expletives
7. Tag questions: 'You don't mind eating this, do you?'
8. Hyper-correct grammar and pronunciation: Use of prestige grammar and clear articulation.
9. Indirect requests: 'I'm so thirsty.' - really asking for a drink
10. Speak in italics: Use tone to emphasis certain words, e.g. 'so', 'very', 'quite'

Lakoff admits: 'It is my impression, though I do not have precise statistical evidence'.

Jenny Cheshire (1982) 
Looked at the use of grammatical variations in the speech of young children specifically the frequency of the following:

• non-standard -s (she calls me...)
• non-standard has (you has to...)
• non-standard was (you was...)
• multiple negation
• non-standard never
• non-standard what (are you the boys what hit...)
• non-standard do (she do...)
• non-standard come (I come here yesterday...)
• use of ain't

Cheshire found that, overall, the boys used non-standard form more frequently than the girls did. Her conclusion was that "variation is controlled by both social and linguistic factors. In boys' speech, variation is governed by norms that are central to the vernacular culture, and are transmitted through the peer group. Variation in the girls' speech appears to be a more personal process, and less rigidly controlled by vernacular norms".

Pamela Fishman (1983) - Dominance Theory:

Fishman also looked at tag questions and agreed with Lakoff that they were used far more frequently by females. She, however, drew very different conclusions. While Lakoff stated that the use of them by women was representative of their uncertainty and tentativeness, Fishman concluded that they were, in fact, a way of women gaining conversational power. According to Fishman, question tags are used to initiate and maintain conversation - an action she terms 'conversational shitwork'. She also suggests that men are reluctant to do this 'shitwork' because of what they perceive to be their dominant role.


Jennifer Coates (1993) - Dominance Theory:
"Sees women as an oppressed group, and interprets differences in women's and men's speech in terms of men's dominance and women's subordination".


Deborah Tannen (1990) - Difference Theory:

The difference approach sees women as belonging to 'different subcultures' who are socialised differently from childhood onwards and may, therefore, have different problems with communication as adults.

"The desire to affirm that women are equal has made some scholars reluctant to show that they are different. There are gender differences in ways of speaking, and we need to identify and understand them."

1. Status vs Support - Men show power and dominance in conversations; women are more likely to use language that will support and agree with others.
2. Independence vs Intimacy - Men show they do not need to rely on others; women use language to connect and maintain closeness with others.
3. Advice vs Understanding - Men offer solutions to problems; women will show empathy and understanding in a given situation.
4. Information vs Feelings - Men are far more likely to be factual; women will use language that stems from a more emotional viewpoint and is less factual.
5. Orders vs Proposals - Men are more likely to be direct and use imperatives to command others; women will tend to avoid commanding tones and be more suggestive in their language choices.
6. Conflict vs Compromise - Men are more likely to use language to argue a point; women will use it to avoid a conflict and are more likely to negotiate with others to try and find a solution or reach a compromise.

Tannen's views also identify gender differences in terms of competitiveness (males) and co-operativeness (females).


Deborah Cameron in Verbal Hygiene (1995):
Cameron argues that theorists like Lakoff see gender in terms of power and powerlessness. For this reason: throughout Western culture the masculine/male has been the unmarked social norm, the feminine/female the marked form.
Unmarked forms: "manager", "usher", "waiter", "Paul"
Marked forms: "manageress", "usherette", "waitress", "Pauline"
Political correctness is now eliminating the marked forms.

Janet Hyde (2005) - Gender Similarities Hypothesis:

Hyde's research is of a more contemporary nature and suggests that, in actual fact, there are substantially more similarities in terms of gender and language than there are differences. She also suggests that any differences which are present are dependent of a number of other contextual factors such as: age, class, ethnicity, education, occupation, sexuality, politics and/or personality.

New exclamation mark rules – proof that The Man wants to penalise enthusiasm!

Article


This article published in The Guardian, called "New exclamation mark rules - proof that The Man wants to penalise enthusiasm!", is a humorous article which provides a small amount of information about the new rules that the government wants to introduce regarding punctuation marks. They suggest that key stage 1 and 2 children should only be credited for the use of an exclamation mark if used at the end of a grammatical structure beginning either "What" or "How". The article is intended to entertain.