The Relationship between Language and Gender And The Implications for Language Planning By Lea Rash April

2012

The Relationship between Language and Gender And The Implications for Language Planning

This essay will discuss the relationship between the English language and gender in the US according to the approaches taken by feminists that mens language is dominant and that womens language is deficient or somehow different. The communities of practice framework that celebrates difference and diversity will be considered as well. Implications for language planning will be addressed with regard to the overlying issues of whether or not: (a) power is the main concern; (b) languages or the people who use them are gender-biased; (c) language-learning reveals one gender preference over another; (d) language-learning is associated with gender-learning; (e) change is really possible. The basic premise of this essay is that because attitudes manipulate gender-bias in language, language planning must be undertaken as a consciousness-raising task. The issue of whether or not power is the main concern involving language and gender is a paradoxical one since social interaction generally takes place within the framework of an overriding, power-derived patriarchal culture (Uchida, 1992). Various claims made are that womens language is deficient, mens language is dominant, women and men are either biologically or sociolinguistically different, or that individual and group identities alter as they are performed in various communities of practice. Promoting greater linguistic evenhandedness between women and men is the focus of language reform.

As for the issues of whether or not languages, as well as those who use them, can be gender-biased, Cameron (1992, p. 125) states that in the mouths of sexists, language can always be sexist, as illustrated in societys use of person compounds to subtly distinguish females, and -man compounds to distinguish males (Dubois & Crouch, 1987, pp. 33-34). Consequently, altering linguistic forms offers no consistent promise of modifying meaning and usage (Pauwels, 2001). Sociolinguists hold the view that language, while incorporated with sociopolitical elements (Skerrett, 2011),
2

is intrinsically beyond good and evil and only mirrors a cultures gender-bias, while conceivably being anchored in shifting standards and prejudices regarding its use (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003, pp. 482, 485, 487).

Meanwhile, feminists strongly assert that English is a gender-biased language (Holmes, 2001) and a cause of womens oppression by men. For example, Spender (1998, p. 139) advocates that Language is not neutral It is itself a shaper of ideas. Central to the pursuit of womens rights have been language observances that confront and correct imbalances triggered by the superior language privileges of men (Spender, 1998). For instance, feminists are sensitive to naming practices that mask individuality or show women as reliant on men (Pauwels & Winter, 2007), as in the titles Miss and Mrs. that are simultaneous markers of marital status and sex, while Mr. purely signifies sex. Accordingly, the feminine equivalent of the latter is Ms (Lakoff, 1973, pp. 68-69, 72). Other naming practices that may rouse the sensitivities of women on occasion are feminine titles with now besmirched meanings such as queen, madam, mistress, and dame (with king, prince, lord and father still being dignified titles for men (Schulz, 1975, p. 61)). The term gender-neutralization entails reducing or eradicating female or male gender-specific language, such as gender-suffixes (-ess, -ette, (tr)ix (Pauwels, 2001, p. 2)) that belittle and weaken women (Holmes, 2001); constructing compound nouns using person (e.g. tradesperson), and steering clear of masculine nouns containing -man; and not using pronouns like he or his that tend to make females appear hidden (Pauwels & Winter, 2007, p. 407), for example by changing male gender-exclusive sentences like everyone loves his mother into male/female gender-inclusive ones such as everyone loves their mother (Ong, Zhuo & Jacobs, 1997, p. 5).

One could argue that a supremacy-of-men belief frequently underlies genderneutralization (e.g. a princely sum, master copy (Holmes, 2001, p. 309)), although attitude is the determiner (Holmes, 2001). Then again, feminist control over experimentation and ingenious use of parts of speech have managed to generate some new word semiotics (e.g. witch for a feminist
3

defying male power (Rountree, 1997), neologisms (e.g. femocrat derived from femocracy), graphemic innovations (e.g. womyn), and entirely new languages (e.g. Ladan (Elgin, 1984) (Pauwels, 2001, p. 2). In contrast, gender-specification entails methodically and correspondingly emphasizing gender by using he or she, or adding -woman and -man to words (Pauwels, 2001, p. 2). Ironically, acknowledgment of a womans accomplishment in relation to her sex can be found in numerous words as early as the 17th century (e.g. chairwoman, circa 1685), and yet women today dislike using woman words (Merriam-Webster, 2003, p. 204; Equal Employment Opportunities Office, Victoria University of Wellington/EEOO, VUW, 1991, pp. 8-9). Perhaps it is an oddity of our times that such words are not only deemed less prestigious or less powerful than their masculine counterparts, but they are also behind the reversed aim of retaining the masculine forms (EEOO, VUW, 1991). Alternatively, this thinking may come out of a sense of having greater freedom to choose between masculine and feminine words. If so, then freedom of choice may be an indication that gender-biased language has been deemed a symptom and not a cause of womens oppression (Miller and Swift, 1979, cited in Martynyuk, 1989, p. 99). A larger foundation for this discussion is found in looking at the womenslanguage-as-deficient approach, which argues that in all familiar societies culture is connected in a lofty sense with men, and nature is connected in an accommodating (if not long-suffering) sense with women. Men are understood to have higher standing due to their capacity to socialize and culturalize nature (Ortner, 1974, pp. 4-7). In essence, the deficiency framework regards women as inferior, muted and powerless language users (Pavlenko & Piller, 2008, p. 57), although Labov (2001, p. 274) argues that middle class women lead in learning prestigious language structures from men. In fact, hypercorrect grammar and superpolite forms are key characteristics of womens language since women are not supposed to talk rough (Lakoff & Bucholtz, 2004, pp. 52, 234).

To feminists like Lakoff (1973, pp. 46, 59-60), women endure linguistic bias not only in the way language is directed at them (e.g. by both euphemistically and condescendingly alluding to a woman doctor as a lady doctor), but also in the way women are taught to use language. For instance, Lakoff feels that a womans self-imposed inequality in her conversational styles and strategies are evident in intonational patterns that are hesitant (Lakoff, 1973, pp. 55, 57), as well as in polite indirectness of speech (Sure is hot here, isnt it? (Lakoff, 1973, p.55)) that make women appear timid and reluctant to foist their views and opinions on others (Lakoff, 1973). However, it is when a woman uses a hedge (well, kinda, yknow), or, more famously for Lakoff, a tag question (John is here, isnt he? (Lakoff, 1973, p. 54)), that women more noticeably demonstrate their comparative lack of assertiveness in relation to men. The notion that the use of particular language techniques might be connected with astuteness, sensitivity, or respect is not addressed by Lakoff (Coates, 1996; Dubois & Crouch, 1987). The deficit approach brings us to the issue of whether or not languagelearning is nearly always slanted in a way where a particular gender is preferred more than the other. Unsurprisingly, it is mens speech that typically furnishes the standard for the evaluation of womens speech (Wardhaugh, 2010). In fact, Labov and Trudgill use this standard to consign socio-economic class to women, which slants the reading of their facts and figures toward the male variable (Kunsmann, 2000). For instance, their studies of linguistic and social variables in dense cities reveal the generalization that women prefer standard (Trudgill, 2000, p. 70) or prestige forms (Labov, 2006, p. 197), especially middle class women who regard male working class speech as unrefined and profanity-filled (Wardhaugh, 2010; Precht, 2008). It is possible that women are more status-cognizant because on the whole they tend to be comparatively less socially connected, socioeconomically secure, and well positioned than men, with appraisals of their abilities being focused on appearance and speech (Wardhaugh, 2010). The origin of the power-based mens-language-as-dominant approach can be found in the claim that English constructed a male gender-biased world,
5

anchored in the cultural world of the Eurocentric-American male (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, pp. 42, 55), which typically dominates women with interruption and speech-overlap strategies (Takahashi, in press). To Lakoff (alternatively considered a dominance theorist (Lakoff & Bucholtz, 2004)), a societys dominant group is the one that creates stereotypes of lower ranking groups that are exemplified by powerlessness. This leads to the subordinate groups desire for acceptance by the ruling group, which manifests itself in the use of tag questions (Lakoff & Bucholtz, 2004). Anthropologists would nevertheless argue with Lakoff that women always have power and successfully direct some societies (Wardhaugh, 2010).

Meanwhile, the biological approach to language and gender issues highlights female verbal superiority and advantage (Chambers, 2003, pp. 148, 154; Ellis, 1994, p. 204), with girls surpassing boys in verbal exercises (Oxford, 1993, p. 542), which later in life becomes one of the strongest sex differences favoring women (Kimura, 1999, p. 101). However, an inconspicuous element of these one-sided pronouncements is revealed through Baron-Cohen (2003, p.185), who patronizingly asserts that while womens brains show advanced language proficiency and verbal recall compared to that of men, People with the male brain make the most wonderful scientists, engineers, musicians, architects, electricians, bankers, programmers, lawyers... People with the female brain make the most wonderful counselors, teachers, nurses, caretakers, therapists, social workers, mediators... . As a result, Cameron (2007) rebukes him for twisting differences into dominance and questions why the male occupations are more diverse and ingenious, as well as being better paid than the female occupations.

Unfortunately, by depending on biological explanations for gender-relations an opportunity is created for domination to become part of common language use that, in turn, can be stretched to rationalize power and control (adapted from Skerrett, 2011). The biological approach disappointingly offers a simplistic solution to a complex problem, and is dubiously rooted in stereotypes (Wardhaugh, 2010). In fact, any learning process differences that
6

do exist between males and females do not reflect any overall superiority advantage to either sex, according to Zaidi (2010, pp. 41-42).

The issue of whether or not language-learning is linked with gender-learning brings us to the two-culture or womens-language-as-different approach. Maltz & Borker (1982, pp. 200, 204-205) discovered that males and females come from dissimilar sociolinguistic subcultures as children, with genderspecific and gender-suitable ways of cooperating that are founded on power and competition for boys and cooperation and equality for girls. Boys quietly assemble themselves into big-and-busy ranked groups, while girls habitually gather into little, egalitarian, talk-supported groups (Tannen, 1990b). These patterns become more cultivated later in life due to linguistic expectations that are anchored in societys view of male/female differences. A misinterpretation of the other sexs intentions is understood as a communication breakdown (Tannen, 1990b). Gray (1994) appears to align male-female speech styles along Tannens (1990b, pp. 26-27) connection versus independence dichotomy: women reflect aloud and men think wordlessly; women articulate their emotions and men convey information. When a woman says I feel like you never listen, male readers are told that never is the females way of communicating vexation, and it is not to be taken as if it were factual information (Gray, 1994, p. 60).

The assumption is evidently that women simultaneously seek affinity while being alert to subtle connotations of speech, whereas men take things at face value while striving to verbally maintain their autonomy and standing. The outcome of this is a female rapport style and a male report style, which is the rationale for why women converse more in private, and men in public (Tannen (1990b, pp. 27, 42, 76-77; Krolkke & Srensen, 2006, p. 99).

While both men and women complain of being interrupted by each other, the reasons differ. Men allegedly consider womens cooperative overlaps (e.g. mhm, uhuh, yeah (Hirschman, 1973, p. 1) to be annoyingly intrusive
7

(instead of supportive and participatory) and proof that the listener is inattentive (Tannen, 1990a). On the other hand, women regard mens conversational topic-switching to be exasperatingly controlling (Tannen, 1990b) and proof that a discussion is being sabotaged and/or hijacked (instead of offering the alternative side to that discussion (Tannen, 1990a)).

By now it is clear that feminists have been quite subjective in introducing gender stereotypes of males and females in conflict with each other instead of along positive/negative or greater/lesser lines associated with each gender (Martynyuk, 1989). That gender differences in language are most likely socially derived points to the fact that since boys and girls are raised dissimilarly, and later have divergent adult responsibilities in society, they intentionally keep their conduct consistent with societal expectations (Wardhaugh, 2010). Another illustration is found in equal opportunity American corporate culture, where women characteristically speak with an ethic of care, whereas men speak with a voice of justice (Gilligan, 1982, pp. 167, 173-174). A woman who behaves in defiance of the caring stereotype can jeopardize her employment prospects and hope of promotions (Hyde, 2005, p. 590). On the other hand, if a woman in a position of power speaks in a manner anticipated of leaders, she is considered an inadequate woman; if she speaks in a manner anticipated of women, she is regarded with derision (Tannen, 1990b).

Ultimately, there is a way out of the difference model and that is to consider Hydes (2005, p. 590) gender similarities hypothesis, which proposes that in reality males and females, although not identical, are similar on nearly all psychological variables, and that there is no scientific evidence to support intrinsic male and female communication failures.

This brings us to a community of practice (CofP) framework for analysis, where sweeping generalizations about the language of men and women are usually inapplicable (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1999). Instead, CofP celebrate both difference and diversity through discourse by drawing on the
8

activities of a group of people who have gathered together, for example, to mutually participate in following their special interests or to oppose power and control (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992)). In turn, their viewpoints, principles, degree of influence, ways of communicating and doing things are revealed. Consequently, a CofP is not only defined by its members and their reciprocal activity, but the activity itself socially systematizes the community. Interaction is what propels gender to co-construct with other facets of identity (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1999, p.190).

Instead of asking how the language of men and women is different, experts today ask how gender is created in discourse (Piller, 2007). The CofP approach thus centers not so much on language but on social engagement (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 95) and doing gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). From this perspective, gender as performance can keep us from thinking people are passive participants in their own lives or that gender is a fixed category that traps us: it can also be used to liberate (Jule, 2008, p. 26). Accordingly, language connected to gender and self develops into a foundation of power (Weedon, 1997).

The CofP framework for analysis is indicative of how successful interaction and action are in initiating, replicating, and defying the system of power in society, as well as public discourses of gender, age, race, etc. (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992).

This brings us to the issue of whether or not language change is feasible. Based on the argument that it is impossible to control what individuals say or imply, language planning seems incapable of eradicating gender bias with mere disclosure of the threat it poses (Cameron, 1992). However, when language reform is based on adjustments to the socioeconomic sphere of society, a real change of relations can be attained between men, women, and language (Martynyuk, 1989). Likewise, by eliminating harmful gender stereotypes from language (Pauwels, 1998), the status of exploited groups can be transformed (Holmes, 2001).

The advantages of drawing on nonsexist language are that women and men are put on equal footing (Pauwels, 1998) because erroneous theories about the temperament of women are removed. In addition, nonsexist terms assist the concrete purpose of communication because they are accurate, clear and precise, as well as being elegant yet natural (EEOO, VUW, 1991). This essay has argued that diverse attitudes and approaches to language and gender are what guide the many issues surrounding sexist language in the US. While men and women do speak differently to some extent, thinking exclusively in terms of differences is restricting; it is better to think in terms of what difference a persons gender can make. Within this framework, language planning can be undertaken as an ongoing exercise in consciousness-raising.

10

References Bach, K. (2000). Speech Acts. In Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/spchacts.html Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Male and female brains and the truth about autism. New York: Basic Books/Perseus Books Group.

Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd ed.) Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cameron, D. (2007). What language barrier? Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/01/gender.books

Chambers, J. K. (2003) Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

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

Dubois, B. L. & Crouch, I. (1987). Linguistic disruption: He/she, she, he or she, he-she. In J. Penfield (Ed.), Women and language in transition (2835). Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 1-11). Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Communitiesof.pdf

11

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999). New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28(2), 185-201. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/LinS1999.pdf

Elgin, S.H. (1984/2000). Native tongue. (Vol. 2). New York: The Feminist Press at The City University of New York.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Equal Employment Opportunities Office, Victoria University of Wellington. (1991). Non-sexist language guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/Language/NonSexist/vuw.non-sexistlanguage-guidelines.txt

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (Eds.). (2003). An introduction to language (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle/Thomson.

Gilligan, C. (1982/2003). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Hirschman, L. (1973/1994). Female-male differences in conversational Interaction [Abstract]. Language In Society, 23(3/September), 427-442. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168538

12

Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education, Ltd.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf

Jule, A. (2008). A beginners guide to language and gender. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997). A framework for planning: Who does what to whom? In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf, Jr. Language planning from practice to theory (pp. 28-58). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Kimura, D. (1999/2000). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krolkke, C. & Srensen, A. (2006). Gender communication: Theories and analyses From silence to performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kunsmann, P. (2000). Gender, status and power in discourse behaviour of men and women. Retrieved from http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/ KUNSMANN.HTM

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

13

Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and womans place. Language in Society, 2(1/April), 45-80. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf

Lakoff, R. & Bucholtz, M. (Ed.). (2004). Language and womans place: Text and commentaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.) (1982/1997), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martynyuk, A. (1989). Social relations and sex stereotyping in language. Retrieved from http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/26/08Martynyuk.pdf

Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2003). Merriam-Websters collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Ong, C. W., Zhuo, Q. Y., & Jacobs, G. M. (1997). Changes and choices: The case of gender and English. Awareness, 4(1), 5-13. Retrieved from http://www.georgejacobs.net/Changes_and_choices.htm

Ortner, Sherry B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society (pp. 68-87). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/old/class_text_049.pdf

14

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Gender differences in styles and strategies for language learning: What do they mean? Should we pay attention? In J. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 541-557). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

Pauwels, A. (1998). Women changing language. London: Longman.

Pauwels, A. (2001). Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile? Linguistik online 1, (1/98), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.linguistik-online.de/heft1_99/pauwels.htm

Pauwels, A. & Winter, J. (2007). The politics of naming reform in the gendered spheres of home and work. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(3), 404-422.

Pavlenko, A. & Piller, I. (2008). Language education and gender. In S. May & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and education, (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 57-69). New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.languageonthemove.com/downloads/PDF/pavlenko_piller_200 8_lg%20ed%20&gender.pdf

Piller, I. (2007). Linguistics and intercultural communication. Language and Linguistic Compass, 1/3, 208-226. Retrieved from http://www.languageonthemove.com/downloads/PDF/piller_2007_intercult ural%20communication.pdf

Precht, K. (2008). Sex similarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), 89-111. Retrieved from http://krpb.pbworks.com/f/JOSL_gender.pdf

15

Rountree, K. (1997). The new witch of the west: Feminists reclaim the crone. Journal of Popular Culture, 30(4), 211-229.

Schulz, M. (1975). The semantic derogation of woman. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 6475). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Skerrett, D. M. (2011). Can the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis save the planet? Lessons from cross-cultural psychology for critical language policy. Current issues in language planning, 11(4), 331-340.

Spender, D. (1998). Man made language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Takahashi, K. (In press). Multilingualism and gender [Pre-print]. In M. MartinJones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.languageonthemove.com/downloads/PDF/Takahashi_Gender. pdf

Tannen, D. (1990a). Sex, Lies and conversation: Why is it so hard for men and women to talk to each other? The Washington Post, June 24, 1990. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/sexlies.htm

Tannen, D. (1990b/2001). You just dont understand: Women and men in Conversation. N.Y.: William Morrow/Harper Collins.

Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society (4th ed.). London: Penguin Books.

16

Uchida, A. (1992). When difference is dominance: A critique of the antipower-based cultural approach to sex differences [Abstract]. Language in Society, 21, 547-568. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4168392?uid=3738784&uid=2129&u id=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56022191023

Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th ed.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2/June), 125-151. Retrieved from www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/doinggender.pdf

Zaidi, Z. F. (2010). Gender differences in human brain: A review. The Open Anatomy Journal, 2, 37-55. Retrieved from http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toanatj/articles/V002/37TOANATJ.p df

17