[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Gender and Language Use
With this contribution to Gender and Postmodern Communication, I want to
give some sociohistorical background addressing communicative styles, and
how such styles reflect the values of our Western societies with regard to
gender.
In order to understand gender, research in sociology, sociopsychology, and
education offers dependable findings to help us understand how men and
women acquire gender-specific schemata conveyed through. The debate between
the role of nature and the role of nurture is an old one. My contention is
that the socialization process undergone by males and females sets various
types of preferential cognitive networks, and that gender-specific psyches
ultimately stem from nurture rather than nature. In the light of both
anthropological and educational studies, cognitive differences between
males and females do not stem exclusively from inherently natural and
static neurolinguistic preferential networks: the socialization process
undergone by males and females, whether at home or at school, past or
present, play a much stronger role on the shaping of cognitive styles than
previously admitted. There is every reason to believe, indeed, that
nurture affects and shapes nature to the point where males and females end
up developing different cognitive styles imposed by society. Studies in
sociopshychology provide very thorough and fascinating analyses on how the
self is shaped by sociohistorical processes, life history, and social
ideology (Sloan, 1996a, 1996b). Research conducted to date in anthropology
and education clearly states that gender-specific patterns of behavior
remain relevant factors and important social variables to be analyzed
through the most common cultural codes of society, that is, its language.
LANGUAGE: A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY
The American sociolinguist Labov (1966) and the British anthropologist
Trudgill (1972) paved the way to the study of genderlects in Western
societies. Their studies consistently indicated that females used a more
standard language than did men, regardless of their socioeconomic level,
age, or race. Their studies were often interpreted as the result of early
childhood socialization processes (Lakoff, 1975; Goodwin, 1980; Maltz &
Borker, 1982; Cameron, 1992). Girls are encouraged and rewarded for using
"elegant" language whereas boys are allowed more flexibility and roughness
in language use: "Rough talk is discouraged in little girls more strongly
than in little boys, in whom parents may often find it more amusing than
shocking" (Lakoff, 1975, p. 6). Cameron (1992) also points out that
children's activities shape various styles of speech: "Boys tend to play
in large groups organized hierarchically; thus they learn direct,
confrontational speech. Girls play in small groups of 'best friends',
where they learn to maximize intimacy and minimize conflict" (Cameron,
1992, p. 73).
One research (Lever, 1978) examined activities among fifth-grade children
on the basis of playground observations and interviews. The results of this
research indicated that boys organized competitive team games with specific
rules and goals, whereas girls played games in smaller groups involving
repeated rituals and greater cooperation than boys. Lever (1978) also
observed that when girls were involved in team games, they were likely to
ignore the rules, whereas boys were very careful to adhere to them.
Other studies that were conducted regarding the use of vernacular styles
across genders (Cheshire, 1982; Coates, 1993; Milroy, 1980) show that males
tend to use a more vernacular style than females. This difference has
often been interpreted as a female's greater desire to conform to societal
norms. Yet, this interpretation may stem from a sexist view which
traditionally stresses that females are naturally more dependent than
males. When considered from a historical perspective, the difference in the
use of vernacular styles across genders can be explained differently.
Keeping in mind that languages have evolved from vernacular forms,
non-standard styles are the avant-garde of the next generation's standard
language. As such, speaking non-standard forms is an expression of both
freedom and creative power in which females were not allowed to
participate. If one assumes that non-standard forms are lacking in
elegance when spoken by a woman, we are faced with the illocutionary force
of prohibition. What is usually perceived as compliance to societal forms
on the part of females is in essence the result of "a long social
imprisonment" while men use the "powerful language" of creation (Spender,
1980).
I do not exclude the fact that personality differences along with sexuality
differences (heterosexuality and homosexuality) adds a complex dimension to
the whole issue of gender. At this point it is appropriate to mention that
the socialization process affects both females and males. More
specifically, males are often trained to fear sounding like a female. As a
child, being raised to acquiesce to what is traditionally considered
"appropriate" gender-specific behaviors is known to be as hard on males as
it is on females. So, clearly, gender expectations affect personality
manifestations, and the socialization process leading to "appropriate
gender roles" can certainly play as strong of a role, if not more, as
personalities. Research in gender studies (Schweickart, 1986, 1990)
indicates that it is less shameful for a female to act as a male than it is
for a male to act as a female. In fact, Schweickart observes that the
"imasculination" of females is part of universities' hidden agenda, namely,
that learning has to be analytical, logical, fact oriented, and that
feelings, intuition, and sensitivity are eliminated as valid learning
approaches.
Social Status, Language, and Interruptions
Lakoff (1975) further claims that women are denied access to the "powerful"
style that characterizes not only the male's linguistic creativity but also
the male's authority. More recent research (Cameron 1992) indicates that
gender-specific linguistic differences lead to gender-specific
conversational strategies. Keeping in mind that a linguistic exchange is
the result of the relationship between interlocutors, and that males and
females have disparate social statuses, conversational patterns between
males and females have been found to reflect social inequalities existing
between them (Stern, 1994). Historically, this interactive pattern was
reinforced by sociolinguistic practices during biblical times when a wife
had to address her husband as a slave had to address his master, or a
subject his king (Daly, 1991, 159) This implied that a man could also
address his wife as a master his slave and a king his subject, i.e., using
a clear rhetoric of authority. Today, conversational dominance by males is
not as extreme, but it is still inherent to male-specific discourse and has
become the focus of some interesting sociolinguistic research.
Zimmerman & West (1975) and West & Fenstermaker (1993) investigated
mixed-gender conversations and linguistic inequality in gender-specific
styles. Thirty-one conversations were taped in public places such as
libraries, coffee shops, drug stores and the University of California. The
data were composed of eleven mixed-gender conversations, ten male-only and
ten female-only conversations. The findings indicated significant
differences between same-gender pairs and mixed-gender pairs regarding the
use of overlaps and interruptions. Overlaps were defined as an act of
anticipating the end of a sentence spoken by an interlocutor while
articulating it with a topic-related response. An interruption, on the
other hand, was considered as a violation of turn-taking rules whereby
topical disarticulation is flagrant. Results showed that all the overlaps
were caused by male speakers and that 96% of the interruptions resulted
from men interrupting women. Interestingly, men rarely interrupted each
other, primarily using interruptions when speaking to women. Women used
fewer overlaps with men than with women due to the fact that men tended to
perceive overlaps as interruptions: "Male interruptions of women bring less
social punishment than female interruptions of men" (Steinem, 1991).
Zimmerman & West (1975) and West & Fenstermaker (1993) observed that in
mixed-gender conversations men tended to infringe on women's right to
speak. As a result of male interruptions, the same study indicated that
women tended to be more silent than men. Silence periods in single-gender
pairs averaged 1.35 seconds, while they averaged 3.21 seconds in
mixed-gender groups. Interestingly, the illocutionary act of silence was
also defined as clearly gender-specific. Females have been observed to
fall silent after male interruptions, indicating their powerlessness, while
males primarily used silence preceding minimal responses such as yeah,
indicating, according to Zimmerman & West (1975) and West & Fenstermaker
(1993), a lack of interest in the interlocutor's topic, denying women the
right to control the topic of conversation. West (1984) has shown that
male interruptions apply even when females have a higher social status.
Her study was conducted among male and female doctors interacting with
patients: "Whereas male physicians (as a group) initiated 67% of all
interruptions relative to their patients' 33%, female physicians (as a
group) initiated only 32% of interruptions relative to their patients' 68%"
(West, 1984, p. 92):
In our society, Hughes observes, the auxiliary characteristics that
have
emerged around the status "physician" are "white", "Protestant" and
"male." Hence, when persons assuming the powerful status of physician
are not properly equipped with whiteness, Protestantism or maleness,
there tends to be what Hughes terms a "status contradiction" --or even,
a "status dilemma"-- [...] The "lady doctor" is a case in point, the
adjective "lady" (or "woman" or "female") serving to underscore the
presumed maleness of the status "Physician" [...] The dilemma is
likely
to ensue over whether to treat them [lady doctors] as members of the
social category "women" or as members of the profession "physician."
(West, 1984, p. 98)
Amount of Talk
Silence and talkativeness is another interesting aspect of
gender-specificity in conversational strategies due to the fact that women
are often believed to talk more than men. This widespread belief, however,
has been unanimously disconfirmed by anthropologists. In an experiment
where males and females were asked to describe three pictures, males were
found to speak an average of 13 minutes per picture as opposed to females
who only spoke an average of 3.17 minutes (Swacker, 1975). Further research
shows that men talk more than women in public settings while being less
involved in private talks (Coates, 1993; Eakins and Eakins, 1978; Spender,
1980; Steinem, 1991). Researchers who have investigated the issue have
indicated that public settings were considered as a ground for
competitiveness, hence the greater amount of talk by men in public. Women
have been shown to talk more in private with female friends about topics
often considered trivial and unimportant by men: "The fact that topics
such as sports, politics, cars are seen as 'serious' while topics such as
child-bearing and personal relationships are labeled 'trivial' is simply a
reflection of social values which define what men do as important, and
conversely what women do as less important" (Coates, 1993, p. 103). As a
result, men end up using a great deal of silence in privacy. Yet, this
private silence has been analyzed as an act of denying conversation topics
which, according to males, are uninteresting (Aries, 1976, 1987; Spender,
1980).
Harmony and Competitiveness
Anthropological studies based on observations and interviews of couples
indicate that females are more likely to adjust to a male interlocutor,
asking questions and introducing numerous "male-specific topics" until
males end up accepting a conversation (Aries, 1976, 1987; Coates, 1993;
Spender, 1980): "Subjects introduced by males in mixed groups are far more
likely to 'succeed' than subjects introduced by women" (Steinem, 1991, p.
305). Once males decide to speak on a topic, they end up talking as
experts, holding the center stage of the conversation. This control of
conversation topics was interpreted as a result of males primarily using
language for competitive rather than for relational purposes:
For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a
language of
rapport: a way of establishing connections and negotiating
relationships... For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve
independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social
order, a language of report. This is done by exhibiting knowledge and
skill, and by holding the center stage through verbal performance such
as story telling, joking, or imparting information. (Wittig, 1992, p.
77)
It has been further observed that women are more likely to discuss
interrelational topics and to personalize conversations, a discursive style
that males satirically define as gossiping (Jones, 1980). Males have been
found to keep their distance from relational and human issues by reducing
them to theories and abstractions (Aries, 1976; Steinem, 1991; Swacker,
1975; Tannen, 1990). As Steinem notes,
Lecturers often comment, for instance, that women in an audience ask
practical questions about their own lives, while men ask abstract
questions about groups or policies. When the subject is feminism,
women
tend to ask about practical problems. Men are more likely to say
something like, "But how will feminism impact the American family?"
(Steinem, 1991, p. 305)
In mixed-gender interactions Steinem's study implies that men talk more
than women and that talkativeness is not an exclusive female trait: "The
uncomfortable truth seems to be that the amount of talk by women has been
measured less against the amount of men's talk than against the
expectations of female silence" (Steinem, 1991, p. 302). In other word, a
talkative woman talks as much as a man.
Assertiveness
In the light of anthropological findings, mixed-gender conversations are
considered by some as cross-cultural in nature, with men and women speaking
different genderlects (Tannen, 1990, 1992, 1994). The primary difference
between these genderlects is that females speak to maintain harmony and
strong relationships, as well as to keep conversations open, whereas males
use more assertiveness and insistence. Women, for instance, were observed
to speak in a more tentative way than men, using more tag questions, and
more questions in general (Coates 1993; Holmes 1988). The use of such
language patterns was explained by Holmes (1988) as follows: tag questions
are an indication of females being more polite and more suggestive (since
less assertive) than males. Lakoff (1975) viewed such language patterns as
a sign of "insecurity" or "approval seeking." Fishman (1980) explained
such patterns in terms of "skillful strategies" to engage men in talk.
The language used by females historically stems from oppressive
structures whereby women addressed men as their masters (Daly, 1991).
Politeness, although positively valued today, was once a sign of humility.
The primary function of politeness was to recognize people of a higher
status in society. Since females historically addressed their husband with
reverence, it may explain why females are often found more polite in
anthropological studies. However, since the relation between language and
gender is also context-dependent (Tannen, 1992, 1994), the way politeness
can be used in modern society lost some of its historical function.
Brown's observations (1990) in a Tenejapan court indicated that women could
also use politeness in a sarcastic way and as such show more confrontation
than reverence by adding sarcasm. Nonetheless, whether sarcastic or not,
the truth remains that women used more polite forms than men, and that
women most likely learned confrontational strategies using the language
forms they inherited from history.
Regarding the use of compliments, Johnson & Roen (1992) conducted a
study on peer reviews of graduate students' papers. Their study indicated
that male compliments were functionally more ideational (reflecting an
actual evaluation, i.e. the language of the expert), and that women
demonstrated a complimenting discourse functionally more interpersonal
(making the interlocutor feel good, i.e. the language of solidarity).
Summary
To summarize, research in gender-specific conversational styles in
mixed-gender interaction: "The differences between the competitive,
assertive male style and the cooperative supportive female style mean that
men will tend to dominate in mixed-gender interaction" (Coates, 1993, p.
117). Research to date indicates that men tend to control topics of
conversation and to interrupt women. Women tend to raise more questions
and to give minimal responses to maintain harmonious exchanges. Men talk
more, contrary to what is commonly believed, and are more likely to use a
vernacular style in private while females use a standard and polite
language. These conclusions, however, should be considered with caution
since language use also varies according to situational conditions. Yet,
the fact remains that anthropologists consistently observe gender-specific
patterns for conversational interaction and that, as such, males and
females are considered to be part of separate speech communities (Tannen,
1990) and to use different genderlects.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Lydie Meunier, Ph.D. Applied Linguistics/GenderStudies/French studies
Lang_lem@centum.utulsa.edu Fax: 918 744 1902 Tel: 918 744 1792
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
<<The eye is a menace to clear sight, the ear is a menace to subtle
hearing, the mind is a menace to wisdom...>> Chuang Tzu
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=