1

Sociolinguistics

Gender

Dr Emma Moore

2

Contents

What is gender? When did linguists start thinking about

gender? What have variationist sociolinguists found

out about gender? What have interactional sociolinguists found

out about gender?

3

What is gender?

Sex = a biological category

Gender = a social and cultural concept

Is the way we behave (our gender) determined/constrained by our biology (our sex)?

4

How Are We Gendered?

At birth:

5

How Are We Gendered?

In childhood:

6

How Are We Gendered?

In adulthood:

7

Early Linguists’ Views

Women’s language requires explanation– Jesperson (1922): “The Woman”

Women talk more than men: “The volubility of women has been the subject of innumerable jests”

Women make excessive use of descriptive forms: “the fondness of women for hyperbole will very often lead the fashion with regard to adverbs of intensity”

Women are conservative speakers: “as a rule women are more conservative than men … while innovations are due to the initiative of men”

8

Types of research

Variationist sociolinguistics– Quantitative

Interactional sociolinguistics– Qualitative

9

Variationist Studies of Gender

Early survey studies found differences in male/female use of language– Labov (1966), Trudgill (1974): When all other

social factors are held constant, women use more standard variants than do men

10

Is this a universal?

Labov (1966, 1972): NYC, USA Wolfram (1969): Detroit, USA Trudgill (1974): Norwich, UK Macauley (1978): Glasgow, UK Cheshire (1982): Reading, UK

The Sex/Prestige Pattern (Hudson 1996: 195)

In any society where males and females have equal access to the standard form, females use standard variants of any stable variable which is socially stratified for both sexes more often

than males do.

11

Explaining the sex/prestige pattern

Status and prestige– Women are more sensitive to “overt

sociolinguistic values” (Labov 1972: 243)

Socialisation – Sex differences occur as a consequence

of gender norms (Labov 1972: 304)

12

Evidence: Trudgill (1974)’s data on self-reporting

Trudgill (1974): variation in ear, here– 1. /ɪə/ 2. /ε:/

% informants

Total Male Female

Over-reporting 43 22 68

Under-reporting 33 50 14

Accurate 23 28 18

Men under-report use of the standard form

Women over-report use of the standard form

13

“… WC speech, like many aspects of WC culture, has, in our society, connotations of masculinity, since it is associated with the roughness and

toughness supposedly characteristics of WC life, which are, to a certain extent, considered to be desireable masculine attributes” (Trudgill 1974).

Different pressures exerted on men and women

Men: affected by the covert prestige of vernacular variants– Associations with masculinity

14

Different pressures exerted on men and women

Women: affected by the overt prestige of standard variants– Associations with social status & power

“The social position of women in our society is less secure than that of men … It is therefore necessary for women to secure and signal their social status linguistically and in other ways, and they are more aware of the importance of this type of signal … Since [women] cannot be rated socially by their occupation, by what other people know about what they do in life, other signals of status, including speech, are correspondingly more important”

(Trudgill 1974).

15

Language, gender and employment

Employment: Sankoff et al. (1989): women are “technicians of language”

16

More evidence: Gal (1978, 1998)

“Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives”– Ethnographic study of Austrian village, Oberwart– Languages: Hungarian (traditional); German

(language of incomers) Women leading the shift to German

– Different networks: Peasant (traditional farming) Non-peasant (commercial)

17

Gal (1978, 1998): Male data

For men, use of German increases with:

YOUTH, NON-PEASANT NETWORKS

Shaded boxes = peasant networks

Unshaded boxes = non-

peasant networks

18

Gal (1978, 1998): Female data

For women, use of German increases with:Oldest category: no non-peasant networks

Middle category: NON-PEASANT NETWORKSYoungest category: More German than any other category,

irrespective of network

19

Gender, status and language use in Oberwart

Access to different forms of status in the community– Peasantry:

men control/inherit land women do housework/agricultural work

– Non-peasant networks: Enable women to gain financial/social independence

– Women pursue jobs and husbands in this network thus use more German to enable access to this network irrespective of their background

20

Status and gender

These studies suggest that different pressure operate on men and women– Status– Prestige– Opportunities and social contexts

And these pressure affect language use

21

More recent variationist studies…

Finding ways to analyse different settings– Milroy’s (1980) network study

Network involvement not just gender

– Eckert’s (2000) community of practice Social practice not just gender

22

‘women’s language’ – meaning both language restricted in its use to women and language

descriptive of women alone. (Lakoff [1975] 2004: 42).

Interactional studies of gender

Early studies explored differences in male/female discourse styles– Not just differences in the kind of variants but also

differences in whole conversational styles

Lakoff ([1975] 2004): Language and Woman’s Place

23

Elements of ‘women’s language’ according to Lakoff (1975)

Women use more expressive lexis e.g. – W: The wall is mauve– M: The wall is pink

Women use tag questions – W: The weather’s awful, isn’t it?

Women are indirect– A: Can you meet me at 6?– B: Well, I have a doctor’s appointment at

5.45.

Women’s language reflects ‘weakness’/

lack of assertion

24

Explanations of gender differences

Deficit?– Women’s language as inadequate

Dominance?– “I think that the decisive factor is less purely gender than

power in the real world. But it happens that, as a result of natural gender, a woman tends to have, and certainly tends to feel she has, little real-world power compared with a man; so generally a woman will be more apt to have these uses than a man will” (Lakoff [1975] 2004: 82).

Women’s language use a consequence of their lack of power

25

Explanations of gender differences

Difference?– “If a little girl “talks rough” like a boy, she will

normally be ostracized, scolded, or made fun of. In this way society, in the form of a child’s parents and friends, keeps her in line, in her place. This socializing process is, in most of its aspects, harmless and often necessary, but in this particular instance – the teaching of special linguistic uses to little girls – it raises serious problems, though the teachers may well be unaware of this” (Lakoff [1975] 2004: 40).

26

Studies…

Fishman (1983): Who does the most conversational work in heterosexual partnerships?

– Men control the conversational floor– Women as conversational ‘shit-workers’ (questions, support

etc.)

Goodwin (1980): How do boys and girls use language to negotiate play?

– Boys hierarchical– Girls collaborative

27

Summing up…

Variationist sociolinguists have found very consistent patterns of gender differences

– Women tend to use more standard variants than men Interactional sociolinguists have also noted

differences in male/female discourse styles Both types of study provide similar explanations for

gender differences– Theories about status & class associations– Theories about power– Theories about socialisation

28

References and Reading

Coates, Jennifer (2004) Women, Men and Language, Third Edition. Routledge: London.

Eckert, Penelope (1998) “Gender and sociolinguistic variation”. In: Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader, 64-75. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fishman, Pamela (1983) “Interaction: The work women do”. In: Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and Society, 89-101. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.

Jesperson, Otto (1922) “The woman”. In: Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin. [Reprinted in: Cameron, Deborah (ed.) (1990) The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader, 201-220. London: Routledge.]

Lakoff, Robin ([1975] 2004) Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. Revised edition (edited by Mary Bucholtz). Oxford: OUP

Tannen, Deborah (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago Press.

Required Reading: Meyerhoff (2006: Chapter 10)