SOCIOLINGUISTICS
LESSON 8
INSTRUCTOR: LE NGUYEN NHU ANH
LANGUAGE VARIATION:
FOCUS ON USES
GENDER, POLITENESS AND
STEREOTYPES
OUTLINE
• Women’s language and confidence
• Features of ‘women’s language’
• Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
• Interaction
• Interruptions
• Feedback
• Explanations
• Gossip
• The linguistic construction of gender
• The linguistic construction of sexuality
• Sexist language
• Can a language be sexist?
Women’s language and
confidence
According to some social dialectologitsts,
women were status conscious => their use
of standard speech forms
According to Robin Lakoff, women were using
language which reinforced their subordinate
status
Women’s language and
confidence
Social dialect research’s focus: differences
between women’s and men’s speech in
pronunciation and syntactic constructions
Robin Lakoff’s focus on gender differences due
to syntax, semantics and style
=> women’s subordinate social status in US
society is indicated by the language women use,
as well as in the language used about them.
=> some features of women’s language express
uncertainty and lack of confidence
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
Lakoff’s list of features of women’s
language:
(a) Lexical hedges or fillers, e.g. you know ,
sort of , well , you see.
(b) Tag questions, e.g. she’s very nice, isn’t
she?
(c) Rising intonation on declaratives, e.g.
it’s really good.
(d) ‘Empty’ adjectives, e.g. divine , charming
, cute .
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
Lakoff’s list of features of women’s language:
(e) Precise colour terms, e.g. magenta , aquamarine .
(f) Intensifiers such as just and so , e.g. I like him so much.
(g) ‘Hypercorrect’ grammar, e.g. consistent use of standard
verb forms.
(h) ‘Superpolite’ forms, e.g. indirect requests, euphemisms.
(i) Avoidance of strong swear words, e.g. fudge , my
goodness.
(j) Emphatic stress, e.g. it was a BRILLIANT performance.
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
Lakoff’s claims based on her own intuitions and
observations => more research on women’s language
Initial research was methodologically unsatisfactory:
• Speech was recorded in laboratory conditions with
assigned topics, and sometimes rather artificial
constraints (such as a screen between the
speakers).
• Most of the subjects were university students.
=> difficult to generalise from the results to natural
informal speech in the community as a whole.
• In addition, the linguistic analysis of the data was
often rather unsophisticated.
Example 3
‘The final syntactic category is imperative
constructions in question form, which are
defined as alternatives to simple and direct
ways of ordering action. They are questions
which are substituted for commands. “Will
you please close the door?” instead of
“Close the door” is an example of an
imperative in question form.’
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
Some research missed Lakoff’s fundamental
point: She had identified a number of linguistic
features which were unified by their function
of expressing lack of confidence.
Other researchers, ignored this functional
coherence, and simply listed any forms that
produced a statistical difference between
women and men, without providing any
satisfactory explanation for why these
differences might have arisen.
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
The internal coherence of the features Lakoff
identified can be illustrated by dividing them into
two groups.
Firstly, there are linguistic devices which may be
used for hedging or reducing the force of an
utterance.
Secondly, there are features which may boost or
intensify a proposition’s force.
=> both kinds of modifiers were evidence of an
unconfident speaker
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
Hedging devices explicitly signal lack of
confidence, while boosting devices express the
speaker’s anticipation that the addressee may
remain unconvinced and therefore supply extra
reassurance.
=> women use hedging devices to express
uncertainty, and they use intensifying devices to
persuade their addressee to take them seriously.
Women boost the force of their utterances
because they think that otherwise they will not be
heard or paid attention to.
Women’s language and
confidence
Features of ‘women’s language’
According to Lakoff, both hedges and
boosters express women’s lack of
confidence.
Overall,, Lakoff’s claim that women used
more hedging and boosting devices than
men was borne out in a number of
studies in English-speaking Western
societies. But a more detailed analysis
sometimes showed that these forms
were not always expressing uncertainty.
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 5
[/ indicates rising intonation]
Susan is a university student. She is telling her friend
and flatmate about her experiences at school.
I did my exams in sixty-three was it.
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 5
[/ indicates rising intonation]
Susan is a university student. She is telling her friend
and flatmate about her experiences at school.
I did my exams in sixty-three was it.
Tag question to express uncertainty
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 6 [ indicates falling intonation]
Margaret is holding a small party to introduce a new
neighbour, Frank, to other people in the street. She
introduces Frank to an old friend, Andrew.
Margaret : Andrew this is our new neighbour, Frank.
Andrew has just changed jobs, haven’t you.
Andrew : Yes I am now a well-paid computer
programmer instead of a poorly paid administrative
assistant.
Tag question to as facilitative or positive politeness device
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 7
Mrs Short is a primary school teacher working with a
group of 5-year-olds. They are preparing for a nature walk
by looking at pictures of birds, flowers and leaves that they
hope to see on their walk.
Mrs Short : Here’s a pretty one what’s this one called
Simon?
Simon : Mm, erm [pause]
Mrs Short : See its tail, look at its tail. It’s a fantail, isn’t it?
Simon : Mm a fantail. I seen one of them.
Tag question to as facilitative device
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 8
Zoe and her mother Claire have just
come home from the supermarket. Zoe
empties the shopping basket all over the
kitchen fl or.
Claire : That was a bit of a daft thing to
do, wasn’t it?
Tag question to soften a directive or a criticism
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Example 9
A police superintendent is interviewing a
detective constable and is criticising the
constable’s performance:
A : . . . you’ll probably fi nd yourself um before
the Chief Constable, okay?
B : Yes, Sir, yes, understood.
A : Now you er fully understand that, don’t you?
B : Yes, Sir, indeed, yeah.
Tag question as confrontational and coercive device
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Table 12.1 Distribution of tag questions by function and
sex of speaker
Function of tag Women Men
% %
Expressing uncertainty 35 61
Facilitative 59 26
Softening 6 13
Confrontational - -
Total 100 100
N 51 39
Source: Based on Holmes 1984a: 54.
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
Analyses which take account of the function of features of
women’s speech often suggest that women are facilitative
and supportive conversationalists, rather than unconfident,
tentative talkers.
In using standard forms, these women could be seen as
responding positively to their addressees by accommodating
to their speech. When women use more politeness devices,
this could be regarded as another way in which they show
consideration for the addressee.
This also suggests that explanations of differences between
women’s and men’s speech behaviour which refer only to the
status or power dimension are likely to be unsatisfactory. The
social distance (or solidarity dimension) is at least as
influential. Many of the features which have been identified as
characteristic of women’s language are positive politeness
devices expressing solidarity
Women’s language and
confidence
Lakoff’s linguistic features as politeness devices
There are many other factors which are also relevant
when comparing women’s and men’s use of language,
including culture, social role and the formality of the
context.
See exercises 4 & 5 as well as the discussion of the
cases in Mexico and Malagasy for more information
(pp. 309-310)
Interaction
There are many features of interaction
which have been shown to differentiate the
talk of women and men in particular
contexts. This section focuses on two of
them: interrupting behaviour and
conversational feedback.
Interaction
Interruptions
Table 12.2 Average number of interruptions per
interaction
Interruptions
%
Same-sex interaction
Speaker 1 43
Speaker 2 57
Cross-sex interaction
Woman 4
Man 96
Source: From Zimmerman and West 1975: 116.
Interaction
Feedback
Women provide more encouraging feedback to their
conversational partners than men do.
Interaction
In general, research on conversational interaction
reveals women as cooperative conversationalists,
whereas men tend to be more competitive and less
supportive of others.
Why are women’s patterns of interaction different
from men’s?
Is it because they are subordinate in status to men in
most communities so that they must strive to please?
Or are there other explanations?
Interaction
Explanations
Interruption: women’s subordinate position in a male-dominated
society seems the most obvious explanatory factor.
Women’s cooperative conversational strategies: the influence of
context and patterns of socialisation.
• The norms for women’s talk may be the norms for small group
interaction in private contexts, where the goals of the
interaction are solidarity stressing – maintaining good social
relations. Agreement is sought and disagreement avoided.
• By contrast, the norms for male interaction seem to be those of
public referentially-oriented interaction. The public model is an
adversarial one, where contradiction and disagreement is more
likely than agreement and confirmation of the statements of
others.
Interaction
Explanations
The differences between women and men in ways of
interacting may be the result of different socialisation
and acculturation patterns. If we learn ways of talking
mainly in single-gender peer groups, then the
patterns we learn are likely to be gender-specific. And
the kind of miscommunication which undoubtedly
occurs between women and men may well be
attributable to the different expectations each gender
has of the function of the interaction, and the ways it
is appropriately conducted.
Gossip
Gossip describes the kind of relaxed in-group talk that goes
on between people in informal contexts.
Women’s gossip focuses predominantly on personal
experiences and personal relationships, on personal
problems and feelings.
-tend to avoid criticising people directly because this would
cause discomfort
-purpose: to relieve feelings and reinforce shared values
-provide a sympathetic response to any experience
recounted, focusing almost exclusively on the affective
message
-Facilitative tags are frequent, encouraging others to
comment and contribute. Women complete each other’s
utterances, agree frequently and provide supportive
feedback.
Gossip
Gossip describes the kind of relaxed in-group talk that
goes on between people in informal contexts.
Men’s gossip tends to focus on things and activities,
rather than personal experiences and feelings.
-Long pauses were tolerated and were apparently not
interpreted as discouraging following a contribution,
even one which seemed to invite a response.
-Responses frequently disagreed with or challenged
the previous speaker’s statements
Gossip
It seems possible that for men mock-insults and abuse
serve the same function – expressing solidarity and
maintaining social relationships – as compliments and
agreeing comments do for women.
The linguistic construction
of gender
Gender is not a ‘given’ and unalterable category.
Individuals draw from a range of linguistic resources
to construct particular social identities, including
gender identity.
=> Explain cases where women adapt to masculine
contexts, and men adapt to feminine contexts by using
features which indirectly index or are associated with
masculinity and femininity. (Examples of women in the
police force and men working in clothing shops and
hairdressing salons [p. 320])
The linguistic construction
of gender
People construct particular kinds of social identity
through their narratives of personal experience.
(Example of Helen in pages 320-321)
Approaching the construction of gender as a process,
rather than regarding gender as a given category,
leads to a view of individuals as constantly ‘doing’
gender.
Ways of expressing solidarity or informality may also
be gendered as well as expressed differently among
different social and ethnic groups.
Every time we speak, we are either reinforcing existing
norms or we are challenging them.
The linguistic construction
of sexuality
Examining the relationship between language and sexuality
involves considering how people construct their sexual
identity – as gay, heterosexual, lesbian or bisexual, for
instance
how people use language to learn about sex, talk
about sex and desire, and engage in sexual activities.
•How do young women indicate to young men that they are
interested in them as potential sexual partners?
•What are the features of the courtship rituals in different
societies?
•What are the discourse features of ‘coming out’ stories?
•Who tells ‘dirty’ jokes to whom, why and how?
•How is the discourse of sex education managed in schools?
The linguistic construction
of sexuality
Heterosexual people typically make normative choices
in most contexts, constructing themselves as
‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’, and thereby signalling their
sexuality.
Homosexual people may use the same linguistic
features to convey the same meanings in many
contexts, but there is a good deal of research,
especially on features of the speech of homosexual
men, which indicates that they may draw on additional
linguistic resources for indicating their sexual
orientation through their speech.
The linguistic construction
of sexuality
a number of features associated with English ‘gay’
speech:
•the use of stereotypically feminine vocabulary items,
such as divine,
•features of pronunciation, such as affrication so that
/t/ sounds like [ts],
•‘wavy’ intonation,
•dramatic variations in pitch.
The linguistic construction
of sexuality
Certain rhetorical strategies can index sexuality
‘Camp talk’ is widely regarded as indexing
homosexuality through features: exaggeration, parody,
paradox, inversion of expected relationships and
linguistic playfulness.
For example, camp talk may deliberately mix registers,
or refer to males as ‘she’, or challenge well-
established cultural values, or make use of clever
double meanings in amusing insults. (see examples in
page 323)
Sexist language
Language conveys attitudes.
Sexist attitudes stereotype a person according to
gender rather than judging on individual merits.
Sexist language encodes stereotyped attitudes to
women and men.
In principle, the study of sexist language is concerned
with the way language expresses both negative and
positive stereotypes of both women and men.
In practice, research in this area has concentrated on
the ways in which language conveys negative attitudes
to women.
Sexist language
Can a language be sexist?
Sexism involves behaviour which maintains social inequalities
between women and men.
The English language discriminates against women in several
ways:
The English metaphors available to describe women include an
extraordinarily high number of derogatory images compared to
those used to describe men. (See the case of animal imagery in
page 325)
Many words reinforce a view of women as a deviant, abnormal or
subordinate group. (English morphology takes the male form as
the base form and adds a suffix to signal 'female’.)
‘Generic’ structures provide further evidence to support the claim
that the English language marginalises women and treats them as
abnormal
All in all
Linguistic categories are one source of evidence on a
culture’s values. The categories discussed in this section
indicate the society’s view of women in many English-
speaking communities.
Language can provide insights about a community’s
perceptions and stereotypes, and aspects of its culture.
Relative status may be indicated not only in the ways in
which women and men use language, but also in the
language used about women and men.
Linguistic data supports the view that women are often
assigned subordinate status by virtue of their gender alone,
and treated linguistically as subordinate, regardless of
their actual power or social status in a particular context.
English, at least, appears to collude in the subordination of
women.
THAT’S ALL!
At home, please do exercises 1 to 18 for
your own sake.