General overview
revision studies (condensed and combined)
Research into the
many possible relationships between language and gender is diverse. Most
studies could be said to encompass work notionally housed within applied
linguistics, conversational analysis, feminist media studies, gender studies,
interactional sociolinguistics, and media studies. Methodologically, there is
no single approach that could be said to give a definite explanation in
relation to generalising gender specific language. This is mostly because
socially, standards towards each gender worldwide are constantly shifting- for
example: the rise in feminism/feminists. Discursive, post structural,
experimental approaches, difference, deficient and dominant theories can all be
seen to have actively contributed to the study of language and gender-producing
and reproducing different and competing, political and theoretical assumptions
about the way gender contributes towards language. Research in this area could
be divided into several main areas of study: firstly, there is a sustained and
wide interest in the many varieties of speech associated with a particular
gender; secondly, there are many studies that focus on the locally situated and
contextually specific ways in which gender can be bought into
being/invoked/made accountable (etc.) to and for peoples everyday talk/textual
interaction; and thirdly, there is an
interest in the 'social norms' and conventions that produced gendered language-
A sociolect associated with a particular gender is sometimes called
'genderlect'. The study of language and gender has greatly developed since the
1970s. Prominent theorists include Dale
Spender, Pamela Fishman, Deborah Tannen, Zimmerman and West, Deborah Cameron,
Robin Lakoff and others.
In 1975, Robin
Lakoff identified a 'woman's register' which she argued served to maintain
women's inferior role in society. Lakoff also stated that women tend to use
linguistic forms that reflect and reinforce the subordinate role. These include
tag questions, "weak" directives and question intonation, among
others. However, theorists such as Pamela Fishman argue against Lakoff's theory
and suggests that women frequently use tag questions as they are an effective
method of beginning and maintaining conversations with males. Fishman also
states that females use questions-primarily in the form of "isn't
it?" and "could've been?"- to gain conversational power rather
than lack conversational awareness. She claims that "questioning is
required for when females are speaking with males as men do not often respond
to a declarative statement or will respond minimally." By asking these tag
questions, Fishman states that they are used mostly as an 'attention getting
device.' And to discover if the conversational partner is listening. Therefore,
by adding a question she realised that the speaker is inviting the listener to
respond. Tag questions are frequently used to verify or confirm information-
and not just by females. Although in a woman's language they may also be used
to avoid strong statements which, in effect, may lead to conflict or
misunderstanding with the conversational partner. With collective information
from various studies, it's clear that men and women differ in their use of
questions within conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine
request for information whilst for a woman, it can often be a rhetorical means
of engaging the other's conversational contribution or of acquiring attention
from other participants or peers who are conversationally involved, techniques
associated with a collaborative approach to language use. Therefore, women use
questions more frequently than men and for different purposes.
Deborah Tannen
supports this via her theories which suggest that women use language primarily
to make connections and reinforce intimacy and understanding, whilst males use
it to preserve their independence and negotiate status. A primary example of
this in close relation to questions/questioning would be Tannen's
"information vs. feeling." Tannen suggests that men use speech to
exchange information, whilst women use language to express and share feelings.
Additionally, she suggests that whilst women tend to be indirect when seeking
cooperation, and make suggestions rather than commands, men tend to use and are
more comfortable dealing with explicit orders-(Orders vs. Proposals). Tannen's
other theories include Independence vs. Intimacy; Conflict vs. Compromise;
Status vs. Support and Advice vs. Understanding. All of these theories suggest
the ways in which both genders communicate, think and behave differently
linguistically. However, the trend within Tannen's theories suggest the
primarily more dominant and 'strong' characteristics come through from the male
gender. Within all her suggestions, women are perceived to be personally
interrupted by their emotions and men to
'push them to one side.' The idea that emotions in language and communication
are so one sided suggests a shift in power within the genders; strongly towards
men-resulting in an overall impression that because women are "more in
touch with emotion" that they're susceptible to hurt, being labelled as
the "nagging gender" because they're less likely to answer back and
therefore are easily dominated. The dominant perception that is heavily shown
throughout her theories may be supported by theorist and speaker Dale Spender.
Spender suggests that "women are seen in society as 'weak' if they don't
play their gender." Spender highlights that in patriarchal societies men
control language and it works in their favour. And that this has an affect on
the 'disobedient' women who fail to conform to their given inferior role and
are labelled by society as abnormal, promiscuous or frigid if they stray from
the female stereotype (linguistically).
No comments:
Post a Comment