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 TotalMaleFemale Over-reporting Under-reporting Accurate 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 NETWORKS Youngest 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 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, Oxford: Blackwell. Fishman, Pamela (1983) “Interaction: The work women do”. In: Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language, Gender and Society, 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, 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)