1. Language and Gender: Theories of Spoken language

2. Semantic derogation (p.87)
Sara Mills 1995
Deborah Cameron 1990
Muriel Schultz 1975
In many lexical pairs the male term suggests a positive attribute while the female term suggests a negative one. Also known as LEXICAL ASYMMETRY

3. Sexist Language? (p.88) Julia Stanley 1973 and 1977:
200 words for sexually promiscuous female and 20 for males. Most of the ‘female’ words had negative connotations
Women occupy NEGATIVE
SEMANTIC SPACE due to
MARKED FORMS, eg: lady doctor,
female surgeon

4. Male and Female Speech Styles
Peter Trudgill (1974): Norwich study ‘ ing.’ Across all social classes, men tended to use more non-standard pronunciation. They also thought they used non-standard forms, even if they didn’t. Women did the opposite. This suggests that men attached COVERT PRESTIGE to non-standard forms.

5. Jenny Cheshire – the Reading Study In nearly all cases the boys interviewed used non-standard forms more than girls. She suggested that boys are members of much denser social networks where their language converged towards the VERNACULAR as a shared show of linguistic solidarity.

6. The Deficit Approach
Robin Lakoff (1975) Women’s language lacks authority when compared to that used by men:
Use of specialised vocabulary centred around domestic chores
Precise colour terms: mauve, magenta
Weak expletive terms ‘oh dear’
Empty adjectives: ‘charming’; ‘sweet’
Tag questions showing uncertainty: ‘isn’t it?’
More euphemisms: ‘spend a penny’, ‘powder my nose’
The use of hedges: ‘sort of’; ‘you know’
Intensifiers: ‘so’

7. The Deficit Approach (cont.)
Lakoff suggested that socialisation played an important role in ensuring that female language remained less assertive and more insecure when compared to that of men. The differences, she argued, are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED rather than BIOLOGICALLY BASED. Ironically, much of her research was dismissed by an academic climate dominated by men,

8. Possible alternatives to Lakoff’s findings
Janet Holmes (1992) suggests that tag questions may not suggest uncertainty, but may maintain a discussion or be polite. She said that hedges and fillers may act as politeness or boosting devices.
Dubois and Crouch (1975) found that men use more tag questions.
O’Barr and Atkins (1980) having investigated courtroom language, found that men from lower-class background use many of Lakoff’s features. They felt that ‘powerless language’ was a better description.
Jennifer Coates (1989) showed that women use EPISTEMIC modal forms (perhaps; sort of; probably) to avoid face-threatening acts. Seen as female co-operation.

9. The Dominance Approach
Men seen as controlling and dominant in mixed-sex interactions. Zimmerman and West (1975): 96% of all interruptions were made by men. Seen as a sign that women had limited linguistic freedom and that men used power and status to impose explicit constraints. Women and men do not hold equal conversational rights???

10. The Difference Approach
Suggests that men and women simply use language differently and that it is not helpful to blame men for being too dominant. Jennifer Coates (1989) suggested all-female talk is co-operative, based on negotiation and support.These patterns are not found in mixed talk. Jane Pilkington (1992) found that women in same-sex talk were more collaborative than men were in all-male talk. Women aim for more positive politeness strategies but men are less complimentary and supportive in all-male talk. Koenraad Kuiper (1991) found that men use insults to express solidarity and are less likely to pay attention to the need to save face. Deborah Tannen (1990) You Just Don’t Understand; described mixed-sex talk as ‘cross-cultural communication’. Criticised for ignoring issues of power.