Language Gender and Sexuality Jai Mackenzie j mackenziebham

Language, Gender and Sexuality Jai Mackenzie j. mackenzie@bham. ac. uk @macksocioling

Part 1. Why study language, gender and sexuality? Part 2. Language, gender and sexuality research: a brief history.

“the dichotomy of male and female is the ground upon which we build selves from the moment of birth” (Eckert and Mc. Connell-Ginet 2013: 7)

Gender and children’s literature • Mc. Cabe et al. (2011) - longitudinal study of 20 th century children’s literature; • Male characters are almost twice as frequent overall than female characters; • Only one award-winning title featured a solo female character; • No more than 33% of the books published in any given year contain female characters; this figure reaches 100% for male characters.

Gender and Toys • 67% male minifigures (70/104); • 33% female minifigures (34/104); • Striking differences between male/female jobs and roles; • Exploring visual and linguistic representations. Other relevant studies: Ericsson (2012), Sunderland & Mc. Glashan (2012).

Gender and Sexuality

Gender and Sexuality Relevant studies: Coffey-Glover (2015), Del-Teso-Craviotto (2006)

Heteronormativity ‘Those structures, institutions, relations and actions that promote and produce heterosexuality as natural, self evident, desirable, privileged and necessary’ (Cameron and Kulick 2003: 55) • The concept of binary, complementary genders assumes heterosexuality as the singular sexual orientation and norm. • Heteronormativity is a bias so entrenched that many people would never notice it.

Google image search for “wedding day” What do you notice?

Google image search for ‘parents’ What do you notice?

Gendered Parenthood A dominant discourse of gendered parenthood ‘constitutes distinct and binary parental subject positions along gendered lines, producing feminine mothers and, by extension, masculine fathers’ (Mackenzie, 2017) • Mothers tend to be positioned as the main parent (Sunderland, 2000; Mackenzie, forthcoming), who is child-centred and completely devoted to their children (Mackenzie, 2017); • Fathers tend to be positioned as the part-time parent (Sunderland, 2000), who is in a supporting role, or may be completely absent from family narratives (Mackenzie, forthcoming).

Language, Gender and Sexuality in everyday life: Discussion Point • Read the excerpt from Paul Baker’s (2008) book ‘Sexed Texts: Language, Gender and Sexuality’. • In pairs, discuss and make a list of examples where you have found that gender and/or sexuality is made relevant in everyday situations. • Discuss your feelings about each situation, and about ‘male and female labels’ in general. • Why should we explore, deconstruct and challenge gender norms? How can we do so through linguistic analysis?

Part 1. Why study language, gender and sexuality? Part 2. Language, gender and sexuality research: a brief history

The 4 ‘D’s in LGS Research • Deficit - Ascribes normative language use to (straight) men; implies (or states) that others’ language is lacking/absent/deviant. • Dominance - Ascribes linguistic differences to the asymmetrical power granted to men and women in society – a refinement of the ‘deficit’ approach that is heavily influenced and informed by Feminist theories of the 1970 s and 1980 s. • Difference - Ascribes linguistic differences to gender-based cultural differences: men and women inhabit different worlds which lead them to use language in contrasting ways. Reframing the deficit/dominance stance in a positive manner. • Dynamic - gendered and sexual identities are constructed through communication, and embedded in context. They are fluid, unstable and sensitive to social change/ individual attitudes.

The 4 ‘D’s in LGS Research: deficit • Deficit - Ascribes normative language use to (straight) men; implies (or states) that others’ language is lacking/ absent/ deviant. • Dominance - Ascribes linguistic differences to the asymmetrical power granted to men and women in society – a refinement of the ‘deficit’ approach that is heavily influenced and informed by Feminist theories of the 1970 s and 1980 s. • Difference - Ascribes linguistic differences to gender-based cultural differences: men and women inhabit different worlds which lead them to use language in contrasting ways. Reframing the deficit/dominance stance in a positive manner. • Dynamic - gendered and sexual identities are constructed through communication, and embedded in context. They are fluid, unstable and sensitive to social change/ individual attitudes.

‘The Woman’ (Jespersen, 1922) “women… are shy of mentioning certain parts of the human body and certain natural functions by the direct and often rude denominations which men… prefer when among themselves. Women will therefore invent innocent and euphemistic words and paraphrases…” “[T]he vocabulary of a woman as a rule is much less extensive than that of a man. Women move preferably in the central field of language, avoiding everything that is out of the way or bizarre, while men will often either coin new words or expressions or take up old-fashioned ones…” (The ‘Androcentrism Rule’: Coates, 2004)

Language and Woman’s Place (Lakoff, 1975) • Outlines the features of ‘women’s language’, and thereby implies that ‘men’s language’ is the norm; • Her claims echo many of Jespersen’s linguistic stereotypes, for example that women use: - Euphemism, avoiding ‘off-colour or indelicate expressions’; - Politeness and ‘hedging’; - ‘Correct’ grammatical forms. • She suggests that women are ‘disadvantaged language users’ (Talbot 2010: 98).

‘Gay’ (men’s) Language? • Early work on language and sexuality focused on the secret language(s) that gay men used to communicate (lesbians and other sexualities were largely ignored). • Identifying ‘gay language’, against the presumed norms of straight men’s language. Other relevant work: Rodgers (1972)

The 4 ‘D’s in LGS Research: dominance • Deficit - Ascribes normative language use to (straight) men; implies (or states) that others’ language is lacking/absent/deviant. • Dominance - Ascribes linguistic differences to the asymmetrical power granted to men and women in society – a refinement of the ‘deficit’ approach that is heavily influenced and informed by feminist theories of the 1970 s and 1980 s. • Difference - Ascribes linguistic differences to gender-based cultural differences: men and women inhabit different worlds which lead them to use language in contrasting ways. Reframing the deficit/dominance stance in a positive manner. • Dynamic - gendered and sexual identities are constructed through communication, and embedded in context. They are fluid, unstable and sensitive to social change/ individual attitudes.

Language and Woman’s Place (Lakoff, 1975) • Lakoff had a feminist agenda - to theorise about how language keeps women ‘in their place’ and perpetuates their subservient position; • For example, women’s tendency towards politeness, euphemism and indirectness is seen to reflect and perpetuate their insecurity and lack of power. Other relevant texts: Spender (1980), Zimmerman and West (1975)

Dominance: Language, gender and power A strong orientation to feminist theory and a dissatisfaction with gendered power relations continues to underpin LGS research. “Language is used as a tool to constrain, coerce and represent women and men in oppressive ways, and producing linguistic analyses within socio-cultural contexts can reveal some of the mechanisms of how this takes place” (Mills & Mullany 2011: 25)

The 4 ‘D’s in LGS Research: dominance • Deficit - Ascribes normative language use to (straight) men; implies (or states) that others’ language is lacking/absent/deviant. • Dominance - Ascribes linguistic differences to the asymmetrical power granted to men and women in society – a refinement of the ‘deficit’ approach that is heavily influenced and informed by feminist theories of the 1970 s and 1980 s. • Difference - Ascribes linguistic differences to gender-based cultural differences: men and women inhabit different worlds which lead them to use language in contrasting ways. Reframing the deficit/dominance stance in a positive manner. • Dynamic - gendered and sexual identities are constructed through communication, and embedded in context. They are fluid, unstable and sensitive to social change/ individual attitudes.

The Model of difference (Tannen, 1990) • Reaction to the negative, androcentric view of women’s language; • Treated men and women as equal but different; • Men aspire to status in a hierarchical world; • Women seek connection and solidarity. Other relevant research: Maltz & Borker (1982), Coates (1996)

Polari: celebrating a unique language • Baker reignited interest in Polari when he wrote about it in 2002. • This and other recent work on Polari is often positioned as a celebration of gay culture and history. https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=L s. P 4 u. Xa. Fh_U

The 4 ‘D’s in LGS Research: dominance • Deficit - Ascribes normative language use to (straight) men; implies (or states) that others’ language is lacking/absent/deviant. • Dominance - Ascribes linguistic differences to the asymmetrical power granted men and women in society – a refinement of the ‘deficit’ approach that is heavily influenced and informed by feminist theories of the 1970 s and 1980 s. • Difference - Ascribes linguistic differences to gender-based cultural differences: men and women inhabit different worlds which lead them to use language in contrasting ways. Reframing the deficit/dominance stance in a positive manner. • Dynamic - gendered and sexual identities are constructed through communication, and embedded in context. They are fluid, unstable and sensitive to social change/ individual attitudes.

Challenging models of difference “By setting the agenda for feminist linguistics as one of establishing that ‘men talk like this, women talk like that’, it is inevitable that differences are confirmed rather than challenged” (Talbot 2010: 109)

Shifting the focus • Previous approaches to LGS research: deficit, dominance and difference How does language differ according to gendered and sexual identity? How can differences be explained? How do speakers orient to norms of gender and sexuality in context? • Dynamic approaches: focusing on context, intersectionality and complex connections between language, gender and sexuality

Constructionism, language and gender • Rather than assuming that there is a ‘woman’s language’, a ‘gay language’… • We assume that identities are constructed, in context, through language (amongst other things). • Judith Butler (1990) argues that we all perform our gendered and sexual identities every day, consciously or not.

Judith Butler: Performativity • Butler (1990) claims that gender is fluid and changes according to context; • She puts forward a theory of performativity, based on the idea that gendered cultural identities are achieved through action and maintained through repeated performance.

Performativity: Discussion Point Watch Butler’s own explanation of performativity, and think about the following questions: 1. What is the difference between ‘performance’ and ‘performativity’? 2. What do you think of Butler’s claim that violence is imposed by gender norms and ideals? 3. How can we reconcile the view that gender is culturally formed, but also a domain of agency and freedom? http: //critical-theory. com/watch-judith-butler-behavior-creates-gender-3 minutes/

Queer Theory • Butler’s conceptualisation of gender is central to queer theory. • Queer theory treats identity categories as fundamentally unstable and problematic. “A long-term goal of Queer Theory is the reconceptualisation of dominant discourses which shape our understanding of gender and sexuality, often to the detriment of people who, for various reasons, are judged as not meeting the heteronormative ideal. ” (Motschenbacher & Stegu 2013: 520)

Queer Linguistics • Queer Linguistics can be used to analyse “any kind of sexuality-related discourse from a Queer Theoretical point of view” (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013: 527). • Its primary aims are to deconstruct two interrelated dominant discourses: (1) Heteronormativity – all (linguistic) mechanisms which construct heterosexuality as the norm. (2) Gender binarism – all (linguistic) mechanisms which constructs gender differences as natural.

Moving forward: Beyond the binary • ‘Dynamic’ LGS research is better able to explore gendered and sexual identities that move beyond simplistic binaries such as ‘male/female’, ‘gay/straight’; • Many LGS scholars have argued that we need to redress the balance by focusing on marginalised and ‘othered’ identities – working towards a better understanding of multiple, fluid and heterogeneous identities. • A growing body of LGS research considers issues around transgender (Zimman, 2014), non-binary (Corwin, 2017) and queer (Koller, 2009) identities, for example.

Final Discussion Point • How might language, gender and sexuality be relevant to your own studies and research? • What kind of research questions might you ask that explore the relationship between language, gender and sexuality in different contexts?

References • • • • Baker, P. (2002). Polari: The Lost Language of Gay Men. London: Routledge. Baker, P. (2008) Sexed Texts: Language, Gender and Sexuality. London: Equinox Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. [2 nd edn. 1999]. Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (2003) Language and Sexuality, Cambridge: CUP Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk: Conversation Between Women Friends. Oxford, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Coates, J. 2004. Women, Men and Language London: Longman Coffey-Glover, L. 2015. Ideologies of masculinity in women’s magazines: a critical stylistic approach. Gender and Language 9(3). Corwin, A. (2017) Emerging genders: semiotic agency and the performance of gender among genderqueer individuals. Gender and Language 11(2); Del-teso-craviotto. 2006. Words that Matter: Lexical choice and gender ideologies in women’s magazines. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 2003 -2021. Eckert, P and S. Mc. Connell-Ginet. 2013. (2 nd Edition) Language and Gender Cambridge: CUP. Ericsson, S. 2012. ‘That is the dad and this is the mum’: Parent-child co-construction of heterosexual identities in conversation. Gender and Language 6(2). Freed, A. (1999) Communities of practice and pregnant women: is there a connection? ' Language in Society 28(2), pp 257 -271 Jespersen, O. 1922. Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin Koller, V. (2009) Butch camp: On the discursive construction of a queer identity position. Gender and Language 3(2); Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Women's Place New York: Harper and Row

References • Mackenzie, J. , 2017. “Can we have a child exchange? ” Constructing and subverting the “good mother” through play in Mumsnet Talk. Discourse & Society, 28(3): 296– 312; • Mackenzie, J. , forthcoming. “Good mums don’t, apparently, wear make-up”: Negotiating discourses of gendered parenthood in Mumsnet Talk. Gender and Language. • Maltz, D. and Borker, R. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz, ed. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 195 -216. • Mc. Cabe, J. , Fairchild, E. , Grauerholz, L. , Pescosolido, B. , Tope, D. (2011) ‘Gender in Twentieth-Century Children’s Books: Patterns of Disparity in Titles and Central Characters’. Gender and Society 25: 2, 179 -226. • Mills, S and Mullany, L (2011) Language, Gender and Feminism London: Routledge • Motschenbacher, H. and M. Stegu (2013) Queer linguistic approaches to discourse. Discourse & Society, 24(5): 519 -535. • Rodgers, B. (1972) The Queen’s Vernacular. San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books. • Spender, D. 1980. Man Made Language. • Sunderland, J. 2000. Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant and line manager: Discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourse & Society 11(12), 249 -274. • Sunderland, J. and Mc. Glashan, M. The linguistic, visual and multimodal representation of two-Mum and two-Dad families in children’s picturebooks. Language and Literature 21(2), 189 -210. • Talbot, M. (2010) Language and Gender. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press. • Tannen, D (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation London: Virago. • Zimman, L. (2014). The Discursive Construction of Sex. In Queer Excursions: Retheorizing Binaries in Language and Sexuality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14– 34. • Zimmerman, D. and West, C. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Massachusetts: Newbury House. 105 -129.

Language, gender and sexuality in education • Baldwin, Patricia and Douglas Baldwin. 1992. ‘The portrayal of women in classroom textbooks’, Canadian Social Studies 26, 3: 110– 14. • De. Palma, Renée and Dennis Francis. 2014. ‘South African life orientation teachers: (not) teaching about sexuality diversity’, Journal of Homosexuality 61, 12: 1687– 1711. • De Vincenti, A. Giovanangeli and R. Ward. 2007. ‘The queer stopover: How queer travels in the language classroom’, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4, suppl 1: 58– 72. • Goldstein, Ben. 2015. ‘LGBT Invisibility in language learning materials’, plenary talk, Seminar 5 of Queering ESOL: Towards a cultural politics of LGBT issues in the ESOL classroom: London. (Available at: https: //queeringesol. wordpress. com/seminar-5/) • Gray, John. 2013. ‘LGBT Invisibility and heteronormativity in ELT materials’, in: John Gray (ed. ), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 40– 63. • Holmes, Mary. 2008. Gender and everyday life. New York: Routledge. • Jule, Allyson. 2004. Gender, Participation and silence in the language classroom: Sh-Shushing the girls. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. • King, Brian W. 2008. ‘“Being gay guy, that is the advantage”: queer Korean language learning and identity construction’, Journal of Language, Identity & Education 7, 3 -4: 230– 252.

Language, gender and sexuality in education • King, Brian W. 2015. ‘Language and sexuality in education’ , in: Patricia Whelehan and Anne Bolin (eds. ), The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality. Oxford and New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 649– 719. • Menard-Warwick, Julia, Miki Mori and Serena Williams. 2014. ‘Language and gender in educational contexts’, in: Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff and Janet Holmes (eds. ), The handbook of language, gender and sexuality. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 471– 490. • Miceli, Melinda S. 2006. ‘Schools and the social control of sexuality’ , in: Steven Seidman, Nancy Fischer and Chet Meeks (eds. ), Handbook of the New Sexuality Studies. London: Routledge, 357– 364. • Mustapha, Abolaji S. and Sara Mills. 2015. ‘Gender representation in learning materials’, in: Sara Mills and Abolaji S. Mustapha (eds. ), Gender representations in learning materials in an international context. London: Routledge, 9– 18. • Nelson, Cynthia D. 2007. ‘Queer thinking about language teaching’, in: Helene Decke-Cornill and Laurenz Volkmann (eds. ), Gender studies and foreign language teaching. Tübingen: Narr. • Nelson, Cynthia D. 2009. Sexual identities in English language education: Classroom conversations. New York: Routledge. • Pakuła, Łukasz, Joanna Pawelczyk and Jane Sunderland. 2015. Gender and sexuality in English language education: Focus on Poland. London: British Council. • Sauntson, Helen. 2012. Approaches to gender and spoken classroom discourse. Palgrave Macmillan • Sauntson, Helen and Simpson, Kathryn. 2011. Investigating sexuality discourses in the U. K. secondary English curriculum. Journal of Homosexuality, 58 (6 -7). pp. 953 -973.