Sociolinguistics Gender Dr Emma Moore 1 Contents l

Sociolinguistics Gender Dr Emma Moore 1

Contents l l 2 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?

What is gender? l 3 Sex = a biological category l Gender = a social and cultural concept Is the way we behave (our gender) determined/constrained by our biology (our sex)?

How Are We Gendered? l 4 At birth:

How Are We Gendered? l 5 In childhood:

How Are We Gendered? l 6 In adulthood:

Early Linguists’ Views l Women’s language requires explanation – Jesperson (1922): “The Woman” l l l 7 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”

Types of research l Variationist sociolinguistics – l Interactional sociolinguistics – 8 Quantitative Qualitative

Variationist Studies of Gender l Early survey studies found differences in male/female use of language – 9 Labov (1966), Trudgill (1974): When all other social factors are held constant, women use more standard variants than do men

Is this a universal? 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. l l l 10 Labov (1966, 1972): NYC, USA Wolfram (1969): Detroit, USA Trudgill (1974): Norwich, UK Macauley (1978): Glasgow, UK Cheshire (1982): Reading, UK

Explaining the sex/prestige pattern l Status and prestige – l Socialisation – 11 Women are more sensitive to “overt sociolinguistic values” (Labov 1972: 243) Sex differences occur as a consequence of gender norms (Labov 1972: 304)

Evidence: Trudgill (1974)’s data on selfreporting l Trudgill (1974): variation in ear, here – 1. /ɪə/ 2. /ε: / % informants 12 Total Male Female Over-reporting 43 22 68 Under-reporting 33 50 14 Accurate 23 28 18 Men under-report use of the standard form Women over-report use of the standard form

Different pressures exerted on men and women l Men: affected by the covert prestige of vernacular variants – Associations with masculinity “… 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). 13

Different pressures exerted on men and women l Women: affected by the overt prestige of standard variants – 14 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).

Language, gender and employment l 15 Employment: Sankoff et al. (1989): women are “technicians of language”

More evidence: Gal (1978, 1998) l “Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives” – – Ethnographic study of Austrian village, Oberwart Languages: Hungarian (traditional); German (language of incomers) l – Different networks: l l 16 Women leading the shift to German Peasant (traditional farming) Non-peasant (commercial)

Gal (1978, 1998): Male data Shaded boxes = peasant networks Unshaded boxes = nonpeasant networks 17 For men, use of German increases with: YOUTH, NON-PEASANT NETWORKS

Gal (1978, 1998): Female data 18 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

Gender, status and language use in Oberwart l Access to different forms of status in the community – Peasantry: l – men control/inherit land women do housework/agricultural work Non-peasant networks: l Enable women to gain financial/social independence – 19 Women pursue jobs and husbands in this network thus use more German to enable access to this network irrespective of their background

Status and gender l These studies suggest that different pressure operate on men and women – – – l 20 Status Prestige Opportunities and social contexts And these pressure affect language use

More recent variationist studies… l Finding ways to analyse different settings – Milroy’s (1980) network study l – Eckert’s (2000) community of practice l 21 Network involvement not just gender Social practice not just gender

Interactional studies of gender l Early studies explored differences in male/female discourse styles – l 22 Not just differences in the kind of variants but also differences in whole conversational styles Lakoff ([1975] 2004): Language and Woman’s Place ‘women’s language’ – meaning both language restricted in its use to women and language descriptive of women alone. (Lakoff [1975] 2004: 42).

Elements of ‘women’s language’ according to Lakoff (1975) l Women use more expressive lexis e. g. – – l W: The weather’s awful, isn’t it? Women’s language reflects ‘weakness’/ lack of assertion Women are indirect – – 23 The wall is mauve The wall is pink Women use tag questions – l W: M: A: B: Can you meet me at 6? Well, I have a doctor’s appointment at 5. 45.

Explanations of gender differences l Deficit? – l 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). l 24 Women’s language use a consequence of their lack of power

Explanations of gender differences l Difference? – 25 “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).

Studies… l Fishman (1983): Who does the most conversational work in heterosexual partnerships? – – l Goodwin (1980): How do boys and girls use language to negotiate play? – – 26 Men control the conversational floor Women as conversational ‘shit-workers’ (questions, support etc. ) Boys hierarchical Girls collaborative

Summing up… l Variationist sociolinguists have found very consistent patterns of gender differences – l l Interactional sociolinguists have also noted differences in male/female discourse styles Both types of study provide similar explanations for gender differences – – – 27 Women tend to use more standard variants than men Theories about status & class associations Theories about power Theories about socialisation

References and Reading l l l 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, 64 -75. Oxford: Blackwell. Fishman, Pamela (1983) “Interaction: The work women do”. In: Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley (eds. ), Language, Gender and Society, 89101. 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, 201 -220. 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) 28