A diversity of voices - annotated bibliography

A diversity of voices

Gender differences in the use of language in different ethnic groups

Gender studies is an interdisciplinary field which examines the gender differences between men and women in terms of different areas, such as literature, history, sociology, politics, law or language. My research is focusing on the gender differences in the use of language in different ethnic groups. I would like to find answers to the following questions: Do the men and women who speak a given language use it differently? If there is a difference, what are the reasons for having two varieties in a language – one only used by men and one only used by women? What does this reveal about the society of this group? My first source, written by Robin Lakoff, gives a general introduction to the topic – it discusses the characteristics of women’s speech. The second source, which comes from Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, narrows the topic a little by looking at the connection between the lower status of women in society and their use of more prestigious variants, such as standard speech. The last source is the most specific one in which Ronald Wardhaugh gives examples of different ethnic groups who have one variety used by men and another one used by women.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.

            

      Lakoff’s work is divided into two main parts. In the first section Lakoff gives the major characteristics of “women’s language” – what it means to talk like a lady; and then she looks at how people are referring to women – in what ways we speak differently of women than of men. In the second section the author examines why women are ladies. Here she gives the basic point that makes a lady and this point is politeness. Then, at the end of the book Lakoff describes the forms of politeness used by women.

In connection with my research it is important to know that Lakoff outlined a deficit model. She claims that women’s position in the society is deficient to men because of the way they speak. For example, they are considered less confident in what they say according to their use of tag questions (“You don’t mind eating this, do you?”), hedges (“sort of”, “it seems like”) or rising intonation. When women use empty adjectives, such as “adorable” instead of “great” or “divine” instead of “neat” they are considered less able to take part in serious activities.

Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (2003). The handbook of language and gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.   

 

The publication of Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff is a collection of essays written by leading experts in that field of gender studies which is interested in the relationship between gender and language. The book consists of five main sections: history of gender and language research; language, gender and relationships; authenticity; stereotypes; and institutional discourse. In terms of my research Suzanne Romaine’s essay – “Variation in Language and Gender” will play an important role.

In this essay Romaine lays stress upon the fact that the reason for women to use the standard version can be that they would like to compensate their powerlessness by linguistic means. It would be expected that after women gain power, their choice of the standard version disappears. Nordberg and Sundgren made sociolinguistics surveys in Eskilstuna (Sweden) in 1967 and in 1996. They compared the results of the two surveys and it turned out that a generation later women did not stop using the standard version. As it seems from this experiment, the differentiation in the varieties has been preserved, despite the fact that in Nordic countries the position of women is almost equal to that of men.

Wardhaugh, R. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). New York, NY, USA: Blackwell.

            In this book Ronald Wardhaugh covers a wide range of issues of sociolinguistics chapter-by-chapter. The most important section is Chapter 12 which describes the topic of “Language, Gender, and Sexuality”. The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first one focuses on how sexism and heterosexism appear in people’s vocabulary and language structure. The second section examines how discourses of gender are created through language. The third part looks at how men and women are using language.

            For my study, the relevant part is the third one which was mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph. Here Wardhaugh gives several examples for “gender exclusive languages”. He mentions the Dyirbal people of North Queensland in Australia who have “Guwal” as their everyday language which is used by both men and women. However, if you are a woman and your father-in-law is present or you are a man and your mother-in-law is present then you have to use another variety – a mother-in-law variety – called “Dyalluy”. The difference between Guwal and Dyalluy is the different vocabulary they use. It seems that there is a variety which is forbidden to one gender and this gender is almost always the female one. Wardhaugh claims that this difference makes outsiders think that in these groups women are treated badly; however, the avoidance of certain words derives from the social organization of a group and for them this kind of system is perfectly fine. Yanyuwa is another Australian aboriginal language which has different dialects for men and women. These varieties share the same word stems but there are different prefixes on these words that mark the difference. Wardhaugh goes on with an example which does not apply to a minor ethnic group, but a major one. In Japanese, men refer to themselves as “boku” and women refer to themselves as “watasi” and they use a sentence-final particle “wa” or “ne” to show that they are women. The sentence “I will go back” will be “boku kaeru” if a man says it. However, it becomes “watasi kaeru wa” if a woman says this sentence.