What influences and impacts upon women’s language choices?

“What influences and impacts upon women’s language choices?”

Language is a key part of identifying gender. Males and females each have their own language traits, traditions and themes which coincide from male to male and female to female. ‘Often words associated with men have positive connotations: they are virile, manly, and sporty; words like strength, independence, and courage are commonly linked to them’ (Sara Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language: 104). It could be argued that language stereotypes are more in favour of a male positive image than they are for females. ‘Women, on the other hand, are associated with weakness and with emotional and erratic behaviour; words like frailty, dependence and vulnerability are traditionally linked to them’ (Sara Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language: 104). On the whole, many people fit into their own gender specific stereotype based on the language they use, but of course there are always exceptions and that everyone can be categorised. ‘Language use like this builds on a stereotypical view of women and men – it implies that differences between women and men are wholly based on gender rather than on individual personalities. Such language can suggest that women are inferior’ (Sara Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language: 104).
‘Men curse more than women’ (Dale Spender). It could be said that Spender supports Thorne’s image of women to be of a more “delicate” appearance. On a mass image, it would appear to many that women do in fact fit into their stereotype and men even more so. Males’ stereotype can also carry negative connotations to their image and so may appear to fit into the stereotype more frequently than females. However this frequency could be explained by the mere fact that the media will advertise and report on negative occurrences more than positive ones.
Current affairs and public perception of gender can influence and impact upon women’s language choices. For example, during the First World War women achieved more independence; they started to smoke, lost their chaperones, wore skirts at higher lengths and overall performed in a more liberal manner than was previously accepted in society at that time. This resulted in a more liberal form of speech and use of language. It could be said that society has higher expectations of women in their social performance (including speech and behaviour). As Deborah Cameron says: “women have been instructed in the proper ways of talking just as they have been instructed in the proper ways of dressing, in the use of cosmetics, and in other ‘feminine’ kinds of behaviour”.
Another view is that a woman’s interaction with a man and how he responds has a great deal of influence and effect on how that woman will then continue the conversation choose her language; Pamela Fishman argues this interaction point in her work. ‘Conversation between the sexes sometimes fails, not because of anything inherent in the way women talk, but because of how men respond, or don’t respond’ (Pamela Fishman, The Work Women Do, 1938). Fishman’s point on interaction is supported by Dale Spender’s theory with point made such as ‘Men interrupt women more than vice versa’. A man’s overconfidence in his own opinion can sometimes belittle a woman’s confidence in speaking out against him or to continue the conversation entirely. This all links back to and builds up the image of ‘vulnerability’ that Sara Thorne put forward in her stereotypical image of men and women based on their language choices and traits.
A woman can choose her language based on the position she is in at the time or is currently holding, e.g. a secretary, manager, assistant. It is often said that women in high up business positions are too dominant in the way they conduct themselves. This can be because they feel a lack of respect from men and feel they need to assert their power to get a point across or ensure they are heard and understood by other people in the workplace, men in particular. On the other hand, women in work positions like secretaries, assistants and even mangers can sometimes feel inferior and lack confidence to do the same jobs that men do. For example Dale Spender makes the point that ‘Men speak more comfortably in public than women’. It could be argued that this is more down to the point that men can have more confidence in their presentation and social skills or that men feel a compulsive need to prove strength, power, dominance etc; all linking back to Sara Thorne’s somewhat sexist and bias towards a man’s stereotype being that of a positive image and dominant figure. There is no evidence to suggest whether women lack the confidence or that men have more confidence than women in the first place, it is merely an observation that is noticeable in many work places and around the world.
Robin Lakoff, in 1975, published an influential account of women’s language. This was the book ‘Language and Woman’s Place’. In a related article, Woman’s language, she published a set of basic assumptions about what marks out the language of women. Among these are claims that women: ‘hedge’ – using phrases like “sort of”, “kind of” etc. This supports the idea that women are less confident in public speaking; hedges or fillers, as they are also known, are usually subconsciously included in speech if the speaker is not prepared, feeling less confident or lacking motivation to speak or persuade. The more hedges present in one’s speech, the less confident they are as speaker. However, frequented use of hedges may not always been down to a lack of confidence but may have been adopted as a trait in their language as they have used that filler/hedge for so long on a regular basis.
In Lakoff’s article ‘Woman’s language’ she also claimed that women speak less frequently. This contrasts elements of Dale Spender’s theory; ‘Women are more communicative than men’. There is no real explanation into these findings or evidence to support either of the claims but it can only be assumed that women speak less frequently because they either lack confidence in their opinions or have learnt, over a long period of time, that men have asserted their power and dominance to almost belittle women and their place in language. (Whether you agree with this or not is entirely your own opinion). This does however, shed light on, and support another one of Lakoff’s claims, that ‘women apologise more (for instance “I’m sorry, but I think that…”). If we focus on the apology, we can ask ourselves why it seems necessary for the woman to apologise for her contribution to the conversation or submitting a differing opinion. Does she feel she is interrupting? Or does she think she is stepping out of her position which is expected to be that of self-restraint. (Harry Enfield once made sketches on the women’s positions in society and language stating they should simply “know their place”). Women look at their language, Deborah Tannen argues, based on a series of six contrasts: status vs. support, independence vs. intimacy, advice vs. understanding, information vs. feelings, orders vs. proposals and conflict vs. compromise. (- Deborah Tannen, ‘You Just Don’t Understand’). A woman will decide on how positive/negative the received piece of speech is then categorise it into one of these six contrasts to then decide on what basis to form their response.
Another factor that influences and changes women’s choice of language is where they are located at the time of their speech and language choice. Jennifer Coates looks at all-female conversation and builds on Deborah Tannen’s ideas. She argues that all-woman conversation can fall into one of the following categories: “House talk”, “Scandal”, “Bitching” and “Chatting”. For example, if an all-woman conversation is categorised into the “Bitching” category then it is the ‘overt expression of women’s anger at their restricted role and inferior status’. This suggests that they express these particular views in private and to other women only. Coates also mentions that women who bitch are ‘not expecting change; they want only to make their complaints in an environment where their anger will be understood and expected’. This supports another point made by Dale Spender that ‘Women talk more with one another than men do’ and this, according to Coates’ bitching category, may be why. It gives us many reasons as to why women may frequently make the remark “you don’t understand” but don’t wish to enlighten the males on this comment as they are no longer in that environment of the same sex to allow them to express their views knowing there will be support for what they say. This differs to the other category, according to Jennifer Coates, that all-woman speech falls into, which is that of “Chatting”. Chatting is supposedly the ‘most intimate form of gossip, a mutual self-disclosure, a transaction where women use to their own advantage the skills they have learned as part of their job of nurturing others’. This implies that women use their long learnt skills to hold a successful conversation with both sexes as they have developed their skills over time. They have become use to nurturing others and so conversation which is classed as “Chatting” is easier and more well known to them as they do not feel out of their comfort zone and can relate to the type of language choices needed in that particular situation.
Looking back at Robin Lakoff’s theory it is interesting to apply some of the theory elements to modern day society and find the evidence, which exists in its masses, to back up those points. For example, Lakoff states that women ‘lack a sense of humour: women do not tell jokes well and often don’t understand the punch line of jokes’. If we look at current modern day comedians there are a lot more male comedians than females and male comedian’s comedy tours sell out a lot more than those of females. It is a commonly held view in society that male comedians are simply “a lot funnier than females”. Society never really offers a reason as to why this is but it is a frequent theme that appears around the world not just on stage but in films and books.

In summary there are many reasons why a woman may change her language choice or adopt a different approach in certain conversations. Fishman argues it is down to the response women receive from men. Tannen argues that it is based on how women depict the conversation positive/negatively. Coates develops this and puts forward the idea that women’s language can be categorised and based upon this influences how women choose their language. Cameron finally suggests that women’s language has been taught into them and they have been taught the appropriate ways to conduct themselves. There is no right or wrong answer as to why or how women choose certain language approaches but it is almost certainly a fact that the surrounding world and those in the conversation influence their choices of speech and make women think about how to conduct themselves based on their past experiences and ongoing categorising of the conversation they are a part of.