William O Barr Atkins
William O’Barr and Bowman Atkins
Theorists
Developed the idea that language differences are situation-specific
Relies on the authoritative power in a conversation rather than gender
Challenged the theory of Lakoff (gender was the discriminating factor in language)
Authority can be the product of superiority in jobs, careers, education systems and all manners of hierarchy
Developed their theory by studying courtroom cases
Observed a broad range of witnesses over 2 ½ years to examine basic speech differences between men and women that Lakoff proposed
The theorists came to the conclusion that Lakoff’s typical ‘women’ language differences were not the result of gender, but of being powerless, vulnerable, and without authority.
Concluded that speech patterns were “neither characteristic of all women, nor limited to only women”
It was suggested that the high social status of some women corresponded with the women who displayed the least of Lakoff’s criteria regarding females
Note: O’Barr and Atkins found that the judge (most powerful figure in a courtroom) displayed the least of Lakoff’s ‘female’ language features, over both men and women
Lakoff’s ‘female’ language traits included politeness and over-apology, which conclusively just apply to people in inferior positions of power and authority.
However judges, despite their superior authority, use politeness as a part of their role in redressing the situations of the courtroom
“The findings indicate that future research on gender difference in language usage should move from the documentation of sex differences towards an examination of underlying social and situational factors.” https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/obarr-atkins/ O’Barr and Atkins challenge Lakoff’s theory, and in doing so challenge gender stereotypes.
Lakoff’s women and their use of language:
1. Hedges: phrases like "sort of," "kind of," "It seems like," etc.
2. (Super) polite forms: "Would you mind...," "I'd appreciate it if...," "...if
Theorists
Developed the idea that language differences are situation-specific
Relies on the authoritative power in a conversation rather than gender
Challenged the theory of Lakoff (gender was the discriminating factor in language)
Authority can be the product of superiority in jobs, careers, education systems and all manners of hierarchy
Developed their theory by studying courtroom cases
Observed a broad range of witnesses over 2 ½ years to examine basic speech differences between men and women that Lakoff proposed
The theorists came to the conclusion that Lakoff’s typical ‘women’ language differences were not the result of gender, but of being powerless, vulnerable, and without authority.
Concluded that speech patterns were “neither characteristic of all women, nor limited to only women”
It was suggested that the high social status of some women corresponded with the women who displayed the least of Lakoff’s criteria regarding females
Note: O’Barr and Atkins found that the judge (most powerful figure in a courtroom) displayed the least of Lakoff’s ‘female’ language features, over both men and women
Lakoff’s ‘female’ language traits included politeness and over-apology, which conclusively just apply to people in inferior positions of power and authority.
However judges, despite their superior authority, use politeness as a part of their role in redressing the situations of the courtroom
“The findings indicate that future research on gender difference in language usage should move from the documentation of sex differences towards an examination of underlying social and situational factors.” https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/obarr-atkins/ O’Barr and Atkins challenge Lakoff’s theory, and in doing so challenge gender stereotypes.
Lakoff’s women and their use of language:
1. Hedges: phrases like "sort of," "kind of," "It seems like," etc.
2. (Super) polite forms: "Would you mind...," "I'd appreciate it if...," "...if