Outline
Gender and discourse style has been the topic of discussion for many linguists for the past many decades. Lakoff first presented the idea of women’s discourse being deficient as compared to men in 1975. Her views were later countered by Maltz, Borker, and Tennan who stated that the difference in discourse was more due to the two different cultures in which men and women have been brought up since childhood. However both the views are not without criticism. Lakoff’s view is based on intuition and Tannen’s view is based on experimentation. Some others suggest that the differences are inborn. Many critics also state that the differences in discourse arise due to status or power.
Introduction
The study of gender and linguistics, although appears simple, requires vast discussion and understanding of both genders. It is believed that men and women have different discourse styles. Many linguists such as Deborah Tannen, Robin T. Lakoff, Deborah Cameron, and Janet Holmes have expressed their views on this issue. Their views are sometimes the same and sometimes opposite. There are several theories regarding the issue.
The oldest theory of different discourse styles of genders is that of Robin Lakoff (1975). Lakoff is of the view that difference in discourse style occurs due to the weakness or lack of confidence among women. An opposing view was presented by Maltz and Borker (1982, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007) which was later confirmed by Tannen in 1992. Tannen stated that the difference occurred due to the different cultures in which men and women were brought up. However, both views have their criticism.
In this paper, I aim to discuss and critically evaluate the views of different linguists regarding the reasons for different discourse styles of men and women. My methodology would be to evaluate the scholarly articles and the views of other linguists on the issue. I would also like to comment upon the question that how can one interpret differences about the issues of power, dominance, and difference. I intend to discuss some counter-views of the most prominent theories of the relationship between gender and discourse.
The difference in discourse styles of Men and Women
Lakoff’s theory of Deficiency
Robin Lakoff (1975, pg. 53-6)) has given her theory of dominance in her influential work “Language and Woman’s Place”. She’s was the first to work in the field of linguistic differences and for that matter, it was severely criticized for being based on intuition, lacking empirical data, and being biased. Lakoff is of the view that women live in a male-dominated society and for that matter, their discourse is also deficient due to a lack of confidence.
Women’s speech indicates powerlessness and men’s speech indicates dominance. In her view, the imbalance of power is the root cause of different discourse styles of men and women. Lakoff has given a list of ten linguistic features that are evident in a female conversation which become symbolic of their lack of confidence and insecurity. The list is also cited by Holmes (2001) and I quote it directly as follows:
- Lexical hedges or fillers such as “you know”, “well”, “sort of”, “you see.” (Holmes, 2001).
- Tag Questions such as “she’s very nice, isn’t she?” (Holmes, 2001).
- Rising intonations or declaratives such as “it’s really good?” (Holmes, 2001).
- Empty adjectives such as “divine, charming, cute etc.” (Holmes, 2001).
- Exact color terms such as “magenta, aquamarine” (Holmes, 2001).
- Intensifiers such as “just” and “so” (Holmes, 2001).
- Hypercorrect grammar such as consistent use of standard verb forms (Holmes, 2001).
- Super polite forms such as indirect requests, euphemisms (Holmes, 2001).
- Avoidance of strong swearing words such as “fudge” or “my goodness” (Holmes, 2001).
- Emphatic stress such as “it was a brilliant performance (Holmes, 2001).”
Holmes (2001) has divided the above mentioned list into two groups:
- Linguistic devices that are used for hedging and reducing the force of an utterance. For example fillers, tag questions, rising intonations (Holmes, 2001).
- Features that boost or intensify a proposition’s force. For example emphatic stress and intensifiers (Holmes, 2001).
Lakoff (1975) is of the view that the first one indicates a woman’s lack of power in a mixed environment and the second one indicates the fact that without intensifiers a woman cannot be taken seriously otherwise. She further states that in a male-dominated society women are forced to show their feminine side of weakness and subordination compared to the opposite sex. This notion has also been supported by other linguists such as Cameron, McAlinden, and O’ Leary (1989, quoted by White, 2003).
According to them, it is quite predictable that since women are more inclined towards establishing social conformity that women should show such characteristics in their conversation as well as in other aspects of their behavior (Cameron, McAlinden and O’ Leary, 1989, quoted by White, 2003, In Women’ Usage of Speech Linguistic Functions in the Context of Casual Conversation: Analysis and Discussion, pg. 4).”
Thus Lakoff (1975) summed up her theory that men and women have different discourse styles because they socialized differently.
Lakoff’s (1975) view that women’s discourse style is deficient, lacking confidence and authority is criticized by many linguists. Zimmerman and West (1975, quoted by Itakura, 2001, pg. 15) stated that women’s discourse style was not lacking but was dominated by men in a cross-sex verbal interaction where men frequently adopted the strategy of interrupting. Upon comparison, women had to work a lot to support their argument.
At the same time, Lakoff’s idea of women using more tag questions was also challenged by many linguists who conducted interviews and experiments to prove their position (Kunsmann, 2000). Holmes (2001) stated that women used tag questions not only on the notion that they were insecure but for several reasons. Some examples mentioned by Holmes are mentioned below:
- Showing insecurity: I graduated last year, didn’t I? (Holmes, 2001)
- Facilitating conversation: Andrew this is our new neighbor, Frank. Andrew has just changed jobs, haven’t you? (Holmes, 2001)
Theory of Subculture
Deborah Tannen (1992), a renowned linguist, has discussed several reasons which are the root cause of different discourse styles of men and women in her book titled “You Just Don’t Understand!” Tannen is of the view that the difference in discourse styles of men and women starts from childhood where both genders adopt different approaches to achieve a common goal or to get accepted in society.
Tannen uses Maltz and Borker’s two “sub-culture” models in which both genders are brought up in different cultures. The problem only arises when the two subcultures merge. Tannen has discussed American society to support her argument. Her observation states that girls and boys want to know each other but through different methods. Girls are different because they love to socialize in the group, preferably one-on-one and their interaction is based on conversation and consensus. Boys socialize differently. Their interaction is based on large groups and different activities of their interest.
To maintain harmony in the group there is always some kind of leadership in both genders that helps the members to follow the specific set of rules. The two genders often pressurize their members to adhere to the rules. There is always pressure on boys who like to play with dolls and girls who are tomboys and like to play boyish sports. Maltz and Borker (1982, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007) have also suggested this point. For girls relationship is important and for boys, hierarchy and leadership are important.
The difference in discourse style appears naturally in men and women. Women seem to discuss different topics more with each other. At the same time they also personally interact with each other and express their feelings. In that manner, they become well versed in understanding and expressing their feeling. They also seem to remember more as to who said what. They seem to do fine as long as they remain in their circle.
The problem arises when the two genders interact with each other either through marriage or at the workplace. When each brings his/ her conversational background, not understanding the other, a communication gap becomes inevitable. For women discussions are negotiations for getting closer and giving support to the person and finally to reach a consensus. Whereas for men discussions are a tool through which they try to gain and maintain an upper hand, if possible, and also a tool to prevent themselves from getting pushed down by people around them (Tannen, 1992).
To support her views Tannen experimented on both genders where they were asked to indulge in a serious discussion on any topic. Here her theory gains a plus point over Lakoff’s theory of deficiency since Tannen based her theory on the results of the experiments conducted by her and Lakoff based it on her beliefs. The participants included individuals from second-grade students to graduate level. The discussion was videotaped. It was noted that women of all ages immediately jumped to the focal point. Men on the other hand took time to come on the topic. There was a marked difference in the level of seriousness for both genders.
Males discussed the topic of marriage as an abstraction rather than a personal concern. In one situation a participant’s drinking problem was discussed by both genders. Where women showed their sympathy for the person men stated that it was not a big problem at all. Tannen concluded her experiment with a view that men see discourse as competition and women see it as a way to become intimate. Men did not even set to face each other. Women on the other hand often gazed at each other intentionally to achieve intimacy (Tannen, 1992).
A critic on Tannen’s book agrees with the fact that there exist original biological differences among men and women. For that matter, they do adopt different discourse styles. Brein (1994) agrees with Tannen’s views that American men and in general all men adopt a negotiating style in their speech whereas women use language which gives them a chance of personal interaction. The same idea of having a biological explanation is also given by Chambers (1992) who is of the view that these differences are transferred biologically into men and women as he states:
“Female precocity in verbal skills beginning in infancy predisposes them to apply their verbal skills to all kinds of situations as they grow up (Chambers, 1992, pg. 201)”.
The Difference
Maltz and Borker (1982, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007, pg. 164) have earlier agreed to the above argument. They stated, “We place stress not on psychological difference or power differentials…but rather on a notion of cultural differences between men and women”. This view is opposite to Lakoff’s (1975) view of women speech being deficient”.
According to the girls and boys were different in the following ways:
(Maltz and Borker, 1982, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007).
Studies carried out on the discourse style of men and women indicated the fact that men interrupted conversation more frequently as compared to women. In a cross-sex conversation observed by Zimmerman and West (1975) it was noted that men interrupted most of the time and females interrupted only twice. The study confirmed the fact that men and women behaved differently in a speech situation (quoted by Itakara, 2001, pg. 16-17).
The duel culture model theory supports the fact that men and women’s discourse style differs based on “contrasting orientations towards relations (Montgomery, 1986)”. Men give importance to sharing information and women give importance to interaction. Men and women have their discourse style which they have inherited from their early days. Maltz and Borker (1982, Monaghan and Goodman, 2007) are of the view that men and women differ from each other because they belong to different sociolinguistic cultures.
Both have learned to do different things with minimal responses such as mono or bi-syllabic words such as “umhum” and “yes”. Men interpret these comments as “I agree with you” and women interpret as “I’m listening to you – please continue.” The above example is indicative of the fact that a woman’s style is not deficient but different from men and the differences occur as each group interpret it according to their own rules (Maltz and Borker, 1982, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007).
The difference in the discourse style of men and women is further elaborated by Tennan (1992). She states that women’s style is “rapport talk” in which intimacy and sameness of the situation are emphasized. Men’s discourse style has been described as “report style”. They tend to exhibit knowledge and skill. Women negotiate to maintain solidarity and men negotiate to maintain status and hierarchy. Women have been involved in the ritual of coming home and telling everything that they have experienced throughout the day and they have been doing it since childhood.
Men do not understand these rituals and they usually begin a conversation when they feel the need for it. Men need a reason to talk. For that matter what is important for women becomes unimportant for men. It gets frustrating for both parties when they are unable to understand each other since their motives of conversation are different (Tannen, 1992).
Speer (2005) quoted Mary Crawford (1995) and stated that many critics are of the view that the conflict of discourse style is not related to men being dominating. It is rather based on miscommunication even though dominance is still a part of the process. Although Crawford agrees with Tannen’s views she still comments and states that such views take away the responsibility from men by protecting their bad behavior as a “stylistic quirk.” Spear quotes Crawford and states: “They offer men a compelling rationale of ‘blame-free difference’ and women ‘a comforting promise of mutual accommodation (quoted by Speer, 2005)’”.
Dominance
Studies have shown that people indulge in different conversational styles for different purposes. One such purpose could be to gain dominance over the participants. Many studies indicate that men indulge in conversation and try to dominate the participants. For that matter, they use different conversational strategies such as interrupting the speaker. It has already been discussed above that men interrupt speeches more frequently than women. Women seem to be powerless because of their social position so instead of indulging in an argument they tend to back off from the argument (Kunsmann, 2000).
Power
The difference theory blames gender for changes in discourse styles among men and women. On the other hand the dominance theory makes its conclusions based on power. Power comes from the socioeconomic and socio-historic status of an individual. Zimmerman and West (1975) along with many other linguists state that:
“just as male dominance is exhibited through male control of macro-institutions in society, it is also exhibited through male control of at least a part of micro-institutions (Zimmerman and West 1975)”. (Quoted by Itakura. 2001, pg 17).
The dominance in micro-economic institutions is established through various discourse strategies such as interrupting the conversation. Since it has been mentioned earlier that men interrupt conversation more as compared to women so their dominance is easily established and women end up either becoming silent or abandoning the conversation (Kunsmann, 2000).
In some cultures, the tag questions are also used in conversation to keep the conversation rolling. In such a situation women can easily gain dominance since they use tag questions more frequently as compared to men (Kunsmann, 2000).
Different studies have shown different results on the relationship between gender and power. Eakins and Eakins (1976, quoted by Monaghan and Goodman, 2007) state that dominance is caused by status. In their research, he observed that the head of the department received the minimum number of interruptions as compared to other participants of the meeting.
Holmes (2001) observed that female doctors were interrupted more as compared to their male counterparts. On the contrary in a business environment, the male always dominated the conversation as compared to their female counterparts. In another observation carried out by West (1998) on patient-doctor interaction, it was noted that power alone was not responsible for the differences. Female doctors were interrupted more frequently by patients of all socioeconomic backgrounds as compared to their male counterparts.
Beattie (1981, quoted by Stubbe, 2007, in What’s the Score? Qualitative Analysis in Gender Research, pg. 3-18) observed that status and interruptions were inversely proportional to each other. Interruptions also ended up with the change of speaker. Beattie observed that gender did not affect the number of interruptions during the conversation.
From the above research, it can be seen that the studies related to the relationship between language and power are inconclusive.
Conclusion
To conclude, the above discussion highlights the difference in discourse style between men and women. On many occasions, people use the language consciously as is stated by the different approach. It would be more pertinent to state that different style of discourse among men and women is because their interaction purposes are different. Women interact to maintain interaction and solidarity and men interact to share knowledge. However, with changing trends women are becoming more and more assertive which may in the future force the linguists to review their theories according to the situation.
References
Beattie, Geoffrey (1981): “Interruption in Conversational Interaction and its Relation to the Sex and Status of the Interactants”. In Stubbe, M. “What’s the Score? Qualitative Analysis in Gender Research.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, Issue 1. Pg. 3-18.
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F. and O’Leary, K. (1989). ‘Lakoff in Context: The Social and Linguistic Functions of Tag Questions.’ in White, A. “Women’ usage of Specific Linguistic Functions in the context of Casual Conversation: Analysis and Discussion”. Web.
Chambers, J.C. (1992): “Linguistic Correlates of Gender and Sex”. English World Wide. No. 13. Pg. 173-218.
Crawford, M. (1995). Quoted by Speer, S.A. Gender Talk, Feminism discourse and Conversation Analysis. Routeledge. Pg. 44.
Eakins, B., Eakins, G: (1976). “Verbal Turn-Taking and Exchanges in Faculty Dialogue”.
In: De Lange, J. (1995). “Gender and Communication in Social Work Education: A Cross Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 31. Issue 1. Pg. 5. Web.
Holmes, J. (2001): An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Amazon Books, London. Pg. 286-318.
Kunsmann, P. (2000). “Gender, Status and Power in Discourse Behavior of Men and Women.” Web.
Lakoff, Robin (1975): Language and Woman’s Place. Harper & Row, New York. Pg. 53-6.
Maltz, D. Borker, R: (1982). “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication”. In: Monaghan and Goodman. (2007). “A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential Reading.” Wiley-Blackwell. Pg. 161-178.
Montgomery, M. (1986). An Introduction to Language and Society. Routledge. Pg. 168.
O’ Brein, D. (1994). “Gender and Discourse: Book Review.” Commonweal. Web.
Tannen, D. (1992): You Just Don’t Understand. New York.Pg. 24-77.
West, C: (1998). “When the Doctor is a ‘Lady’: Power, Status and Gender in Physician-Patient Encounters”. In: Coates, Jennifer (ed): Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford. Pg. 396-412.
Zimmerman, D. West, C. (1975). “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversations”.
Itakura, H. (2001). “Conversational Dominance and Gender,” John Benjamins Publishing Co. Pg. 15-17.