“You Are What You Say” by Robin Lakoff Analysis Research Paper

Current research addresses an important issue of women’s language, the topic that found considerable elaboration recently in gender studies. Gender studies should be regarded as the interdisciplinary field of research which analyzes different cultural representations of gender expressed in the people’s life experience. Many researchers claim that gender studies are closely related to the issues of race, class, and ethnicity.

As a feminist thinker, Simone de Beauvoir once said: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one”, and these words should be regarded as the centerpiece of gender studies trying to understand the construction of a woman’s identity (Beauvoir, 1989, p. 37). There is no denying the importance of the fact that the analysis of women’s language as it is expressed in her daily life lies between many disciplines but the main are linguistics and a social science which is interestingly proved by Lakoff’s article.

The current essay will be subdivided into several parts. First, the analysis of Lakoff’s article will be provided to designate the most important issues tackled and the problems addressed. We will try to take a critical stance. Afterward, the issue of woman language will be discussed in detail with considerable reference to the history of the issue, scholars, and approaches to its resolution. We hope that the current essay will prove to be interesting for the readers.

The basic claim that Lakoff introduces in her article is that women have their specific language significantly distinct from that men speak. The differences in grammar, utterances, exclamations, idioms use are not accidental and as Lakoff claims signify women’s oppressed social position of women in a masculine society. Here we see that Lakoff’s basic claim is strongly connected with the feminist perspective of gender studies which are dominated by different currents of feminist tradition (Lakoff, 1974, p. 463). There is no denying the importance of the fact that socially constructed differences between men and women are reflected in the cultural domain and in language use which is one of the main components of it. Social oppression of women presented in the masculine society was not an oppression of women as biologically different though it heavily relied on this biological basis. The discrimination of women was and is the product of social discrimination which considerably varies dependent on the level of social position in the class structure. Robin Lakoff seems to neglect this important feature of women’s discrimination and seems to reduce it to the mere cultural sphere which is characteristic of feminists stuck in linguistics.

This results in Lakoff’s inability to comprehend the fact that not only women are constituted by the language they use but for men as well. For instance, she says: ‘If we refuse to talk ‘like a lady’, we are ridiculed and criticized for being unfeminine. (‘She thinks like a man is, at best, a left-handed compliment). If we do learn all the fuzzy-headed, unassertive language of our sex, we are ridiculed for being unable to think, unable to take part in a serious discussion, and therefore unfit to hold a position of power’.

It seems that Lakoff didn’t notice that the same is true about men since they are also regarded as not being masculine if not discussing such issues as cars, women, and on the contrary speak of the things peculiar to women. Hence we should be aware that social and linguistic construction of gender is peculiar not only to women but to men as well and from this point of view they are no less dependent on the general notion or vision of ‘Man’ which is sanctioned by society (Maggio, 1991).

The examples that Lakoff uses in defense of her thesis of the existence of distinct ‘women language’ are quite interesting and compelling. Consider for example her accurate observation that women use words designating different colors more frequently than men and her interpretation that this explicates the fact that for men who ‘control most interesting affairs in the world such distinctions are trivial-irrelevant’ (Lakoff, 1974, p.463). Besides this, it seems grounded to ascribe the use of tag questions as a distinct characteristic of women’s language. According to Lakoff the use of tag questions reflects the irrelevant position of women’s opinion in comparison to those of men and that the last word and action belongs to men. Different words and phrases that are used by men referring to women such as euphemism like lady, girl, various forms of politeness used by bank clerks only about women such as ‘homey’, ‘dear’ are also good examples of ‘women language’.

However, what is doubtful about Lakoff’s theory is her inability to embed the linguistic analysis of gender into the wider fabric of sociolinguistics. Following the example of Bakhtin, we may claim that the patterns of language use are conditioned by different sociolects, that is language forms developed in distinct social groups and are characteristic to it (Bakhtin, 1986).

There is no denying the importance of the fact that the distinction between women’s and men’s language is significantly erased by social homogeneity. For instance, if we are to compare the models of speech peculiar to men who represented aristocracy we would see that ‘noble’ patterns of speech result in the significant feminization of men’s speech.

Different forms of politeness, tag questions, and euphemism peculiar to women here are adapted by men. Besides this, if we consider the language patterns in lower classes of society we will see that the differences between men’s and women’s language are not so much articulated. Hence, not refuting the basic assumptions of ‘women language’ theory we need to understand that social analysis of language use should also be addressed to create a comprehensive image of the problem.

To sum it up Lakoff’s paper is very fruitful in terms of generating debate on ‘women language’ and its social determinants. In our view, it is wrong to take a one-sided stance on this issue but on the contrary, it is important to analyze different facets of the problem. The examples of ‘women language’ may be multiplied but it is equally important to reproduce the basic assumptions of this theory.

Drawing on the other research of Lakoff it may be claimed that all cases of ‘women language’ use may be subdivided into several categories including the following (Lakoff, 1975):

1. Various hedges including such utterance as sort of, I guess, kind of.
2. Polite or super (polite) forms such as ‘would you please’
3. Tag questions
4. Intonational language is sometimes referred to as ‘speaking in italics’.
5. Extensive use of empty adjectives that is adjectives that are not connected with any noun – charming, adorable, sweet.
6. Hypercorrect pronunciation and grammar.
7. Poor usage of jokes.
8. Direct quotations such as ‘She said that the said…’
9. Using specialized vocabulary.
10. Using question intonation in declarative contexts.

There is no denying the importance of the fact that this classification is not universal what is more important not every peculiarity of ‘women language’ represented in it can be ascribed directly to gender issues. Hence, we should be careful while making interpretations of different word and grammar patterns use in terms of them being markers of the social dominance of men.

Historically several main approaches to the problem of ‘women language’ existed in the literature.

The first is the dominance approach claiming that women’s language represents oppression of women by men and it is incapable of expressing women’s experience of the world. The main representatives of this approach are Kramarae (1981) and Rich(1972).

These scholars think that the main characteristics of women’s language are its alienation from social problems and the suffering of women. Thus, it should be abandoned and a new vocabulary of non-sexist and libertarian language should be elaborated. Patterns of language according to this approach are not the patterns of gender but are the patterns of power of men over women.

According to the cultural approach to women’s language, it is not about violence and masculine power and oppression but about cultural differences which are acquired in the course of gender socialization. The differences in speech styles are developed gradually by the influence of the feminine subculture that exists in every society. According to this point of view women’s language is not powerless but in contrast, is persuasive and self-confident and represents women’s drive toward equality and free right for everybody (Maltz & Borker, 1982).

To sum up, the problem of ‘women language’ as both Lakoff’s article and our research suggests is an interesting and crucial one. As it lies at the crossroad of different sciences such as linguistics, social science, psychology, and philosophy it is crucial to design comprehensive approaches to the problem to comprehend different facets of this issue.

References

1. Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press,1986.
2. Beauvoir, Simone De. The Second Sex. London: Vintage, 1989
3. Gray, J. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.
4. Kramarae, C. Women and men speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1981.
5. Lakoff, R.Language and women’s place. New York: Harper Row, 1975.
6. Lakoff, Robin. “You Are What You Say.” Ms. 1974. 65-67.
7. Maggio, R. The dictionary of bias-free usage: A guide to nondiscriminatory language. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1991.
8. Maltz, D.N. & Borker, R.A.. A cultural approach to male-female communication. In J. Gumperez (Ed.). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
9. Michard, C. Viollet, C. ‘Sex and gender in linguistics: Fifteen years of feminist research in the United States and Germany’. Feminist Issues, 11 53-88, 1991.
10. Rich, A. When we dead awaken: Writing as re-vision. Reprinted in Rich, A. (1984). On lies, secrets and silences. Selected Prose 1966-1978. Essex: Virago. 1972