Gender and Language

Linguists use the word gender as the label for certain ways languages may subcategorize their lexicons. The word does not ultimately refer to sex. In popular usage, however, and in other social sciences gender refers to social distinctions drawn between men and women. The term grammatical gender is used when referring to internal language categories. Any discussion of language and sex would imply that observed differences between the speech of men and women are biological rather than social. It is far from clear at the present stage of research what correlations can be made between the (biological) sex of an individual and his or her speech.

There is a considerable body of literature on the general topic of language and gender, which may be taken as including all of the following:

• differences in language use associated with the gender (or sexual orientation) of the speaker or addressee (person spoken to),

• differences in language use associated with the gender (or sexual orientation) of the referent (person spoken about),

• efforts to alter the language with respect to ways gender is or is not encoded.

Two different, but not necessarily contradictory, views have been advanced as to the relationship between language and gender. One view which has characterized much sociolinguistic research in this area holds that gender differences in language are simply a reflection of the way society works. Another view, one often associated with some feminists, claims that, far from merely reflecting the nature of society, language serves as a primary means of encoding ideas used in constructing and maintaining that society. The continued use in English, for instance, of male forms (such as chairman) in a generic sense excludes women and is seen as perpetuating a social order in which women are invisible. Thus attitudes as to how people should talk and, indeed, how they are to regard their own status within society are formed by language and continue to be reinforced unless language changes (or is altered).

Gender-exclusive differentiation refers to the radically different speech varieties used by men and women in particular societies. In these societies, a woman or a man may, except in special circumstances, not be allowed to speak the variety of the other gender. It is in this sense that the varieties are gender-exclusive. A society in which this is the norm is typically one in which the roles assigned to the genders are rigid, and in which there is little social change.

This phenomenon has been observed in some Amerindian societies but is no longer as widespread as it may have been in the remote past. A study of Koasati (a Muskogean language spoken in Louisiana) showed that members of this speech community possessed different verb forms based on the gender of the speaker.

In traditional Koasati society, women and men normally used the forms appropriate to their gender, but they were not forbidden the use of forms associated with the other gender. In quoting a member of the other gender as in relating a story, a Koasati used the form appropriate to the person being quoted.

Gender-exclusive differentiation has assumed an even more radical form in some societies.

Gender-variable differentiation is much more common in the languages of the world than is gender-exclusivity. This phenomenon is reflected in the relative frequency with which men and women use the same lexical items or other linguistic features. If, as is often asserted, female English speakers use words such as lovely and nice more often than do male speakers, we can claim that in this respect English speakers exhibit gender-variable differentiation.

Women have been shown to possess a greater variety of specific colour terms than men in English-speaking speech communities. If this is true, it is probably due to the tasks traditionally performed by women. There is no evidence to show that women have more acute colour perception than do men. Indeed, one study showed that younger men had larger vocabularies of colour terms than did older men but still less extensive ones than women. Thus there is evidence that gender variability in this area is undergoing change.

Men are reputed to possess larger lexicons in areas associated with traditional male activities (such as occupations like bricklaying and deep-sea fishing) and male-dominated sports (like football, boxing, and rugby). These examples may appear stereotypical, but they do reflect the sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant differences between the activities and thus the language of members of the two genders.

Other differences between men’s and woman’s language in English-speaking speech communities are seen in women’s more frequent use of formulas of politeness. There are a number of ways in which requests (or commands) can be mitigated in English. Instead of simply saying to someone ‘Open the window!’ we might say ‘Please open the window!’, ‘Would you please open the window?’, ‘Could you open the window?’, ‘Would you mind opening the window?’, ‘Do you find it stuffy in here?’, and so on. These are all less direct ways of making the request than the straightforward imperative and, it is claimed, would more likely be employed by women.

Similarly, some studies suggest that women use more verbal hedges than do men. These are words such as perhaps or maybe (as in We could perhaps go to Greece next summer for our holidays) which are less assertive in conversations than utterances without hedges (e.g., We should go to Greece next summer for our holidays).

Finally, it has been noted that men tend to use more vernacular as opposed to standard forms. Men tend to attach positive value to non-standard forms. Their use is seen as having in-group covert prestige (as opposed to the overt prestige of standard forms). Indeed, in a study in Norwich, it was found that men often claimed to use more non-standard forms than they actually did use. Normally men also use ‘bad language’ considerably more than women who belong to the same social class. Indeed, among some men it is considered macho―rather than plainly vulgar―to spice one’s utterances richly with maximally taboo words.

The answer to the question of why does women’s usage differs from that of men seems to have to do with saving face. Men’s less frequent use of formulas of politeness, their reluctance to use hedges and their predilection for the vernacular (and in particular ‘bad language’) has been attributed to the fact that in the social construction of masculinity, being ‘tough’―and hence inconsiderate of the face-protection needs of the addressee―is often considered a virtue. By contrast, in the construction of femininity the opposite is the case. Thus, in the linguistic behaviour of women, behaviour that is considerate and protects the face of the addressee is preferred.

Since we are discussing gender-variable usage here, we must emphasize that all of the above ways of phrasing a request are available to all speakers but are not equally selected by male and female speakers. An important factor that affects the use of politeness formulas, hedges, and non-standard vernacular forms is the degree of formality of the situation. The more formal the situation the more likely are speakers of either gender to use standard forms, hedges, and politeness formulas.