GENDER AND LANGUAGE

Seminar paper in Varieties of English

Authors:

Mentor:

ui Tijana

Biljana Radi-Bojani

urguz Ivana
Ili Aleksandra

University of Novi Sad

Faculty of Philosophy
December, 2013

Table of contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................3
2. An overview of gendered linguistics practices.........................................................................3
3. Features of women's speech......................................................................................................4
4. Three dominant theories...........................................................................................................6
5. Deficit theory..............................................................................................................................6
6. Dominance theory......................................................................................................................7
7. Difference theory.......................................................................................................................8
8. The male as the norm................................................................................................................9
9. The derogation of terms for women.......................................................................................10
10. Negative terms for men.........................................................................................................11
11. 'Woman As Dessert'...............................................................................................................12
12. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................13
13. References..............................................................................................................................14

Introduction
The issue of gender pervades more than just linguistics it is a fundamental piece of everyones
daily lives. Naturally, it has concerned linguists profoundly. In fact, it is one of the biggest
growth areas, so to speak, within sociolinguistics in recent years, says Ronald Wardhaugh
(2010:333).
The question of language and gender is a wide and complex one and can be approached from
many different angles. In this paper, the authors have chosen to focus on the few basic issues that
relate gender to language. These include a comparison of features commonly associated with the
speech of men and women, as well as an overview of certain words denoting the two genders. An
intrinsic part of such an analysis was to look into some of the processes that take place in
language and their results. Namely, the predominantly negative connotations many words
associated with women have acquired over time and why exactly it is that words having to do
with women seem to be that much more susceptible to pejorization than those associated with
men.
To paint over the obvious differences between men and women would do us a disservice. In fact,
in order to truly grasp any of the underbelly goings-on, one must delve into these issues deeply
and as bereft of preconceived notions as possible. Wardhaugh sees gender as a key component
of identity and asserts that gender is so inextricably a part of life that it is impossible to discount
it (2010:334). He also points out that each person in a society must learn what it means to be a
woman or a man in that society that gender is learned all over again each generation (2010:34).
An overview of gendered linguistics practices
As most of the research on gendered linguistics practices focuses primarily on features of the
speech of women, the authors of this paper have decided to present these features as given in
Robin Lakoff's Language and Womans Place (1975) and use them as a starting point for what
will be a threefold contrastive analysis of male and female speech.

Features of women's speech

Features of 'women's language' are noticeable in several aspects of English language - lexical,
syntactic and phonological.
In order to exemplify lexical differences, Lakoff gives a following situation: a man and a woman
are both looking at the same wall which is painted a pinkish shade of purple. The woman may
say:
"The wall is mauve",
leaving no special impression, whatsoever. However, if a man would utter the same sentence, one
may derive a conclusion that he is either sarcastically repeating what the woman said or that he is
a homosexual or an interior decorator. Mauve and other color names such as aquamarine, ecru,
beige etc. are part of women's everyday vocabulary, while they are almost non-existent in men's
vocabulary. Now, why is this so? Perhaps, the reason for this phenomenon lies in the fact that
women are significantly more color perceptive than men, resulting in men (whose masculinity is
unquestionable) placing 'color names' folder into the 'irrelevant topics' drawer.
Lexical differences also occur in the use of particles, a trait proving that inequality between the
society's treatment of men and women still exists.
Particles indicate the relationship between the speaker and the hearer or the speaker and the
subject matter.
It is widely accepted that 'stronger' expletives or swear-words (e.g. 'shit', 'damn') are reserved for
men, and that the 'weaker' ones (e.g. 'oh, dear', 'my goodness') are assigned to women. The
choice of particle depends on how strongly one allows oneself to feel about a certain situation.
From an early age, women are raised as 'little ladies', thus they were taught not to allow
themselves to react too strongly. That is why they rarely use strong expletives to express their
emotions, but if they do, they usually suggest different things about their personality or, perhaps,
a strong view of the subject matter.
As for the syntactic formations, there is one most typical of women, although not used
exclusively by them. This is the question-tag formation. The usage of tags is halfway between
yes/no questions and direct statements. One makes a statement when one knows something for
certain, and asks a question when in need for more knowledge on some topic, in form of an
answer. By using question tags, one can avoid responsibility which comes hand in hand with
4

giving outright statements as well as avoid possible arguments with the hearer. However, the use
of question-tag formation might result in the speaker leaving an impression of an insecure person
looking for confirmation. This criticism is aimed at women, them being the ones using this
formation more often.
As for the phonological features of women's speech, a distinct intonational pattern can be
perceived. This feature is similar to the previous (syntactic) one: the sentence has the form of a
declarative answer but, instead of question tag at the end, it has the rising intonation which is a
quality of yes/no questions. The effect of this pattern is as though the addressor is the one in need
of confirmation from the addressee, although usually the addressor is the one giving the
information. For example:
(A) When will the pizza be done?
(B) Um... around eight o'clock(?)
Although (B) sentence should be understood as 'around eight o'clock, if you agree, if that's okay
with you, it seems as though (A) is the one providing confirmation and (B) the one who is not
sure. Such intonational pattern usually reveals something about the charater of the person in
question. Based on the given example, as a consequence, one may come to a conclusion that (B)
is insecure, unreliable or weak, which is another evidence of people forming (usually false)
judgements and prejudices about others by drawing conclusions from linguistic behavior which
does not necessarily reflect their real character.
The last two features are probably part of the general belief that women sound more 'polite' than
men. One aspect of politeness is leaving a decision open, without imposing your opinion or
view on anyone else. Question-tag formation is a kind of polite statement, in the sense that it
does not force agreement or belief upon the addressee. A request does not have to require
obedience, but it can be a polite command suggesting something being done as a favor.

Three dominant theories

Taking the year of 1973 as a starting point and following the development of language and
gender research up to the end of the twentieth century, three major approaches can be found.
The earliest modern theory about "women's language," most prominently advocated by Robin
Lakoff (1973), is frequently described as the deficit theory. It views women's language as
ineffective in comparison to men's and reflection of women's insecurity and powerless place in
society.
The dominance theory centers on patriarchy, i. e. male dominance. Language differences are
viewed as a result of unequal access and influence.
The difference theory sees the origin of specific and distinct verbal strategies and
communicative styles developed by men and women in the environment of same-sex childhood
peer groups. This approach proposes the change of focus, from power difference to language
difference, thus attempting to avoid the antagonistic comparison and contributing to valuing and
respecting the differences (Freed, 2003).
Deficit theory
Robin Lakoff, the advocate of the deficit theory, in the book Language and Womans Place
(1975) and a related article, Women's Language, offers views on women's speech, some of which
already mentioned in this paper and presented in brief in the list below:

Speak less frequently

Show they are listening by using minimal responses mm, yeah

Speak more quietly than men and tend to use the higher pitch range of their voices

Use hyper-correct grammar and pronunciation

Use a greater range of intonation and speak in italics

Use question intonation in declarative statements, expressing uncertainty.

Overuse qualifiers

Hedge: using phrases like sort of, kind of, it seems like.

Use super-polite forms

6

Apologise more

Use tag questions

Have a special lexicon: e.g. women use more words for colours, men for sports

Use empty adjectives: divine, lovely, adorable, and make more emotional
evaluations rather than intellectual evaluations, e.g. great, wonderful, fantastic

Use more intensifiers: especially so and very

Use more adjectives to describe approximate amounts, around, about.

Use euphemisms more than men

Use diminutives more than men.

Use more reduplicated forms

Use direct quotation: men paraphrase more often.

Use wh- imperatives

Use modal constructions

Use indirect commands and requests

Avoid slang and avoid coarse language or expletives

Avoid making threats, using aggressive language and insults

Lack a sense of humour: women dont tell jokes well and don't understand the
punch line of jokes.

Dominance theory
The main and early representatives of the dominance model are Zimmerman and West, whose
claims that in mixed-sex conversations men are more likely to interrupt are based on their study
conducted in 1975 on a small, and therefore not highly reliable sample. Their findings show that
in 11 conversations between men and women analyzed in the study, men used 46 interruptions,
while women used only two, with the authors concluding that men interrupt for the purpose of
domination.
In 1982, Geoffrey Beattie countered their findings and conclusions, criticizing inadequacy of
methodology and sample and questioning the meaning of interruptions: "Why do interruptions
necessarily reflect dominance? Do some interruptions not reflect interest and involvement?"
Beattie himself conducted a study recording 10 hours of tutorial discussion in which he found
7

557 interruptions, with women and men interrupting with approximately equal frequency (men
34.1, women 33.8) - the difference in the number of interruptions turned out not to be statistically
significant.
Difference theory
Deborah Tannen
Deborah Tannen, the author of the book You Just Don't Understand summarizes the ideas
presented in her work, offering six contrasts describing differences in language uses of the two
sexes:
Status versus support
Men are primarily taught throughout life that conversation is about competing and maintaining
domination, while women seek confirmation and support through interaction.
Independence versus intimacy
Women tend to prioritize intimacy and gaining support, while men strive towards independence
and attaining social status..
Advice versus understanding
Deborah Tannen claims that many men perceive a complaint as a call to provide a solution, while
what women expect is sympathy.
Information versus feelings
Throughout history, men's concerns tended to be imposed as more important. Nowadays, the
matters are changing, attributing greater value to the expression of emotions and elaboration
rather than providing information and brevity.
Orders versus proposals
Women tend to offer their suggestions indirectly, using expressions such as let's, why don't
we? or wouldn't it be good, if we...? On the other hand, men prefer direct imperative, both in
personal use and being addressed in such way.
Conflict versus compromise
Taking work situations as a relevant example, it is easily noticeable that when faced with an
unattractive decision, men tend to resist immediately and out loud, while women tend to
seemingly agree at first, avoiding conflict, and complain and disagree afterwards.
8

Report talk and rapport talk

Tannen further offers a table of distinctions described as report talk (of men) and rapport talk (of
women):

Women

Men

Talk too much

Get more air time

Speak in private contexts

Speak in public

Build relations

Negotiate status/avoid failure

Overlap

Speak one at a time

Speak symmetrically

Speak asymmetrically

Over time, stereotypes are created. As research into the different ways men and women use
language had been done, a popular opinion has sprung the communicative style of women was
reductively seen as cooperative and that of men as competitive (Wardhaugh, 2010:346).

The

underlying question of why still remained. The use of language was just another facet of male
dominance. Even when a push was made to level the playing field, if you will, it was expected of
women to change their style. Wardhaugh finally poses the question explicitly why is the male
style thrust into the foreground as the unmarked variant?
The male as the norm
This is one of Deborah Tannen's most influential ideas, which is based on the existence of terms
such as mankind which refer to people in general using forms for one, specifically, male sex.
This indicates that the male forms are standard, which leaves female forms with the label of
substandard.
Deborah Cameron, amongst many others, brings up the issue of G.B. Shaws Pygmalion.
Essentially, Eliza Doolittles example aptly illustrates that
for many groups of women in many historical periods, male approval has been the best
guarantee, if not the only one, of economic security and social respectability. Such women
9

had had good reason to become what men wanted women to be: they have had a powerful
incentive to practice self-improvement (2005:168).
This, in no small part, may account for the entrenched position of women as the down-trodden,
marked, subordinate variety, in more than just language. It also points to the underlying attitudes
towards them.
One more piece of evidence comes from the writings of such authors as Samuel Richardson and
his peers. In the nineteenth century in particular, there was a proliferation of didactic literature
aimed at young girls, doling out advice on how to act in order to marry well. Unsurprisingly,
chastity, temperance and obedience were high on the list. It follows from that that most upper
class husbands probably believed this of their wives. However, if, for any reason they felt so
inclined as to insult them, implying the opposite of these virtues applied to them was likely to hit
the mark.
The derogation of terms for women
With this in mind, one may turn their attention to such authors as Muriel R. Schulz, who offers a
pageant of terms that have fallen victim to pejorization. As far as the proportion goes, it is plain
that the scales tip in the favor of men when we compare some pairs of terms. The ever-popular
ones, like master-mistress or professional applied to men and women, come to mind instantly.
Even an act as simple as denoting one gender through the use of term primarily associated with
the other shows us a tendency if a woman is denoted by a word commonly associated with
men, no one bats an eye. For instance, there is a push made by some actresses to be referred to as
actors; so not only is it not offensive, some women may prefer it that way. On the other hand, if
you call a man a word denoting women, it is usually a great insult to his masculinity.
Schulz first talks about democratic leveling using a word once reserved for someone in a high
position to refer to people in all levels of society (1975:83). It is within this process that we find
pairs like Lord-Dame/lady or courtier-courtesan. Right away, it is obvious that language has
been kinder to terms denoting men; their reference has changed little if at all. Dame tends to
denote two very different things: the counterpart of Lord, the lofty title, or the head of brothel,
while any woman may choose to call herself a lady nowadays. Other examples include Madam,

10

Miss and Mistress, which have all derogated and mean a mistress of a brothel, a prostitute,
and a woman with whom a man habitually fornicates, respectively (1975: 83).
There are such words that were once domestic terms, and now tend to have a fairly entrenched
negative connotation. Hussy was derived from the Old English word for housewife and a
spinster was once simply a woman who tended the spinning wheel (1975:84).
Even general terms denoting girls and young women had been tainted. Doll, minx, nymph,
broad, and floozie were all once used without any offense. Now they have a connotation of a lack
of morals or an illicit lover (1975:85).
What Schulz offers as explanation is that men tend to discuss women in a sexual context and
choose to insult them in sexual slurs, since it is highly illogical that such degenerative use
stemmed from women (1975:84).
Negative terms for men
If the topic of this paper is gender and not just women, it would be unfair to leave men out of the
discussion.
Historically, no neutral terms for men had degenerated, so if anyone wanted to insult them, they
would have had to get creative. In a fight, one might want to question their sexual orientation
(e.g. 'faggot'), lessen their masculinity and apply terms to them which have to do with women
(e.g. 'pussy', 'douche') or use a phallic symbol and ascribe a negative meaning to it (e.g. 'prick',
'dick').
Some other slang words for men include mimbo or himbo the male counterparts of bimbo an
unintelligent male. Words that aim at moral derision include man-slut, clearly derived from slut,
and player. A player is a promiscuous man, but men are known to use this word amongst
themselves in a positive way. Other than that, a scrub is an annoying man or one with no class,
and, keeping up with the ageism in the culture, there are words like old coot, geezer, old fart, all
denoting an old man, and rhino, meaning a man who seeks the companionship of younger
women the male counterpart of cougar.
The names of animals shine some light on certain attitudes. If a woman is a fox, she is attractive;
if a man is a(n old) fox, he is sly. A woman is said to be a dog if she is ugly and man is said to be

11

one if he cheats. A cuckold is an object of derision as his wife is cheating on him. Other animals,
like pig or snake, retain the same meaning when applied to both genders.
'Woman As Dessert'
In her article "Rebaking the Pie: The 'WOMAN AS DESSERT' Metaphor", Caitlin Hines deals
with the phenomenon of the widespread type of conceptual metaphors in English (of which
people are generally unaware) equating women as sexual objects with desserts (such as cherry
pie, cheesecake, cookie, peaches etc.). According to Claudine Herrmann, this metaphor functions
as "a micro-language filled with winks and allusions specifically aimed at women" ([1976]
1989:7) and it can have unexpected psycholinguistic side effects.
Linguistic expressions based on the WOMAN AS A DESSERT metaphor have undergone
several semantic shifts, most frequent of which are pejoration (narrowing the range of meaning)
and amelioration (broadening the range of meaning). Pejoration is the more common process, as
Muriel Schulz notes: "Again and again in the history of language, one finds that a perfectly
innocent term designating a girl or a woman may begin with totally neutral or even positive
connotations, but that gradually it acquires negative implications, at first perrhaps only slightly
disparaging, but after a period of time becoming abusive and ending as a sexual slur." (1975:65).
An example of a term which has undergone pejoration is tart, which in the 19th century was an
affectionate term for a woman of pleasant appearance. This meaning was maintained in the 20th
century in Liverpudlian, Australian and New Zealand dialects of English alongside its U.S.
meaning 'prostitute' (Oxford English Dictionary 1989; Rawson 1989:381; Wilkes 1990:326).
George Orwell wrote in 1931: "This word |tart|...seems absolutely interchangable with 'girl', with
no implication of 'prostitute'. People will speak of their daughter or sister as a tart" (quoted in
Oxford English Dictionary 1989).
Another example of derogatory term related to women is apiece of cake, which might seem
completely unconnected to gender. Yet as Eric Partridge wrote of piece, "it has, in 19th century
been usually apprehended as elliptical for piece of tail; cf. piece of mutton..." Cake by itself is
slang for 'prostitute', making this reading doubly motivated (Spears 1981:61).
These two senses converge in cherry pie. Jane Mills writes:

12

"In the second half of the 19th century cherry and cherry pie began to be used colloquially for
an attractive young woman. By the mid-20th century cherry pie came to mean something easily
obtainable...perhaps influenced by the notion that a young woman who was considered attractive
was sexually promiscuous, i.e. a ripe fruit ready for picking and for (male) consumption."
Besides the cherry, a woman is frequently called a peach, plum, or tomato, and a woman who
sells sex for drugs is known as a (straw)berry. There is, of course, a number of fruit terms for
breasts, such as apples, casabas, cantaloupes, grapefruits, lemons, melons and watermelons, all
of which emphasize the ripe, fresh, juicy quality of desirable women (a wrinkled old prune - 'a
woman past her sexual prime'). Extensions include cherry orchard ('girls' dormitory) and cherry
picker (a man who desires young girls).
However, speakers today are not necessarily aware of these implications - people of both genders
call each other 'honey pie' all the time with genuine affection, nor is every term necessarily
polluted with sexist connotations and must automatically be excluded from our speech.
According to Deborah Cameron it is not the language that we should be changing but the minds
of their users: "in the mouths of sexists, language can always be sexist" (1985:90).

Conclusion
Reflecting on gendered linguistics practices, in accordance with extensive research conducted in
previous years, it could be concluded that all the three approaches discussed above have their
limitations and drawbacks.
The main problems are pointed out by Sally Johnson (1997), who observes that each of the
approaches is "characterized by almost exclusive problematization of women" (Johnson, 1997:
10), and each is characterized by the use "of a concept of gender based on binary opposition."
The authors of this paper agree with the assertions of Holmes and Stubbe (2003), concluding that
gendered linguistics practices have been overgeneralized in works of the aforementioned authors,
while they are in essence far more complex. Furthermore, the gender differences in the use of
language turn out to be of minor depth than presented in earlier works and can be reduced to the
level of stereotypes. As cleverly observed by Cynthia Fuchs Epstein (1988), "most gender
differences are socially created and therefore may be socially altered."

13

In terms of derogation, there is a distinct pattern to be observed: most of the terms mentioned
started out without any negative connotations or, just the opposite, with very good ones. The first
step towards denigration was introducing a sexual component and shifting the meaning to
"attractive". Then, there was the implication of loose morals and, finally, of promiscuity.
In conjunction with that, the absence of such a process with words denoting men seems to have
lead to terms denoting women being applied to men in a negative way. This is apparent in the
derivation of some such words.
Generally speaking, the female is the marked gender, and language shows this. Social
circumstances have lead to certain attitudes and certain easily detectable differences. It remains
to be seen whether raised awareness or political correctness will avail the situation. As yet, not
enough time has passed for any noticeable change to happen across the board and gender
differences in terms of derogation are alive and well in language.

References
Beattie, G. W. (1982). Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews: Margaret Thatcher
and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted. Semiotica, vol. 39, pp. 93-114.
Cameron, D. (2005). Verbal Hygiene. London and New York, Routledge. (originally published in
1995).
Freed. A. F. (2003). Epilogue: Reflections on Language and Gender Research, The Handbook on
Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699-721.

Fuchs Epstein, C. (1988). Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Herrmann, C. (1989). The tongue snatchers. Trans. Nancy Kline. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1976).
Hines, C. (2000). Rebaking the Pie: The WOMAN AS DESSERT Metaphor, Reinventing
Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse, New-York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.
145-162.
Holmes, J. & Stubbe, M. (2003). Feminine" Workplaces: Stereotype and Reality, The Handbook
of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 573-599.
Johnson, S. (1997). Theorizing language and masculinity, Language and Masculinity. Oxford:
14

Blackwell, pp. 8-26.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, vol. 2, pp. 45-80.
Mills, J. (1989). Womanwords: A dictionary of words about women. New York: Henry Holt.
Partridge, E. (1984). Partridge's dictionary of slang and unconventional English. Ed. Paul
Beale.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rawson, H. (1989). Wicked words. New York: Crown.
Schulz, M. R. (1975). The Semantic Derogation of Women. In The Routledge Language and
Cultural Theory Reader (2000), edited by Lucy Burke, Tony Crowley and Alan Girvin, pp. 8291. London and New York, Routledge.
Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.) (1989). Oxford English dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Spears, R. A. (1981). Slang and euphemism. New York: Jonathan David.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
William Morrow & Co.
Wardhaugh,R. (2010). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. [6th
edition]
Wilkes, G. A. (1990). A dictionary of Australian colloquialisms. Sydney, Australia: Sydney
University Press.
Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation,
Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 105-29.
Electronic sources for examples of slang:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jimmy-chen/2011/01/derogatory-names-for-guys/
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/thesaurus/words+meaning+man,+men,+male.html

15