American Literature
The concept of gender is broader than the restrictive notions of being assigned one of the biological labels 2male2 or 2female2. Socially, we have been trained to think that everyone fits neatly into one of these two categories. We also have the tendency to equate gender with sex and even using both concepts interchangeably at times. The fact is, there is a fundamental difference between one2s sex and one2s gender. Sex is defined by many researchers as a binary and biological distinction between male and female. On the other hand, the gender of a person is said to be socially determined. As such, gender entails how a person behaves socially, and encompasses attitudes and expectations in relation to being male and female. Many researchers agree that gender and sex are indeed two different constructs. Wodak (1997) sees gender and gendered identities as social, individual and also variable. Johnson and Meinhoff (1997) point out that the widely held view of men and women as binary opposites needs to be seen in a much broader way in linguistic thinking. Whatever the views, gender differences have sparked heated debates starting from as far back as the 19202s. The fact is, wherever there are males and females, communication (written or spoken) is bound to happen. In addition, there is no doubt that there will be interplay (consciously or unconsciously) between both genders.
Man talk or woman talk
There is an age-old assertion that men and women use language in different ways, for different reasons and for different things. This assertion is widely accepted as valid in most societies and presumably offers a reason why men and women tend to communicate differently. According to Butler (1990), gender is socially and culturally constructed through everyday discourse. It is not all about ones biological makeup as male or female but gender also entails 2doing2 or performing our gender. This he says entails choosing from among norms of language suitable and intelligible for performing gender. Butler implies that gender is learnt. This implication ties in with the assumption that the identities of both male and female are constructed by and within the society. Language is also socially constructed. As the major tool for communication, language conforms to the language standards of society. People are who they are and communicate the way they do because of societal and cultural norms. Cameron (1998) adds that people activate power whenever they produce meaning. In short, gender encompasses how language is used by males and females and considers ways in which people use language to express ideas about each other.
Another point is that how we say things about males and females reflects the ideology of our society. People2s language use captures the biases and stereotypes prevalent in our society. These biases and stereotypes are later passed down to children. Children learn attitudes and values, assumptions and expectations from parents and they also pick up other values in the communication act while interacting with each gender. Still, this and many other competing schools of thought do not account for the differences in male and female speech patterns.
Researchers continue to search for an explanation into the differences between male and female speech patterns. Given the popular currency of thought at the time, a significant fact worth noting is the many and varied theories that were born out of such competing perspectives on language and gender. Many researchers have put forward possible explanations as to why these differences exist many of these explanations have further 2muddied2 the water, providing contradictory findings which reflect the polarized views at the time. Three such past theorizations are based on the female deficit approach, the cultural difference approach and the dominance approach.
The (female) deficit approach
The framework for the deficit approach can be traced back to the 19202s when the popular linguist Otto Jespersen proposes that the speech patterns of women differs from that of men. This he claims is as a result of marked differences in biological make up. He classified women2s speech as 2deficient2 when compared to that of men. His work later inspired Robin Lakoff (1975) who tenders a list of speech acts that typifies women speech. Her work should be viewed against the backdrop of the militant feminist movement at the time. The feminist movement has greatly influenced early developments in studies pertaining to language and gender. This movement was highly political in nature and focused on empowering women in a male dominated society.
Lakeoff agrees with Jespersen on the premise that women2s speech is different from that of men. In a bid to prove her point, she proffers a list of features that are prominent in women2s speech. The list includes the use of polite forms such as euphemism, avoidance of swear words, use of tag questions such as 2don2t you2 haven2t we2 emphatic stress and evasive devices such as 2sort of2 2I think2 2I would be very grateful2 among others. Lakoff also claims that women2s speech is characterized by modification in grammar and pronunciation, all of which render women2s language powerless, trivial and tentative. As such, women are disqualified from occupying positions of power and authority. Here, she sees language as a tool of oppression.
Although Lakoff2s assertions have contributed much to the debate on language and gender, her findings have done little to change the biases and stereotypes of her time. As a matter of fact, her findings as well as Jespersen2s were deeply rooted in the ideologies of their time. Lakoff2s findings have courted much scrutiny and her work was heavily criticized and challenged. Bergvall, Bing and Freed (1996) label Lakoff2s suggestions as 2a list of alleged female linguistic offences.2 Talbot (1998) points out that empirical study have backed up a few of her speculations including women2s tendency to use tag questions. Later research was conducted in an effort to verify Lakoff2s claims. Some research focused on women2s excessive use of tag questions. The findings turned up mixed results. O2Barr Atkins (1980) continued further work on women2s language to ascertain whether female speech is powerless. They made use of Lakoff2s list of features applying it in American courtroom settings to both males and females. They added to the debate by proposing that women2s language is 2powerless language2 a term he also applies to those of inferior status. Crosby and Nyquist (1977) conducted further research which included use of tag questions. Their findings show that women use more tag questions than men. Dubois and Crouch (1975) challenged the prevailing stereotypes by positing that men use tag questions too, sometimes more often than women. The many conflicting views surrounding the deficit approach have not presented any clear-cut evidence to prove that women2s speech patterns are different from that of men.
The methods used in data collection were also questionable. According to Coates (1998), early researchers in gender differences focused much on mixed talk. What they show however, is that gender language patterns are not as straightforward as assumed. Wolfram Schilling- Estes (1998) point out that Lakoff 2relied on literary texts, casual observation, and reflections on her own linguistic usages rather than on large bodies of empirical evidence in forming her generalizations.2 What the researches show however, is that gender language patterns are not as straightforward as is assumed. Overtime, the deficit approach became outdated and researchers courted a newer perspective, the (cultural) difference approach.
The Difference approach
Unhappy with the findings of the deficit approach, researchers turned to other ways of explaining the differences in male and female speech patterns. The difference theory sees female speech as being 2different but equal2. It looks at men and women as belonging to two different social groups. The approach is based on Maltz and Borker2s work (1982) which argues that cultural differences are formed in childhood when boys and girls interact within their same sex groups. Boys are oriented in same-sex groups where there is a hierarchical relationship. In such groups, power and proving oneself oftentimes through words is of utmost importance. Hence boys tend to develop language patterns that are competitive rather than cooperative in nature. Their speech is said to be more aggressive and dominant and usually less polite. Girls on the other hand are trained to be cooperative, interactional and polite in their speech patterns. This can be seen in the games they play which involve low levels of aggression or conflicts and encourage intimacy and friendship. It is within these groups that communicative competence is learned. This is in accordance with Butler2s (1970) views that gender is socially constructed.
According to the difference perspective, differences in orientation are made more evident within mixed sex conversation. It is assumed therefore that in mixed sex groups, typical features of male and female speech patterns will occur. Males will interrupt, take longer turns and females will be more polite and cooperative in conversation with men. Zimmerman and West (1975) conducted their research in same sex and cross sex conversation and came up with the following findings women ask more questions than men, women are compared to children in that they cannot be taken seriously and their verbal and non-verbal behaviours are questionable, men tend to interrupt more in cross sex conversations while females have the tendency to be more silent. Zimmerman postulates that this shows that women can be treated as children. Their turn in conversations with men can be easily forfeited. In their research, Zimmerman and West point out that interruption is usually done by the dominant party. Again, there is a mixed reaction to the above-mentioned findings. Talbot (1998) did not wholly agree with the findings of West and Zimmerman. She reports that there is nothing significant about interruptions in same sex conversations but that there are more interruptions in mixed sex groups, most is done by men. Further work was done by Murray Covelli (1998) and Beattie (1993) using more sophisticated psychological approach. Their findings showed that women also interrupt men and vice-versa. In terms of men interrupting women, Talbot points out women try to avoid interrupting men2s turns, deferring them instead.
Talbot sees their methods for collecting data as questionable and 2crude2. She hastens to point out that the data Zimmerman and West collected were not available to ascertain credibility. This, she says, can cause their findings to be discredited. The approach offers little by way of accounting for differences in male and female speech patterns. Like the deficit approach, this new approach is now outdated as it also focuses on the binary distinctions between both genders and upholds the dichotomy between men and women language.
The dominance approach
There are overlaps between the difference and the dominance theories. The dominance theory is centred on the belief that men and women2s language use is as a result of social dominance and the positions they occupy within society. Men are seen as occupying superior positions to women. Men have therefore developed dominant modes of expressing themselves in any society. The position is that if women want to be understood by men, they will have to act and speak like men. Again, male speech patterns are seen as the norm and female speech as deficit. Another implication of the dominance framework is that since society is patriarchal in nature women are oppressed within a system that empowers only males. This dominance is demonstrated in conversation between males and females. Goodwin2s (1992) work in investigating girl2s play offers interesting insights on how boys and girls interact in same sex groups. Her aim was to find out how girls2 directives and social organization change in different activities. She observed children accomplishing tasks while playing. Her findings support the assertions that men and women are from two different social groups. In organizing tasks, girls tend to be more cooperative and considerate in their utterances. They are more democratic in organization. Their interaction was free of rude comments, coercion and insults and all worked together to achieve a common goal. A rare occurrence in girls2 speech is the use of directives. Girls tend to use more cooperative and inclusive language such as 2Let us go2 2why don2t we2. Goodwin notes that girls employ different ways of getting things done. If a directive is issued, it is often accompanied by an explanation as to why it is to be carried out. This contrasts markedly with the behaviour of boys in their groups. Boys employ a 2top down2 approach in their group. The more knowledgeable male asserts his dominance and this is often reflected in the issuance of directives. Others in his group complied by carrying out orders. If the dominant male is challenged, more aggressive measures such as insults and expulsion will be used to maintain the hierarchy. This has great implications as to what happens in cross sex conversation. It is assumed that men will no doubt enact their competitiveness in setting the trend for conversation and women will be cooperative using supportive questions and back channel utterances. Coates (1998) posits that these findings along with others are hardly conclusive. She points out that the few studies done overtly suggest that poor communication in cross sex groups are as a result of how boys and girls are socialized.
All three views emphasize a simple male-female dichotomy. According to Freed (1996) they all downplay the power relations that underlie the different interactional styles into which boys and girls are socialized. They also emphasize male and female opposition, cater to the unchallenged ideologies of the time and disregard linguistic and social reality. Most look at spoken discourse and not the written. They look at all utterances as indicative of gender instead of pinpointing salient stretches of gendered discourse. They were more quantitative in nature and their methods for collecting and storing data was subjected to scrutiny. Another point to note is that much earlier work was conducted from a feminist perspective and emancipatory in aim (Christie 2000). As such, they were limited in scope. Researchers over the years have been moving away from all three approaches to concentrate more fully on how gender as a social construct affects language use.
The dynamic approach and Communities of practice
Researchers today are more concerned with how males and females are constructed through language. Their view of gender as active and interactive has put a slightly different spin on the issue of how language differences between genders are viewed. According to the dynamic approach, gender is something we do in our everyday activities, including linguistics acts. Language plays a major role in 2doing2 gender. The dynamic approach has ties to post structuralism which suggests the notion of performativity (Butler 1990). Males and females use language patterns and styles typical of their own gender group. It is through these speech acts that gendered identities are formed.
The communities of practice theory looks at individuals as a part of a group or groups. Specifically, they are interested in how gender identities are formed and replicated through participation in different communities of practice. In such communities, there is a chance to see the different ways in which language, identity and social context interact and how meaning is constructed in these diverse socio-cultural domains. This is in keeping with Butler2s view that gender is a social construct. Hence, studying male and female language patterns can be viewed in real contexts, in real situations and with real people. Mullany (2007) has provided valuable insights in public discourse in workplaces. In her study, she reports that male and female managers utilize a range of speech styles that were once associated with feminity. This goes against past approaches that argue that speech acts in the workplace usually reflects male domination.
The new research paradigms differ from the old essentialist paradigms in that they take on a more multidisciplinary approach. This approach is based on the premise that we all belong to communities of practices (Cofps). When males and females come together in a cause, perform a task or share in a mutual endeavour- ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations, in short, practices will emerge, (Eckert McConnell-Ginet, 1992). In such social settings, gender identities will be defined, redefined and contested as participants assume roles within these communities. These approaches are more concerned with intra-gender and cross-gender interaction. They emphasize context as an integral part of gender-based language patterns. They give special consideration to the interaction of gender with other social categories including age, ethnicity, religion and class. Meaning is constructed within local contexts or settings such as the home, the workplace, a club etc. They challenge polarized stances of society regarding deficit, dominance and difference offering the proposition that because of the constant interplay of competing discourses speakers will constantly vary. The communities of practice approach and the dynamic approach make use of new theoretical and methodical ways of indentifying the range of discourses at play in the various contexts. They are more qualitative then quantitative in scope and hence are more descriptive. As such, they are geared towards moving away from overgeneralization and concocted accounts that once typify the analysis of data in the past. Both approaches look at gender not in binary terms but in a celebratory way. Last, they embrace other methodological approaches such as Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis as integral in examining language and discourse.
Unanswered questions
There are two problem areas on which both past and current theories have not fully agreed nor have offered a plausible explanation the first is, what really constitutes gender and how does one know what part of an utterance should be lifted from a string of discourse and be labelled a 2female pattern2 or 2male pattern2. What if gender does not play an integral role in a piece of text or an utterance There are still many unanswered questions because gender still features prominently in all theories as plausible explanations for human behaviours.
In concluding, there have been advances in analyzing male and female speech patterns. The results of past approaches have proven to be quite fruitful and though outdated, have added more fire to the ongoing debate on gender issues in the public arena. We have come a long way from the simplistic deficit perspective to perspectives that take a more interdisciplinary approach. It is hoped that as old approaches continue to inform new and emerging approaches, there will be a difference in the way we as human beings look at language use in general.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment