Language and Woman's Place by Robin Lakoff

Language and Woman's Place by Robin Lakoff

Abstract

• Language reflects attitudes and meanings.

• 'Woman's language' suggests women are not central to important matters, a domain dominated by men.

• This marginality is evident in how women are expected to speak and how they are spoken about.

• Women's speech tends to avoid strong expressions of feeling, favors uncertainty, and elaborates on 'trivial' subjects.

• Speech about women often implies they are objects, sexualized with euphemisms, their social roles secondary to men.

• Women's personal identity is linguistically diminished, hindering their treatment as serious individuals.

• Exploration of these aspects covers lexicon (color terms, particles, evaluative adjectives) and syntax (tag-questions, intonation in requests/orders).

• Analysis extends to terms like lady/woman, master/mistress, widow/widower, and Mr/Mrs./Miss, noting role terms not explicitly marked for sex.

• The paper offers suggestions for social reform, second language teaching, and theoretical linguistics.

• Linguistic generalizations require studying social mores alongside linguistic data.

Introduction

• Language influences us as much as we influence it; feelings shape expression.

• Synonyms can differ based on the speaker's attitude.

• Feelings color expressions, acting as diagnostics for hidden feelings.

• Linguistic data is objective, offering insights into sociological phenomena like sexism.

• This paper uses language to diagnose inequities between men and women's roles.

• It explores how language use reflects the nature and extent of this inequity.

• It questions whether changing linguistic disparities can correct social inequities.

• Women face linguistic discrimination in how they are taught to speak and how general language use treats them.

• This relegates women to subservient roles, portraying them as sex objects or servants.

• Lexical items change meaning when applied to men versus women, reflecting societal roles.

• Data is gathered mainly through introspection, personal experiences, and media analysis.

• Acknowledges that introspective methods may yield dubious results but defends its validity by emphasizing that all analysis is introspective.

• Random conversation requires specific focus and may not guarantee relevant data.

• The paper is presented as one possible approach to the problem rather than a conclusive statement.

• Claims are intended to hold for the majority of English speakers, potentially universally.

• The paper aims to provide a basis for comparison and further research, identifying universal and non-universal elements.

Talking Like a Lady

• Girls who 'talk rough' are often ostracized, highlighting society's control through language.

• Teaching specific linguistic uses to girls raises problems, potentially leading to future devaluation.

• Women are often criticized for being unable to speak precisely or forcefully because of their learned speech patterns.

• Women are damned if they do (talk like a lady) and damned if they don't (refuse to talk like a lady).

• 'Women's language' includes language used exclusively by women and language describing women in particular ways.

• It diminishes a woman's personal identity by restricting strong self-expression.

• It encourages triviality and uncertainty and treats women as objects rather than individuals with views.

• These linguistic discrepancies systematically deny women access to power, attributing it to their perceived inadequacies.

• Women internalize these inadequacies due to their successful learning of prescribed behaviors.

Specific Examples

• Women's speech differs from men's at all levels of grammar: lexicon, syntax, intonation.

• Lexical differences: Women use more precise color discriminations (mauve, aquamarine, lavender) than men.

• Men may find such fine color distinctions trivial and irrelevant.

• Color discrimination is considered relevant for women but not men, similar to how men view high culture or the Church.

• Women are relegated to making non-crucial decisions like color naming.

Particles

• Differences exist in using 'meaningless' particles that define social context.

• Particles indicate relationships between speaker and addressee and speaker and subject.

Experiment:

• Present pairs of sentences differing only in particles to native speakers.

  • (3a) Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again.

  • (3b) Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again.

• Predict that (3a) would be classified as 'women's language' and (3b) as 'men's language'.

• Women are increasingly using men's language, but the reverse isn't happening.

• The language of the powerful group is adopted by the less powerful one.

• Stronger expletives are reserved for men, weaker ones for women.

Stronger vs. Weaker Expletives:

• Difference lies in how forcefully one expresses feelings.

• Particle choice reflects the strength of emotion one allows oneself to feel.

• In serious situations, using 'trivializing' particles is inappropriate.

  • (4a) *Oh fudge, my hair is on fire.

  • (4b) *Dear me, did he kidnap the baby?

• Children and social expectations:

  • Girls are encouraged to be 'little ladies' and are chastised for showing temper.

  • 'High spirits' are tolerated in boys, while docility is expected of girls.

• Men are excused for displays of temper, while women are limited to fussing and complaining.

• The use of different particles is a learned trait mirroring nonlinguistic differences.

• Allowing men stronger expression reinforces their position of strength.

• Forceful expression commands more attention, while those unable to be forceful are less likely to be taken seriously.

• Women are denied equality due to linguistic reasons, with language pointing out areas of inequity.

• Emotional expression allows individuals to be seen as real, preventing them from being dismissed.

Adjectives

• Adjectives can indicate the speaker's approbation.

• Some adjectives are neutral, while others are confined to women's speech.

  • Neutral: great, terrific, cool, neat

  • Women only: adorable, charming, sweet, lovely, divine

• Men using 'women's' adjectives risk their reputation.

• Women's use of 'women's' words carries risks depending on the context.

Examples

• (5a) What a terrific idea!

• (5b) What a divine idea!

• (5a) is appropriate for any situation by a female speaker, but (5b) suggests the idea is frivolous or unimportant.

• A woman advertising executive would use (5a) at a conference but might use (5b) when a friend suggests she dye her poodles.

• Words restricted to 'women's language' imply the concepts are not relevant to the male-dominated world.

• 'Groovy' is a recent term denoting approval of the trivial/personal without marking the speaker as feminine; used by hippies who reject the Protestant work ethic.

Steel Mill Example

• (6a) What a terrific steel mill!

• (6b) *What a lovely steel mill! (male speaking)

• (6c) What a groovy steel mill!

Social Groups and Language

• Hippies are separated from activities of the 'real world', enabling them to express personal approval.

• Upper-class British men may use feminine lexical items without raising masculinity doubts.

• These words aren't inherently feminine but signal 'uninvolved' or 'out of power'.

• Academic men, viewed as outside the power structure, may use 'women's language'.

• This is laughable to those who reinforce the stereotype of professors as effete snobs.

Syntax

• Syntactically, women's speech is peculiar.

• There is no syntactic rule only women may use, but women use tag-question formation more.

• Syntactic rules are governed by social context.

• Tag questions are between statements and yes-no questions, used when the speaker lacks full confidence.

Examples of Tag Questions

• (7) Is John here?

• (8) John is here, isn't he?

• A tag question is a declarative statement without the assumption it will be believed by the addressee.

• It gives the addressee leeway and avoids forcing the speaker's views.

• Tag question usage in indistinct views:

  • (9) I had my glasses off. He was out at third, wasn't he?

• Tag questions may be used in cases where the speaker knows as well as the addressee what the answer must be, and doesn't need confirmation. * when making 'small talk':

  • (10) Sure is hot here, isn't it?

• Questioning one's own opinions is usually ridiculous:

  • (11) *I have a headache, don't I?

• Corroboration is sought, when speaker is reluctant to state baldly:

  • (12) The war in Vietnam is terrible, isn't it?

• Women tend to use tag questions more than men for avoiding commitment and conflict.

• This can give the impression of uncertainty and lacking one's own views.

Intonational Patterns

• Women use a declarative answer with a rising inflection, seeking confirmation.

  • (13) (A) When will dinner be ready?

  • (B) Oh … around six o'clock… ?

• (B) sounds unsure, giving (A) the role of providing confirmation.

• Unwillingness to assert an opinion may lead to not being taken seriously.

• Women's speech sounds more polite, leaving decisions open, not imposing views.

• Tag questions are polite statements not forcing agreement/belief.

• Requests are polite commands suggesting something be done as a favor.

• Overt orders assume the speaker's superiority.

• Suggestions imply the addressee will be glad if they comply.

• Politeness is increased with more particles reinforcing a request.

Examples (14):

• (a) Close the door. - direct order

• (b) Please close the door. - simple request

• (c) Will you close the door? - simple request

• (d) Will you please close the door? - compound request

• (e) Won't you close the door? - compound request

• (14c) is close in sense to 'Are you willing to close the door?'

• (14d) is more polite because it combines (b) and (c).

• (14e) is more polite because it suggests a negative response.

• Speakers are less committed with tag questions and orders.

• More compound requests are characteristic of women's speech.

• Women's speech is designed to prevent the expression of strong statements.

Talking About Women

• Women are prejudiced by how they and others refer to them.

• Words for both men and women acquire derogatory meanings when applied to women.

• When a word acquires a bad connotation by association with something unpleasant or embarrassing people search for substitutes that do not have the uncomfortable effect; that is, euphemisms.

• Euphemisms cluster around areas of psychological strain or discomfort in a culture.

• 'Lady' is a euphemism for 'woman' in many contexts with different connotations.

• 'Lady' is more common than 'gentleman', suggesting it's a euphemism for 'woman'.

• A derogatory epithet exists, a parallel euphemism is deemed necessary. * To avoid 'lady', one must remove 'broad' and the underlying negative view of women.

• The presence of the words is a signal that something is wrong, rather than the problem itself.

• One cannot avoid 'ladies' without respecting women and avoiding discomfort about their roles.

Lady vs Woman

• 'Lady' doesn't always have the same connotations as 'woman'.

• Choosing one term over the other alters the sense of a sentence.

Examples (15):

• (a) A (woman/lady) that I know makes amazing things out of shoelaces and old boxes.

• (b) A (woman/lady) I know works at Woolworth's.

• (c) A (woman/lady) I know is a dean at Berkeley.

• In (15c), 'lady' imparts a frivolous tone while 'woman' suggests something serious.

• 'Lady' is more colloquial, less used in writing or serious matters.

• In (15a), 'lady' suggests non-serious art, while 'woman' implies a serious sculptor.

Job Terminology

• Lower status jobs use 'lady' (cleaning lady, saleslady), while higher status jobs use 'woman' (woman doctor).

• 'Lady doctor' is condescending.

• Male professions don't have this dichotomy (garbage man, salesman).

• 'Lady' trivializes the subject matter, ridiculing the woman involved.

• 'Lady atheist' reduces Madalyn Murray O'Hair to an eccentric.

• 'Lady sculptor' implies frivolous art.

Organizations

• Serious organizations use 'woman', while less serious ones use 'lady'.

• Examples: Ladies' Auxiliary vs. Ladies' Lib or Ladies Strike for Peace.

• 'Lady' subtly denigrates people, suggesting they're not serious.

Euphemisms

• Euphemisms aim to remove uncomfortable connotations.

• Euphemisms for 'toilet try to get away from the notion of excrement by employing successively more elegant terminology.

• Derogatory terms for women are often overtly sexual.

• 'Lady' may function as a euphemism by avoiding sexual implications.

Examples (16):

• (a) She's only twelve, but she's already a woman.

• (b) After ten years in jail, Harry wanted to find a woman.

• (c) She's my woman, see, so don't mess around with her.

• 'Lady' creates a sense of frivolity due to its euphemistic nature.

• Euphemisms are not typically used in serious discussions.

  • The discomfort men suffer in contemplating, more or less unconsciously, the sexuality of women is traceable to guilt feelings on their part.

• Dealing with women as primarily sexual demeans them, making men ambivalent.

• This contributes to the ridicule heaped on Women's Lib in the media.

• Women are viewed as secondary beings, existing only when defined by men.

Word Pair Analysis (Master/Mistress)

• Pairs of male-female equivalents diverge in meaning over time.

• 'Master' and 'mistress' originated as power dynamics; they now have divergent meanings.

Examples (18) and (19):

• (18a) He is a master of the intricacies of academic politics.

• (18b) *She is a mistress …

• (19a) *Harry declined to be my master, and so returned to his wife.

• (19b) Rhonda declined to be my mistress, and so returned to her husband.

• 'Master' now refers to ability in a non-sexual field, but 'mistress' is restricted to its sexual sense of 'paramour'.

• 'Master' requires an inanimate object, while 'mistress' requires a masculine noun.

Example (20)

• Rhonda is a mistress. is an incomplete statement. It requires the specification Rhonda is someone's mistress.

• Men are defined by what they do, women by their relationships with men.

• Men's and women's 'power' is acquired and manifested differently.

Second Example: Professional

• Sentences (21a) and (21b) should be semantically parallel:

  • (21a) He's a professional.

  • (21b) She's a professional.

• (21a) suggests a doctor/lawyer, while (21b) suggests a prostitute.

• Men are defined in the serious world by what they do, women by their sexuality.

• The sexual definition of women is one facet of a larger problem.

• Women are identified in terms of men they relate to.

• Men act as autonomous individuals, women as someone's wife/girlfriend.

• Meeting a woman, questions focus on her husband's occupation.

• When a woman is considered for public office, her 'bathing-beauty figure' is mentioned.

• When Nixon nominated a woman to his Price Board, it was mentioned that her husband was a professor of English.

• The existence of a spouse was as irrelevant for this woman appointee as the existence of a wife was for any of the male appointees, the husband was mentioned, since a woman cannot be placed in her position in society by the readers of The Times unless they know her marital status. * This is not at all true of men.

• A woman candidate is referred to as Mrs. Feinstein, opponents by first/last names.

• Women must be identified by their relationship to a man.

Spinster vs. Bachelor

• Spinster and bachelor are denotatively equivalent (unmarried), but bachelor is neutral/positive, while spinster is pejorative.

Examples (22):

• (22a) Mary hopes to meet an eligible bachelor.

• (22b) *Fred hopes to meet an eligible spinster.

• The concept of an eligible spinster is anomalous.

• A spinster is ineligible to marry, while a bachelor freely chooses.

• Bachelor implies one has the choice of marrying or not, and this is what makes the idea of a bachelor existence attractive, in the popular literature. * One has been pursued and has successfully eluded his pursuers. * But a spinster is one who has not been pursued, or at least not seriously. * She is old unwanted goods.

• Bachelor girl is a euphemism for spinster.

Bachelor/Spinster Metaphorically

• Metaphorical connotations differ:

  • 23a) John is a regular bachelor.

  • (23b) Mary is a regular spinster.

• 'Bachelor' suggests sexual freedom; 'spinster' suggests puritanism/celibacy.

Nuptial Traditions

• It's a faux pas to congratulate a girl on her engagement.

  • To remind a girl that she must catch someone, that perhaps she might not have caught anyone, is rude, and this is what is involved, effectively, in congratulating someone to congratulate someone. * It is to rejoice with him in his good fortune; but it is not quite nice to remind a girl that getting married is good fortune for her, indeed a veritable necessity; it is too close to suggesting the bad fortune that it would be for her had she not found someone to marry. * In the context of this society's assumptions about women's role, to congratulate a girl on her engagement is virtually to say, 'Thank goodness! * You had a close call!' * For the man, on the other hand, there was no such danger. * His choosing to marry is viewed as a good thing, but not something essential, and so he may be congratulated for doing a wise thing. * If man and woman were equal in respect to marriage, it would be proper either to congratulate both, or neither.

• 'I now pronounce you man and wife.'

  • The man's position isn't changed by marriage, but the woman transitions from 'woman' to 'wife'.

• This defines her in terms of her husband.

Widow/Widower

• A bereaved husband and a bereaved wife should be equivalent.

• Widow is more commonly used, expected to mourn more.

Example (24):

• (24a) Mary is John's widow.

• (24b) *John is Mary's widower.

• Like 'mistress', 'widow' commonly occurs with a preceding possessive.

• The worst thing that can happen to a woman is to be a spinster.

• Women are given identities by their relationships with men.

Gendered Titles (Mr./Mrs./Miss)

• Men choose whether they will marry, and if notmarried their lifestyle is often revered with access to plenty of sexual partners.

• But is a woman doesn't marry it might be assumed that no one found her desirable.

• There is a lack of parallelism in men's and women's titles.

• Since a significant part of the opinion one normally forms about a woman's character and social station depends on her marital status - as is not the case with men - it is obvious that the title of address should supply this information in the case of women, but not of men.

• To remedy this imbalance, a bill was proposed in the United States Congress by Bella Abzug and others that would legislate a change in women's titles: Miss and Mrs would both be abolished in favor of Ms.

  • Rather less seriously, the converse has been proposed by Russell Baker, that two terms should be created for men, Mrm and Srs depending upon marital status.

Why?: * To give a clue to participant in social interaction how the other person is to be regarded.

Imbalance of Titles Based on Social Status

*Mr.' tells you only what you already know and does not aid in establishing ranking or relationship between two people.
Social distinctions, overt or covert, continue to exist, we will be unable to rid our language of titles that make reference to them.

Naming Conventions

Robin Lakoff's "Language and Woman's Place" meticulously catalogues linguistic disparities that reflect and reinforce societal inequities against women. Lakoff argues that language is not merely a tool for communication but also a mirror reflecting cultural attitudes and power dynamics. Her work identifies specific linguistic patterns, such as women's use of tag questions, precise color vocabulary, and 'meaningless' particles, and analyzes how these patterns contribute to women's perceived lack of authority and triviality in social interactions.

Lakoff's analysis can be contextualized within broader linguistic and sociological theories. For instance, her observations align with Pierre Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic capital,' where language functions as a form of capital that can be unequally distributed based on social factors like gender. Lakoff's 'women’s language' can be seen as a form of linguistic behavior that, while potentially offering politeness, simultaneously diminishes their symbolic capital, reducing their influence and authority in public spheres. The concept of linguistic relativity, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also adds depth to Lakoff's arguments, suggesting that language structures can influence thought and perception. By internalizing specific linguistic patterns, women may also internalize the societal roles and expectations conveyed through these patterns.

Furthermore, Lakoff's exploration of euphemisms and the shifting connotations of terms like 'lady' and 'woman,' 'master' and 'mistress,' illustrates the social construction of language. These shifting meanings reflect broader cultural anxieties and discomforts related to gender and sexuality. This aligns with post-structuralist perspectives, which view language as a fluid and dynamic system, constantly shaped by power relations and social contexts.

Contemporary scholars have expanded on Lakoff's work by examining how these linguistic patterns intersect with other social categories, such as race, class, and sexuality. They explore how language is used to negotiate identity and power in diverse social settings, critiquing and refining Lakoff's original assertions to account for the complexities of intersectionality. These modern interpretations underscore the ongoing relevance of Lakoff's arguments in understanding the intricate relationship between language, society, and gender.

While Robin Lakoff's "Language and Woman's Place" was groundbreaking, it has faced several critiques:

• Overgeneralization: Some critics argue that Lakoff overgeneralizes about women's language, assuming a universal experience that doesn't account for variations in class, race, culture, or individual personality. Her claims are based largely on observation and introspection, which may not hold true across diverse social groups.

• Methodological Limitations: Lakoff's methodology relies heavily on introspection and anecdotal evidence rather than empirical research. This raises questions about the validity and reliability of her findings. Critics call for more quantitative and cross-cultural studies to substantiate her claims.

• Essentialism: Lakoff's work has been accused of essentialism, suggesting that there is an inherent difference in how men and women use language. Critics argue that gendered language is a social construct rather than an innate characteristic.

• Focus on Deficit: Lakoff's analysis primarily focuses on how women's language reflects a lack of power and authority. This deficit approach has been criticized for reinforcing negative stereotypes about women's communication style. Some scholars advocate for a more positive approach that recognizes the strengths and strategies in women's language.

• Outdated Examples: Some of the specific examples used by Lakoff, such as the use of color terms or the acceptability of certain adjectives, may be outdated and no longer reflect current language use. Language evolves, and some of the patterns she identified may have changed over time.

• Ignoring Male Language: Lakoff primarily focuses on women's language and its perceived deficiencies. Critics argue that she neglects to analyze how men's language contributes to gender inequality. A more comprehensive approach would examine the power dynamics in both men's and women's communication styles.

• Lack of Intersectionality: Lakoff's early work did not adequately address how gender intersects with other social categories like race, class, and sexuality. Critics call for a more nuanced analysis that considers how these factors shape language use and power dynamics.