Note
Studied by 22 people
Language and Gender ch6
Introduction
Chapter 6 examines language and gender, starting with definitions of 'gender' and 'sex'.
Explores gender hierarchies in language, including the generic 'he' and unfavorable representation of women.
Evaluates gendered language use in different kinds of talk, like gossip.
Considers deeply entrenched ideologies related to gender, such as whether women talk more than men.
Investigates how gender identity is performed via language, and its connection to sexuality.
What is Gender?
'Sex' is defined as one’s biological state (male or female).
Early linguistic variation studies used 'sex' to divide populations for research.
Sex is biological; gender is socially constructed.
Individuals can be biologically female but talk ‘like a man’.
Gender allows distinctions like 'masculine' and 'feminine', but this can still be limiting.
Eckert (2014) suggests focusing on how people construct their gender.
Analyzing behavior based on socially constructed gender is crucial for understanding identity performance and judgment.
Gender is accomplished through behavior, clothing, habits, and speech, often described as ‘performing’ gender.
Despite a range of gender performances, inequality exists, with expectations based on biological sex.
Gender norms generate societal conventions that people are judged against, with dominant ideologies of gender influencing these norms.
Inequality underlies linguistic patterns, demonstrated by everyday sexism in language and society.
Example: The Australian website Women’s Agenda listed awards for sexism in 2016, including the New South Wales Department of Education.
Example: gender pay differences at the BBC, with Sir Philip Hampton commenting the reason probably happened because women weren't doing much about it (Urwin, Cecil and Dex, 2017: 1 ).
Activity 6.1: Find out how many of your political leaders are men and how many are women. What does this mean for the leadership of your city/province/ country? Are all citizens equally represented?
Despite advances, complete gender equality hasn't been achieved.
Inequality at the Lexical Level
Marked Terms
Activity 6.2: Examine pairs like master/madam, waiter/waitress, host/hostess, bachelor/bachelorette/spinster, and analyze their meanings and potential inequalities.
Terms for men and women aren't always equivalent; 'bachelor' has positive connotations while 'spinster' has negative ones.
Bachelor is used with collocations like “eligible bachelor” and bachelor pad”.
Spinster is used with collocations like “lonely” or “old”.
Lexical asymmetry: Terms meant to be equivalent aren't used the same way.
Negative judgments are often related to the female role (Schulz, 1975).
'Bachelorette' can lack positive connotations and is marked.
Marked term: Has a relationship with a seemingly ‘neutral’ counterpart (e.g., ‘actor’ vs. ‘actress’).
Men's terms are often unmarked/neutral, while women's are marked for sex.
Example: prince/princess, waiter/waitress, host/hostess.
Asymmetry exists; female occupation terms can have negative connotations (e.g., 'mistress' vs. 'master').
Women’s titles (Miss, Mrs, Ms) indicate marital status, while ‘Mr’ doesn't.
The title ‘Master’ is restricted to young boys.
'Ms' was proposed as a neutral title like 'Mr', but has acquired meanings related to divorce, feminism, or lesbianism (Schwarz, 2003; Lawton, Blakemore and Vartanian, 2003).
Women's title choices reveal information, unlike men's; asymmetry exists in having to make the choice.
Baker (2010) found that Ms and other titles are being used less.
Gender-neutral titles, like Mx (‘mix’), have been proposed and are gaining acceptance, particularly within the LGBT community (Mallinson, 2017: 429; Rosman, 2015).
Generic ‘He’
Male terms are often argued to be generic, referring to both sexes, but this raises the question of why female marked terms are required at all.
Problems with supposed generic terms become clear when considering pronouns.
Activity 6.3: Do the sentences below include women?
1 Every student should bring his books to class.
2 Every student should bring their books to class.
3 Everyone should cast his vote on polling day.
4 Everyone should cast their vote on polling day.
Prescriptivists find (1) and (3) more acceptable, objecting to 'their' in (2) and (4) due to number disagreement.
Singular ‘they’ and ‘their’ has a long usage history.
Baranowski (2002) found that ‘he’ is no longer the preferred singular epicene pronoun; ‘they’ is most common and encouraged (LSA, 1996; NCTE, 2002).
Attempts to encourage existing generic pronouns (e.g., they) or invent new ones (e.g., ‘ze’) have not been successful (Baron, 1981).
New words are easily taken up in language, closed linguistic groups, like pronouns and other grammatical particles, are much more resistant to change.
Sexism in Word Order
Even word order can demonstrate gender inequality (Motschenbacher, 2013).
While ‘ladies and gentlemen’ is sometimes heard, male nouns are more commonly placed first (e.g., ‘man and wife’).
Example:
Table 6.1 Gendered order preference in personal binomials.
Source : adapted from Motschenbacher, 2013 : 223
Activity 6.4: What does her research show about which sex most commonly occurs fi rst in personal binomials? What does this order suggest about our cultural norms for women and men?
Motschenbacher (2013) found that the male form comes before the female in most cases, except in domains considered feminine (parenting and children).
‘Lady doctor’ or ‘female doctor’ and ‘male nurse’ suggest default sexes for professions.
Order is deeply ingrained; in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, UN, 1979),
Introduction
Chapter 6 examines language and gender, starting with nuanced definitions of 'gender' and 'sex', differentiating biological and social constructs.
Explores gender hierarchies in language, including the historical use of the generic 'he' and the potentially unfavorable or stereotypical representation of women across various linguistic contexts.
Evaluates gendered language use in different kinds of talk, such as gossip, analyzing how gender influences conversational styles and content.
Considers deeply entrenched ideologies related to gender, questioning assumptions such as whether societal expectations dictate that women talk more than men, and how these stereotypes are reflected and perpetuated through language.
Investigates how gender identity is actively performed via language, examining its intersectionality and connection to sexuality, and discussing how language can both reinforce and subvert traditional gender norms.
What is Gender?
'Sex' is defined as one’s biological state (male or female), determined by chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy.
Early linguistic variation studies often used 'sex' as a primary variable to divide populations for research, overlooking the complexities of gender identity.
Sex is fundamentally biological, while gender is a socially constructed concept, shaped by cultural norms and individual expression.
Individuals can be biologically female but talk ‘like a man’, demonstrating that speech patterns are influenced more by gender performance than biological sex.
Gender allows for distinctions like 'masculine' and 'feminine', but this binary can be limiting and excludes non-binary identities.
Eckert (2014) suggests focusing on how people actively construct their gender through linguistic and other social practices, rather than viewing it as a fixed attribute.
Analyzing behavior based on socially constructed gender is crucial for understanding identity performance and how individuals are judged based on these performances.
Gender is accomplished through various behaviors, including clothing, habits, and speech, often described as ‘performing’ gender, which allows for fluidity and individual expression.
Despite a wide range of gender performances, inequality persists, with societal expectations often rooted in biological sex, leading to discrimination and prejudice.
Gender norms generate societal conventions that people are judged against, with dominant ideologies of gender influencing these norms and perpetuating stereotypes.
Inequality underlies many linguistic patterns, as demonstrated by everyday sexism in language and broader societal structures.
Example: The Australian website Women’s Agenda listed awards for sexism in 2016, highlighting instances where language perpetuated gender stereotypes or inequality, including the New South Wales Department of Education.
Example: gender pay differences at the BBC, with Sir Philip Hampton commenting the reason probably happened because women weren't doing much about it (Urwin, Cecil and Dex, 2017: 1 ). This reflects a tendency to blame individuals for systemic inequalities.
Activity 6.1: Research and analyze the gender distribution among your political leaders at the local, regional, and national levels. What does this mean for the leadership of your city/province/country? Are all citizens equally represented in decision-making processes?
Despite advances in gender equality, complete equality hasn't been achieved, and ongoing efforts are needed to address systemic biases and discriminatory practices.
Inequality at the Lexical Level
Marked Terms
Activity 6.2: Examine pairs like master/madam, waiter/waitress, host/hostess, bachelor/bachelorette/spinster, and analyze their meanings, historical contexts, and potential inequalities. Consider how the connotations of these terms have evolved and how they reflect societal attitudes toward gender.
Terms for men and women aren't always equivalent; 'bachelor' often carries positive connotations of independence and desirability, while 'spinster' historically has negative connotations of loneliness and social exclusion.
Bachelor is used with collocations like “eligible bachelor” and bachelor pad”, reinforcing positive associations.
Spinster is used with collocations like “lonely” or “old”, highlighting negative perceptions.
Lexical asymmetry: Terms meant to be equivalent aren't used in the same contexts or with the same connotations, revealing underlying gender biases.
Negative judgments are often related to the female role (Schulz, 1975), reflecting historical constraints and expectations placed on women.
'Bachelorette' can lack the same positive connotations as 'bachelor' and is often marked by its association with specific contexts like parties or reality TV shows.
Marked term: Has a specific relationship with a seemingly ‘neutral’ counterpart (e.g., ‘actor’ vs. ‘actress’), where the marked term indicates gender while the unmarked term is often assumed to be male.
Men's terms are often unmarked/neutral, while women's are marked for sex, reinforcing the idea that maleness is the default or norm.
Example: prince/princess, waiter/waitress, host/hostess. These pairs illustrate how female terms are often derived from male terms but carry different connotations.
Asymmetry exists; female occupation terms can have negative connotations (e.g., 'mistress' vs. 'master'), reflecting historical power imbalances and moral judgments.
Women’s titles (Miss, Mrs, Ms) indicate marital status, providing information about their personal lives, while ‘Mr’ doesn't, highlighting societal expectations and scrutiny placed on women.
The title ‘Master’ is now largely restricted to young boys, reflecting changes in social norms and the diminishing use of the term.
'Ms' was proposed as a neutral title like 'Mr', but has acquired additional meanings related to divorce, feminism, or lesbianism (Schwarz, 2003; Lawton, Blakemore and Vartanian, 2003), demonstrating how language can become politicized and laden with social meaning.
Women's title choices reveal information, unlike men's; asymmetry exists in having to make the choice, placing women in a position where their marital status is always a point of consideration.
Baker (2010) found that Ms and other titles are being used less, possibly due to changing attitudes toward marital status and gender roles.
Gender-neutral titles, like Mx (‘mix’), have been proposed and are gaining acceptance, particularly within the LGBT community (Mallinson, 2017: 429; Rosman, 2015), as efforts to promote inclusivity and recognize non-binary identities increase.
Generic ‘He’
Male terms are often argued to be generic, referring to both sexes, but this raises the question of why female marked terms are required at all, pointing to underlying assumptions about gender neutrality.
Problems with supposed generic terms become clear when considering pronouns, as their usage can exclude or marginalize individuals who do not identify as male.
Activity 6.3: Analyze the following sentences to determine whether they inclusively represent women:
1 Every student should bring his books to class.
2 Every student should bring their books to class.
3 Everyone should cast his vote on polling day.
4 Everyone should cast their vote on polling day.
Prescriptivists may find sentences (1) and (3) more acceptable due to adherence to traditional grammar rules, while objecting to 'their' in (2) and (4) because of perceived number disagreement.
Singular ‘they’ and ‘their’ have a long usage history, dating back centuries, and have been used by prominent writers and speakers.
Baranowski (2002) found that ‘he’ is no longer the preferred singular epicene pronoun; ‘they’ is the most common and encouraged alternative in contemporary usage (LSA, 1996; NCTE, 2002).
Attempts to encourage existing generic pronouns (e.g., they) or invent new ones (e.g., ‘ze’) have faced challenges and have not achieved widespread adoption (Baron, 1981).
New words are easily taken up in language, closed linguistic groups, like pronouns and other grammatical particles, are much more resistant to change due to their fundamental role in sentence structure and meaning.
Sexism in Word Order
Even word order can demonstrate subtle forms of gender inequality (Motschenbacher, 2013), reflecting cultural biases and power dynamics.
While ‘ladies and gentlemen’ is sometimes heard, male nouns are more commonly placed first (e.g., ‘man and wife’), reinforcing traditional gender hierarchies.
Example:
Table 6.1 Gendered order preference in personal binomials.
Source: adapted from Motschenbacher, 2013: 223
Activity 6.4: Examine Motschenbacher’s research to determine which sex most commonly occurs first in personal binomials. What does this order suggest about our cultural norms and perceptions of women and men?
Motschenbacher (2013) found that the male form comes before the female in most cases, except in domains traditionally considered feminine, such as parenting and children, indicating a subtle reinforcement of gender roles.
The use of phrases like ‘lady doctor’ or ‘female doctor’ and ‘male nurse’ suggests that there are default sexes associated with certain professions, highlighting gender stereotypes.
The established order is deeply ingrained in language and culture; for example, in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, UN, 1979), the title itself reflects a focus on women as the group needing specific protection and rights.
The text provides a foundational analysis of gender and language, highlighting inequalities and societal norms embedded within linguistic structures. Here’s an analysis linking the arguments and points made in the text with other linguistic concepts and scholarship related to language and society:
Gender and Social Construction: The text introduces the concept that gender is socially constructed, distinguishing it from biological sex. This aligns with broader sociological and linguistic theories that view gender as a performance or a set of practices enacted through language and behavior. Scholarship by Judith Butler, particularly her concept of performativity, emphasizes that gender is not an inherent trait but is constructed and reinforced through repeated actions and discourse.
Lexical Asymmetry and Markedness: The discussion of marked terms (e.g., 'waiter' vs. 'waitress') connects to the linguistic concept of markedness, where one form is considered more basic or neutral, and the other is modified to indicate a specific feature. This relates to broader discussions on how language encodes social biases and power relations. Feminist linguists like Deborah Tannen have explored how these asymmetries reflect and perpetuate gender stereotypes and inequalities in communication patterns.
Generic 'He' and Pronoun Usage: The critique of the generic 'he' reflects a longstanding debate in linguistics and sociolinguistics about inclusive language. The text’s argument aligns with research demonstrating that the use of 'he' as a generic pronoun often excludes or marginalizes women, reinforcing male dominance in language. This issue has prompted efforts to promote gender-neutral language and the use of singular 'they,' as discussed in the text, reflecting broader movements toward inclusivity and recognition of diverse gender identities.
Sexism in Word Order: The analysis of word order (e.g., 'man and wife') demonstrates how subtle linguistic patterns can reflect underlying cultural norms and power dynamics. This relates to research on framing and discourse analysis, which examines how language is used to construct and reinforce social hierarchies. Studies in critical discourse analysis (CDA) by scholars like Norman Fairclough have shown how language can subtly convey ideological messages and shape perceptions of social groups.
Gendered Language Use: The evaluation of gendered language use in different contexts, such as gossip, connects to research in interactional sociolinguistics. This field explores how gender influences conversational styles, topic choices, and communicative strategies. Scholars like Deborah Tannen and Penelope Eckert have extensively studied these dynamics, revealing how gendered language use can both reflect and reinforce social expectations and stereotypes.
Ideologies and Stereotypes: The consideration of entrenched ideologies, such as the assumption that women talk more than men, aligns with broader discussions on how stereotypes are perpetuated through language. Research in social psychology and communication studies has shown how these stereotypes can influence perceptions and behaviors, leading to self-fulfilling prophecies and discriminatory practices.
Gender Performance and Identity: The investigation into how gender identity is performed via language links to theories of identity and social constructionism. This perspective suggests that identities are not fixed but are fluid and context-dependent, shaped through social interactions and linguistic practices. Scholars like Mary Bucholtz have explored how individuals actively construct and negotiate their identities through language, challenging traditional gender norms and expectations.
In summary, the arguments and points made in the text on language and gender resonate with various linguistic concepts and scholarly works, highlighting the intricate relationship between language, society, and gender. By analyzing lexical choices, pronoun usage, word order, and gendered language patterns, the text contributes to a deeper understanding of how language both reflects and reinforces gender inequalities and stereotypes.
While the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of key issues in language and gender, some potential critiques could be:
Limited Scope of Intersectional Analysis: The analysis could benefit from a more explicit engagement with intersectionality. While it acknowledges that gender intersects with other social categories, it could delve deeper into how race, class, sexuality, and other factors interact with gender to shape linguistic experiences and inequalities. For example, how might the experience of lexical asymmetry differ for women of color compared to white women?
Lack of diachronic perspective A diachronic perspective on this analysis will show a clearer understanding of how gendered language has evolved over time, reflecting shifts in social attitudes and norms. Examining historical texts and linguistic data will provide specific examples of how language has been used to both challenge and reinforce gender stereotypes throughout history.
Over-reliance on Western-centric examples: The examples provided, such as the Australian website and BBC pay gap, are largely Western-centric. Incorporating examples from diverse cultural contexts could broaden the analysis and reveal how gender and language intersect differently across the globe. This would also help to avoid generalizations and recognize the heterogeneity of gendered linguistic practices.
Limited discussion of agency and resistance: The analysis focuses primarily on how language reinforces gender inequalities but could further explore how individuals and communities use language to challenge and resist these inequalities. Highlighting examples of linguistic activism, counter-narratives, and creative language use could provide a more empowering and nuanced perspective.
Need for more specific linguistic analysis: While the analysis touches on linguistic concepts such as markedness and framing, it could benefit from more in-depth analysis of specific linguistic features and strategies. For example, how do specific grammatical structures, discourse markers, or rhetorical devices contribute to the construction and perpetuation of gender stereotypes?
Potential for more critical engagement with Butler's concept of performativity: While the analysis mentions Judith Butler's concept of performativity, it could engage more critically with this theory. For example, how does the emphasis on performance risk overlooking the material consequences of gendered language use? How can we reconcile the idea of gender as a performance with the lived experiences of individuals who face discrimination and violence based on their gender identity?