User:Trevgeley/Genderlect

Genderlect refers differences in language use attributed to differences in gender. A Genderlect is a dialectical variation of gendered linguistic practices within the field of gendered speech, a discipline related to applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. Genderlect theory attributes differences in speech to gendered differences in a person's upbringing. The theory attempts to identify and describe these differences, as well as the sociological dominance that these differences contribute to. In other words, men and women have different linguistic practices (vocabulary, conversation styles, grammar, etc.) that stem from gender differentiated domains. These domains are established and perpetuated by unequal exposure to these different domains. Genderlects are born out of the roles that men and women fulfill by adhering to these gendered domains. Genderlect theory contrasts with performative gender, which associates gendered speech usage as a conversational tool that a speaker employs to influence discourse. Most features of genderlects are not universal and vary among languages through cultural and social influences.

Genderlect Acquisition
Much like the acquisition of a person's particular dialect, sociolect, or idiolect, genderlects are acquired as a result of a person's social and cultural exposure to language. So long as there is evidence of a difference in speech patterns between sexes, then these differences must be acquired at some point. Robin Lakoff suggests that children, regardless of their sex, grow up speaking what she calls Women's Language until the age of 5. This is largely due to the heightened exposure to the language of the mother during a child's first five years. Subsequently, children generally begin socializing away from the mother and begin the acquisition of other genderlects. Haas and Tannen discuss that after the age of 5, boys go on to socialize and acquire their own male genderlects, while females further develop Lakoff's notion of women's language.

Foundations
During the 1970s, the study of language and gender gained popularity and notoriety in academia as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics and sociology. Cheris Kramer first coined the term “genderlect” in her 1974 publication “Women's Speech: Separate but Unequal?,” which discusses biologically differentiated speech in regard to pronunciation, word forms, grammar, retention, and comprehension. She argues that the role of sex in language had not adequately been defined or incorporated into linguistic studies, and proposes future directions of study based largely on genderlects. Lakoff, who is largely responsible for popularizing the field of language and gender in her book Language and the Woman's Place (1975), expanded upon the theory of genderlect to incorporate positions of deficit, difference, and dominance.

The deficit approach is the primary motivation behind the establishment of Lakoff's 'women's language'. The approach creates a dichotomy between women's language and men's language in that by categorizing women's language as including weak linguistic forms such as hedges and so called 'empty adjectives' like "lovely" and "charming." This triggered criticism to the approach in that highlighting issues in women's language treated men's language as the standard. As such, women's language was considered deficient such that there was something inherently 'wrong' with it. Dominance is an approach that perpetuates this idea of women as the subordinate group whose difference in style of speech results from male supremacy. This results in a primarily male-centered language.

Difference is an approach of equality, describing men and women as belonging to different 'sub-cultures' as they have been socialized to do since childhood. This then results in the varying communicative styles of men and women. Deborah Tannen is a major advocate of this position. Tannen compares gender differences in language to cultural differences. Comparing conversational goals, she argues that men tend to use a "report style," aiming to communicate factual information, whereas women more often use a "rapport style," which is more concerned with building and maintaining relationships. As one of the prominent names in genderlect theory itself, Tannen is often misinterpreted as only ascribing to the 'difference' approach. However, she responds to these claims by explaining how understanding 'difference' is a step toward diagnosing and overcoming 'dominance'. She goes on to argue that "ways of talking and behaving that are associated with gender are a matter not of identity but of display. In other words, the behavior is not a reflection of the individual's nature (identity) but rather of some performance that the individual is accomplishing (display)" (1994; 198). This incorporation of 'display' provides a link between genderlect theory and performative gender and the socially constructed selves.

Genderlect and Feminism
The study of gendered speech coupled a surge in feminist sociology and feminist linguistics in the 1970s. In fact, the original feminist linguists such as Lakoff largely incorporated a feminist agenda in introducing the difference and dominance approaches to language and gender. However, while genderlect theory seeks to describe the linguistic intricacies that create gendered speech, feminists seek to change them in pursuit of linguistic equality. Deborah Tannen largely popularized genderlect theory and the difference and dominance approach to language and gender, but she has been criticized by scholars such as Crawford, whose work is politically motivated, and Cameron , who promotes a performative approach to language and gender.

Genderlect and Stereotypes
The notion of stereotypes and genderlect is highly scrutinized in Edelsky's 1978 review of genderlects. She argues that stereotypically perceived genderlects are born out of non-linguistic societal norms to frame women as subservient, thus creating double standards for the two sexes. For instance, Edelsky cites that when women talk at length, they are described as “gabby,” and when men talk at length, they are perceived as erudite. Similarly, though research has shown that women tend to use more standard language than men, Jesperson (1922) frames female speakers who experiment with and create new language as deviating from the norm, while male speakers who do the same are framed as innovative pioneers of language. Genderlect stereotypes derive from two steps. The first is from minute details about socially established gender stereotypes. This includes stereotypical personality attributes such deference or subservience, and topic preferences such as homemaking (as opposed to cars). The second step in establishing a genderlect stereotype is finding linguistic representations for these non-linguistic traits, e.g., uncertainty, passivity, etc.

When questions are asked regarding language that is associated with particular genders (e.g., profanity associated with males over females), this contributes to stereotypes regardless of the whether these features are actually found in conversational data. However, scholars argue for the significance of stereotypes in their own right. The fact that stereotypes exist is a testament to the influence that the perception of language has on genderlect. In other words, the perceived gendered stereotypes in language contribute to the acquisition and usage of gendered language.

Speech Practices
As evidence for the existence of distinct genderlects and support for the academic pursuit thereof, Haas observes that preschool children have shown an awareness of sex differentiation in language. Similarly, prepubertal boys (whose voices have not yet lowered) and girls can be distinguished as to their sex based on speech alone, despite having the same fundamental frequency of pitch. Thus, biological pitch can be factored out as a distinguishing feature among children, which provides support for other types of language use as distinguishing features of their genderlects. Haas uses a model based on language use from Bloom and Lahey to divide features of a genderlect into four categories of form, topic, content, and use. Form includes patterns of use and differences in traditional linguistic features such as phonology, morphology, and syntax. Topic refers to the subjects and subject matter that is referenced in speech, such as sports or fashion. Content corresponds to the methods of broaching, engaging, and discussing particular topics. For example, this can include usage of descriptions versus action, or positive versus negative value judgements. Finally, use refers to modes of speech corresponding with a speaker's goals, including mitigation and hedging.

Segmental
Segmentally, women are generally perceived as employing a more standardized phonology than men. While specific segmental differences are not prominent in English, certain languages, such as Russian, can point to specific phnological differences. For instance, Yokoyama (1998) discusses how vowel articulation by Russian men becomes closed and centralized when speaking in an informal dialect. This also supports the widely agreed upon assertion that women's pronunciation is more standard than men's.

Suprasegmental
Suprasegmentally, women biologically have a higher average pitch than men, which accounts for higher voices. Additionally, women are thought to use a wider range of pitch with more varied intonational contours than men. Edelsky attributes the stereotypically dominant interpretation of this as a means of overcompensation. Conversationally, when those who are in a lower position interact with those in higher social standing, the speaker in a lower position tends to divulge more information as an attempt to prove one's worth to the other. A speaker in a higher social standing does not have this obligation. Intonationally, women are thought to invoke a wider range of tones, especially in mixed gender conversations, in order to be more expressive and divulge more about what kind of speakers they are. Similarly, Lakoff asserts that women often ascribe rising intonation to declarative sentences. Rising intonation is generally realized on many questions and conveys pragmatic uncertainty, while declarative sentences generally have a simply falling intonation in English.

Speech Quantity
Although women bear the stereotype of loquaciousness with regard to talking more than their male counterparts, conflicting research has both reaffirmed and disconfirmed this stereotype. Tannen (1991) provides an explanation for these data by arguing that men have an affinity toward public speaking, or report-talk, and women are inclined toward private speaker, or rapport-talk. Tannen associates the idea of 'rapport-talk' with females by describing women as more prone toward “establishing connections and negotiating relationships” (1991; 77). Girls grow up with their closest connections at home and with close peers, and grow these bonds by means of mutual experiences. Peers who attempt to stand out are criticized for trying to show off. Men, on the other hand, employ 'report-talk' because they more prone to “preserve independence and … status in a hierarchical social order” (1991; 77). Boys grow up using speech as a means to display their skills and knowledge through story-telling, joking, or sharing information. As a result, women are stereotypically affiliated with imparting trivial information that is not as useful as what men discuss. Similarly, men do not respond to the trivial conversations of women because these topics are (a) unimportant and (b) uncomfortable for men to address.

Humor
Another related stereotype deals with the employment of and reaction to humor. Since the use of a joke is a more public “report” style use of language, men are are generally affiliated with telling jokes. Consequently, women are more affiliated with the laughter that comes in response to jokes (even if they are not 'humorous') in order to maintain the conversational integrity of the interaction.

Politeness & Mitigation
Although politeness itself is a key component of conversational integrity, scholars cite that there are both positive and negative types of politeness with regard genderlect and conversation. Positive politeness boosts closeness and solidarity, while negative politeness displays respect and deference. While negative politeness is perhaps a positive gesture toward others, Lakoff argues that they lower the status of the speaker using it. Lakoff categorizes politeness into three rules: (1) don't impose, (2) give options, and (3) be friendly. Rules 1 and 2 are negative, and rule 3 is positive. Hoar elaborates Lakoff's rules by describing what kind of language is associated with each. Rule 1 (don't impose) is affiliated with softening assertions by using tag questions, hedges, and qualifiers; expressing opinions as questions with empty adjectives; allowing your partner ample time to talk without interruption; and including mitigating and self-deprecating language. Rule 2 (give options) is affiliated with stating requests as questions so that there is an opportunity to decline and deferring topical content to others. Rule 3 (be friendly) is largely affiliated with conversational alignment by means of positive stance displays. Hoar's argues for a large association among politeness, genderlect, and power relations.

Hedges
Women use both lexical and phrasal hedges more than men. An example of a lexical hedge, which are generally adjectives or adverbs, is the word "like." An utterance "there are 500 soldiers" displays more certainty than a utterance differing only by this hedge, e.g., "there are like 500 soldiers. Examples of a phrasal hedge are I'm not certain and I think, as seen in "I'm not certain but I think there are 500 soldiers."

Tag Questions
Tag questions are yes/no questions that seek to verify the assertion of the preceding utterance. For example, isn't it, as in "The salmon is delicious, isn't it? Women utilize tag questions while making assertions as a mitigative device .  Additionally, when men utilize tag questions, it is strictly for verification or as a rhetorical questions, as exemplified by the falling (declarative) intonation.  Contrarily, women's tag questions display uncertainty and demand a response by means of their rising intonation.

Directives
Women are thought to avoid and/or mitigate directives, whereas men use more imperatives. Similarly, Haas shows that female children who already exhibit this characteristic also tend to heed directives more so than the males. When females use directives, they tend to contain mitigating constructions, such as hedges, tag questions, or even forming the directive as a question itself.

Reported Speech
Reported speech is an act of quoting or paraphrasing another source in speech. For example, to say that "it is raining in Chicago" is direct speech, while "she said that it is raining in Chicago" is reported speech. With regard to genderlects, female speaker utilize more reported speech in order to avoid accountability for a potentially contentious claim or mitigate the gravity of the statement. For instance, where a man might say "the war is awful," a woman might utter "I heard that the war is awful".

Marjorie Goodwin explores confrontation between males and females (specifically African-American children) in her book He-Said-She-Said. When conflict arose, boys would utilize more directives and confrontational language with one another. Girls, on the other hand, would rely heavily on reported speech. This type of confrontation is more mitigating, and as Goodwin points out, uses more complex syntactical structures.

Turn Taking
Genderlect differences are not limited to lexical and grammatical features of language; rather, they extend to interactional practices that contribute overall communicative function. West and Zimmerman (1983) employ a conversation analytic approach in testing the gendered adherence to the turn-taking rule that states that one person ought to speak at a time. They find that men frequently interrupt women's speech, thus depriving women of a full turn of speech. Additionally, women's silences are more prolonged in the end of an exchange of a man's turn of speech. See conversational analysis and feminism for further information.

Languages other than English
While most of the genderlect distinctions in English are conversational, other languages, such as Japanese and Russian, display more overt grammatical and lexical differences than English. To this regard, if an American man were to employ a female genderlect, he would be said to be performing a female gender (presumably for some discursive purpose). In fact, Lakoff cites that males who are either “hippies” or “academics” will use Women's Language, not as performance, but as a default. However, if a speaker of Japanese, for instance, were to 'perform' an alternate genderlect, except in extreme cases, the result would be awkward and ungrammatical. Russian, on the other hand, does not have these absolute distinctions; rather, that they can exist in more tangible lexical and grammatical rules makes it easier to point out a speaker flauting these rules as an error.

Japanese
Speakers of Japanese genderlects abide by many of the same principles as speakers of English genderlects. For instance, female speech is often associated with politeness, tag questions, and softening of speech. However, abiding by these lexical and grammatical forms is more regularized. For example, men and women each use multiple mutually exclusive pronouns “I” and “you” that display more or less honor toward an addressee. Although there is some leeway regarding which honorific form of the first person singular pronoun can be used, the male forms (boku, ore, washi, wagahai, ore-sama, ware) are never spoken in context by females, and the female forms (atashi, atakushi, atai) are never spoken by males. There are also some gender neutral first person singular pronouns (watashi, watakushi, jibun, uchi).

Russian
Olga Yokoyama recognizes that Russian features of genderlect occur primarily in colloquial Russian, and that these features are "typical rather than absolute" (1999; 402). While this feature is similar to English, Yokoyama displays more tangible gender-based rules that are only broken by native speakers in specific cases. She argues that genderlect features in Russian are largely dependent on the level of closeness between speakers, which she describes as the svoj mode. When the svoj mode is engaged between speakers, there is "short interlocutor distance," which can fluctuate throughout a conversation. When there is less (or no) svoj-ness between speakers, there is said to be "long interlocutor distance". Accordingly, the utilization of genderlects is a reflection of the social and power dynamics between and among speakers.

Phonological features of Russian male genderlect include closing and centralizing vowels, whereas the female genderlect diphthongizes and lengthens vowels. There are also aspects of pitch, aspiration, labialization, and nasalization that are specific to the female genderlect. With regard to morphology, the male genderlect only uses diminutives for self-deprecation. Men will also use diminutives when speaking to children; however, they must remove themselves from the male genderlect and utilize the female genderlect in order to do so. Interjection is primarily a female part of speech since it is much more frequent in, though not exclusive to, their speech. Syntactically, employing singular imperative commands when addressing a group is an exclusively male trait. Using the infinitive form for a command to a group is acceptable from females in a position of authority, and is also utilized by men.

Translational Discourse Model
Yokoyama argues for her Translational Discourse Model (TDM) as a tool for both the generation and interpretation of Russian genderlects. She also suggests its utilization toward genderlects and “lects” (e.g., dialects, sociolects, idiolects) in other languages. The TDM is a visual and conceptual representation of the mental states of a pair of interlocutors before, during, and after an interaction. The mental states of the interlocutors exist as a venn diagram with some overlap of mutually perceived notions. During a conversation, speakers transfer information using linguistic and discursive cues. According to this model, a person's genderlect is influential in the types of mental representations that exist in a person's knowledge set, and more importantly, how information is transmitted and received. Information such as {DEIXIS} (I, you, here, now) and everything associated with the current conversational situation (e.g., I your sister, we are in a restaurant, etc.) is common knowledge between the speakers prior to an utterance. A speaker's subsequent utterance has semantic information to convey that builds upon this knowledge that the other speaker presumably does not yet know. If, for example, a speaker were to say “I lost my sweater,” the semantic information that speaker X lost X's sweater would be conveyed. According to the TDM and its incorporation with genderlects, pragmatic information derived from the utterance itself is also conveyed. By employing a particular genderlect, e.g., speaking in colloquial Russian with a high level of Svoj-ness (proximity), pragmatic affiliations such as politeness or proximity will also be conveyed across the TDM. Similarly, the TDM also accommodates the pragmatic affiliations accompanying genderlects in English, as well as associations with performative gender.