University Mohamed Seddik Ben Yahia Faculty of Letters and Languages
Department of English Language and Literature
Males’ versus females’ talk on online discourse:
The case of hedges and report/rapport talk
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Linguistics.
Submitted by: Supervisor:
Rokia Touhami Slimane Boukhentache Zeyneb Khaldi
Board of examiners:
Supervisor: Mr. Slimane Boukhentache, University of Jijel.
Chair person: Mr. Boutkhil Guemmid, University of Jijel.
Examiner: Mr. Azeddine Fanit, University of Jijel.
2015
DEDICATION
We dedicate this work to our dear parents who are the source of our happiness in this life.
We dedicate this work to our sisters, and brothers.
We dedicate this work to all those who encouraged us to do this research despite the difficulties we faced.
We dedicate this work to our teachers, all our friends and to all our families.
We dedicate this work to everyone who loves us.
For all English Students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to our supervisor Mr. Slimane Boukhentache, who patiently guided this research work. We would like to thank him for
his precious help during the progress of this work. We owe him a particular debt for his invaluable advice, encouragement and illuminating knowledge.
We would like to thank the members of the board of examiners who have kindly accepted to examine the present dissertation.
Special thanks are due to all the participants from different origins (our sample) for their
immense help, and participation in the accomplishment of this study.
Abstract
Differences in the ways that men and women employ language have long been of interest in the study of discourse. Despite extensive theorizing, current empirical research still lacks the generalization of gender’s effect on oral use of language. In this thesis gender’s impact on language use was examined among different competent users of English whether being it their home language (L1) or a foreign language (FL)/second language (L2). A total of 30 out of 100 participants have taken part of debatable discussions on an advanced technological live setting known as; Google+ hangouts. The study focused on two main dimensions: hedges and report/rapport talk. It has attempted to see whether differences of this kind have a stereotype use in the speech styles of men and women, and to see whether these differences develop in on air interactions between genders. In order to collect the data needed for the study an observation of the hangouts and a feedback interview were used. A total of 8 debatable online hangouts were recorded and transcribed for the investigation. In addition, the feedback semi-structured interview was conducted with 10 participants from the same population to examine the existence of stereotypes on genders’ language use. For the analysis phase, the researchers opted for the statistical software (SPSS) to present the data gathered and make the research more reliable. The results obtained revealed that men use the hedging devices more than women and rapport in the same way women do.
Surprisingly, both sexes report equally. Moreover, the stereotypic genders’ speech style is
dogmatic. In other words, it is a definite global prejudice.
Table of Contents
General Initiation……….. 1
1. Introduction……….. 1
2. Background of the problem………... 2
3. Statement of the problem………. 3
4. Significance of the research………. 4
5. Aims of the study………. 5
6. Primary research questions and hypotheses………. 5
7. Research design……… 6
8. Organization of the study………. 8
Chapter One : Women talk versus Men talk Introduction………... 9
1.1 Section One: Talk across genders………. 1.1.1. Gender and sex………... 1.1.2. Gendered language………. 1.1.2.1. Genders’ stereotype……….. 1.1.2.2. Sexiest language………... 1.1.2.3. Strategies to avoid sexiest language……….. 1.1.3. Males/females’ talk theories……….. 1.1.3.1. Nature versus nurture……… 1.1.3.2. Report versus rapport……… 1.1.3.3. Mars versus Venus……… 1.1.4. Hedges………... 9 10 12 14 14 15 17 18 21 26 29 1.2. Section Two: Technological interaction………... 1.2.1. Face time versus screen time………. 1.2.2. Computer mediated communication………... 1.2.2.1. Online discourse among men and women………... 1.2.2.2. Report versus rapport in online discourse……… 1.2.2.3. Hedging in digital shortcuts………. 1.2.3. Hangouts on air………... 34 34 36 36 37 39 40 Conclusion………... 41
Chapter Two: Methodology and data analysis and discussion Introduction……….. 43
2.1. Methodology………
2.1.1. Overview of research questions and hypotheses………
43
43
2.1.2. Rational for methodology………...
2.1.3. Setting………
2.1.4. Sampling and population description………
2.1.5. Data instruments……….
2.1.6. Procedures for data collection………
2.1.7. Coding the data………..
2.1.8. Analysis Software………...
2.1.8.1. Linear regression………...
2.1.9. Limitation of the study………...
44 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 2.2. Section Two: Data analysis………
2.2.1. Results from hangout………..
2.2.1.1. Hedges………..
2.2.1.1.1. Pragmatic particles………...
2.2.1.1.2. Modal terms………..
2.2.1.1.3. Uncertainty verb phrases………..
2.2.1.1.4. Hesitation markers………...
2.2.1.2. Report/rapport talk………...
2.2.1.2.1. Task-oriented talk………
2.2.1.2.2. Emotion-oriented talk………..
2.2.2. Results from interviews………...
52 52 52 53 56 59 61 64 65 68 71 2.3. Section Three: Discussion……….
2.3.1. Hedges………
2.3.2. Report/rapport talk……….
2.3.3. Genders’ speech stereotype………
73 73 74 75
Conclusion……… 76
General Conclusion……….. 78
Recommendations………..………. 80
List of references………. 81
Appendices……….. 95 Résumé
صخلم
JN° List of tables Page
Chapter One Section One
1 Women’s language versus Men’s language 13
2 Gender-specific and gender-neutral nouns in English 17
3 Empathizing versus systemizing brains 24
Chapter Two Section Two
5 Frequency of hedges uttered by both genders. 53
6 Summary modal of NPPU and men correlation. 54
7 ANOVA table of NPPU frequency. 55
8 Summary modal of NMTU and women correlation. 57
9 ANOVA table of NMTU frequency. 57
10 Summary modal of NUVU and men correlation. 60
11 ANOVA table of NUVU frequency. 60
12 Summary modal of NHMU and women correlation. 62
13 ANOVA table of NHMU frequency. 63
14 Frequency of report /rapport talk. 64
15 Summary modal of TOT and men correlation. 66
16 ANOVA table of TOT rate. 66
17 Summary modal of TOT and women correlation. 67
18 ANOVA table of TOT rate. 67
19 Summary modal of EOT and men correlation. 69
21 ANOVA table of EOT rate. 69
22 Summary modal of EOT and women correlation. 70
23 ANOVA table of EOT rate. 70
24 Interviewees answers on marginality and stereotypical speech of genders. 72
N° List of figures Page Chapter One
Section One
1 Brain’s two hemispheres. 20
2 MRI brain scan for location of male and female speech and language. 21
Chapter Two
Section Two
3 Number of pragmatic particles uttered in total and by both genders. 54 4 Number of modal terms uttered in total and by both genders. 56 5 Number of uncertainty verb phrases uttered in total and by both genders. 59
6 Number of hesitation markers uttered in total and by both genders. 62
7 Frequency of task-oriented talk in total and by both genders. 65
8 Frequency of emotion-oriented talk in total and by both genders. 68
List of abbreviations
CMC Computer Mediated Communication E-brains Empathizing brains
FFI Face to Face Interaction
FL Foreign Language
HOA Hangout On Air
IM Instant Message
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging M/V Metaphor Mars/Venus Metaphor
NHMU Number of Hesitation Markers Uttered NMTU Number of Modal Terms Uttered NPPU Number of Pragmatic Particles Uttered NUVU Number of Uncertainty Verb phrases Uttered LWP Language and Women’s Place
S-brains Systemizing brains
Vs. Versus
WL Women’s Language
General Initiation
Introduction
One of the important traits that affects individual’s communicative competence in virtually every language; particularly English, and one that has drawn increasing attention recently, is the effect of one’s sex (gender) on production and performance of language.
Differences between men and women talk have been noted for some time now (Tannen 1986, 1990; Holmes 1987, 1991; Lakoff 1975). Among English speakers, it has reported that males use assertive, strong expletives showing freedom and deference; therefore, women are not expected to use such language. On the other hand, females use forms that sound polite, indirect, soft and less assertive showing solidarity and cooperation.
According to Deborah Tannen (1986), linguistics professor, females use language that expresses more uncertainty than men, say hedges, suggesting less confidence on what they say. Additionally, she believes that men and women differ in the focus behind their communication. Men converse with a focus on achieving social status and conversational interaction, while women focus on achieving personal connection, fulfilling their role as more elaborative and facilitative participants in an interaction; men want to report, women want to rapport.
As stated above, the use of hedges and the focus-genre on communication strongly
indicate femininity and masculinity; they are often used to illustrate stereotypical women
and men. These different patterns are found in disparate scripted conversations. In those
written conversations, women are consistently enforcing their femininity and men their
masculinity. However, according to some researchers, gender-related languages are not
used as frequently in real conversations as they are in written ones, and some are even
disappearing. Moreover, both rapport/report talk and hedge are subtleties drawn from
different cultures and form significant tapestry in individual’s sociopragmatic competence.
In this sense, different backgrounds of conversationalists, social distance, discourse and context are all to be considered. This study, then, aims at examining the impact of gender on the use and frequency of hedges and report/rapport talk by males and females participants debating on online conversations.
1. Background of the problem
Differences in men and women’s talk attracted scholars’ attention since the feminist movement in the 60’s and the 70’s. “The very semantics of the language reflects women’s condition. We do not even have our own names, but bear that of the father until we exchange it for that of a husband” (Morgan, 1977, p. 106). This was the high time of women’s feminist movement that targeted Language in particular. Since then, considerable research relating to language and gender has been carried out focusing on different features of language (lexicon, syntax, semantics…) and shifted, later on, to gender differences in discourse. Differences in conversational styles actually turn out to disadvantage women, contributing to women being effectively silenced (Spender, 1980). Hence, the frequency of genders speech and the strategies to be adopted needed to be highlighted.
Over the years, the subject of mixed-gender conversation has entertained audiences even outside the academic frame in books by linguists such as, You Just Don’t Understand:
Women and Men in Conversation, by Deborah Tannen (1990). For Tannen, it is un-
negotiated to view men in any sort of conversations as vulgar, direct and confident. Men’s
driving force in any interaction is obtaining information and avoiding failure. Unlike
women who are deemed less confident and soft avoiding social isolation rather, and willing
for being more “cooperative and facilitative conversationalists, concerned for their partner’s
positive face needs”(Holmes 1991, p. 210). Based her research on Brown and Levinson’s
idea of positive and negative face and included in her book Gendered talk at work, Holmes
(2006) suggests that the reason behind this stereotypical view is “Exposing sexist assumptions and challenging covert patterns of male domination is important, and the workplace is a significant location for such taken-for granted assumptions” (p.26). She teessas that women use more positively orientated politeness and men use more negatively orientated politeness. That is; men use language as a tool to give and obtain information where women, on the other hand, use language as a means of keeping in touch with others.
With the advent of technology, researches in the field have substantially grown and scholars have studied language and gender in cyberspace (Herring, 1993; Sutton, 1994;
Wofe, 1999). Danet (1998) proposed that typed text becomes a mask in which gender becomes obscured. She explains because only text is visible in computer-mediated communication (CMC), men and women could become freer to experiment with different gender identities through communication and women could take advantage of this medium to “avoid being harassed sexually or to feel free to be moss assertive” (p.130). Other studies have shown that in chatrooms, discussion boards, instant messaging (IM), and emails, that equality in cyberspace is not present (Baron, 2003; Herring, 1992; Soukup, 1999). Typed text is not a mask for gender and online participation is not equal between genders. In short, men are still always dominant and report, women are uncertain and rapport. However, in spite of such hopes, oral conversations between socially distant genders do not yield practically the same findings.
2. Statement of the problem
Although in recent years there has been an increased focus on mixed-gender
interaction (Sunderland, 2006), most of the studies currently lack consensus as to reason
for variance in women’s and men’s language concerning hedging and report/rapport to talk
by socially distant conversationalists which is considered to be a gap of knowledge to be
fulfilled. levsn rl ss Language and women’s Place, Lakoff made her claims based on her own intuitions and anecdotal observation of her peers’ language use, lacking any empirical basis such as collecting corpora of males and females speech. She claimed that there were certain features of women’s language that gave the impression women are weaker and less certain than men.
Holmes suggests that the reason lies behind that is ultimately “women and men have different perceptions of what language is used for”. Tannen, as well, has explored conversational interaction and style differences relating to gender and cultural background focused on miscommunications between men and women who were, actually, her friends while working on her Ph.D. Consequently, many mixed-gender studies focus on conversations of married couples or work colleagues with close social distance.
Additionally, and approaching technology, only scripted conversations were to be used conducting research in the field. All this imply an interesting area for further study that would be to analyze the current usage of hedges and report/ rapport speech by competent men and women speakers of English on an advanced technological live setting known as;
Google+ hangouts.
3. Significance of the research
The present study proposes to analyze report/rapport talk and hedging to account for different backgrounds of the participants, social distance and of ultimate importance discourse and context. Regardless of their approaches, many studies lack the view point of discourse and context in which the sentence is uttered i.e. discussing the speaker’s attitude in relation to language forms only on the level of a written sentence. Another problem is dependence on written conversations of the researchers themselves as a subject of the study.
And if it is to be spoken, it would be that of their married couples and work colleagues.
Such conversations will not be dealt with the way if they were natural and neutral conversations simply because there is no authentic interaction involved, and the writer’s stereotype plays a big role, hence the source of data is questionable.
4. Aims of the study
Previous research all agree upon the stereotypical value of both report/rapport talk and hedges employed by men and women. The purpose of the research is to examine the influence of gender on language patterns stated earlier, including, report/rapport talk and hedges on online discourse. Instead of describing the normative use of these forms, the current study intends to observe how they are actually used in live conversations, by whom and for what reason. Then the study will discuss how these forms are used to construct stereotypes of women and men.
5. Primary Research Questions
Although previous investigations of report/rapport talk and the use of hedges proved the stereotypical nature of one’s speech and the way they contribute to marking the gender of the speaker, the research literature has not been equivocally positive about these findings being generalized to socially distant speakers conversing on live hangouts. Hereafter, we will find out if this assumption is true and on which ground it is based.
The data show practically a distinction between women’s and men’s actual speech in terms of hedges use and the focus to communication in all sorts of conversation. On this basis, this study seeks to answer these questions:
Is hedging gender-differentiated?
To what extent are females and males using hedges compared to one another?
How do compare males and females aim to report or rapport talks?
Is there a stereotype judgment among people on gender’s use of language?
Hypotheses
In the light of what has been previously said, the hypotheses on which the present work is based run as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Hedging is gender differentiated and females use hedges more than males.
Hypothesis 2: Females aim at rapport whereas males aim at report talk exclusively.
Hypothesis 3: There exists a stereotype judgment among participants on gender’s use of language.
6. Research Design
Any researcher has a number of methods; s/he should opt for the right method, that is, the one which is more appropriate to the nature of the study: descriptive, historical, experimental…etc. For the sake of understanding the impact of gender on the stereotypical report/rapport talk and hedges in I-tech oral conversations and to meet the research aforementioned aims, two research instruments will be used: Google+ live hangouts and interviews.
Participants
The sample consists of 30 competent speakers of English (N=30), 18 men and 12
women. All participants are volunteers who are recruited using an advertisement pinned to
Google+ debate hangouts with native speakers. The participants will be directly oriented to
a Facebook page, created by the researchers themselves for ethical considerations, to update
the participants with all details concerning the study. Only individuals, who speak English
appropriately and fluently; whether being it their home language or a foreign/second language, are selected for the study, and their ages ranged from 20 to 40 years.
Procedures
First of all we will apply the idea of “Hangouts on Air” as a suitable tool to analyze actual speech of both genders debating. The hangouts are in terms of 08 planned classes that encompass at more 10 participants, in each hangout. Participants in each hangout will be randomly designated to meet all up on air together and discuss a debatable topic for 45 minutes.
The selection of debate topics requires some further justification as there is evidence that gender-biased topics may affect male/female talk (Brown, Dovido & Ellyson, 1990).
Only topics about which the genders possess roughly equivalent knowledge will be employed. The topics are chosen on the basis of a survey, administered to a participant sample on the Facebook page (10 men, 10 women) drawn from the same population that supply the experiment. This survey requires participants to respond to a position opinion (e.g., “Salaries or job payment is not enough”) indicating: (a) their agreement, (b) disagreement. Topics on which the genders will score about equal, or merely the same, on both of these dimensions will be selected for the hangouts. From an original list of 15, 8 topics are eventually chosen (equality between men and women, drugs legalization, death penalty, language and culture, salaries, pills industry, home or abroad, working women).
On the other hand, the interviews will be conducted with a sample of participants,
population of (N=10). The interview will be online and conducted on a private hangout
between one of the researchers and one of the participants. The purpose behind these
interviews is to enquire participants who will be spotted using frequent hedges in order to
certify the uncertainty use of it, in addition to the examination of genders’ speech stereotype.
7. Organization of the study
The research in hand consists of two chapters; theoretical and practical part. Chapter one, theoretical part, itself is composed of two sections. The first section is devoted to review the literature in relation to gendered language, differences in males and females talk, report/rapport talk and hedging by both genders. And the second section approaches technological interactions and online discourse between males and females that have been studied recently.
Chapter two, refers to as practical part, consists of three sections. The first section is devoted for the methodology where theoretical basis are provided. The second section continues with the analysis of a sample hangouts and the interviews using manual and referential statistics SPSS. Last but not least, section three is where all the results yielded are discussed and explained.
Chapter One: Women talk versus Men talk
Introduction
The first chapter from this dissertation is devoted for the literature about language, gender and communication through two main sections. As the dissertation title suggests, this chapter will focus specifically on two main linguistic facets while comparing females and males talk; report/ rapport talk and hedges by examining the language of both genders.
In the first section of the chapter, different terminology related to the topic is outlined.
Then, the chapter touches on some salient genders’ talk theories and ends up with a transitional summary introducing the second section. Finally, the second section will shed light on technological interaction across genders and sum up with a conclusion.
1.1. Talk across genders
Being male or female, all have the same human needs to be understood perfectly by others when communicating. Yet most popular theories to language agree that one of the great assumptions of misinterpretation and misunderstanding to others’ talk is the influence of one’s sex (gender) on the way one’s communicate. This major factor implies differences between the two sexes when interacting.
The pasa three decades were characterized by a zeal for the linguistic discussion on gender
based communication among opposite sexes. Books such as Deborah Tannen’s (1990) You
Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation and (1994) Talking from 9 to 5,
Marian Woodall’s (1990) How to Talk so Men Will Listen, and John Gray’s (1992) Women
are from Venus, Men are from Mars have widely contributed to the recognition of this hot
issue. The aforementioned scholars among others; Janet Holmes and Robin Lakoff, attempt
to call the attention of the public to differences between males and females talk in different
discourse, emphasizing different features of one’s communicative competence. Commonly,
gender identity is created and performed through language on the basis of conventional male and female language features established in previous research of these scholars and many others.
Features of gender’s language may be numerous but of great importance to this study: report/ rapport talk and hedging. This research, then, will be an attempt to shed light on the different forms used by men and women talk, speaking English, relating to report/rapport and the frequency of hedges used by both.
1.1.1. Gender and sex
Gender is not something we are born with, and not something we have, but something we do (West & Zimmerman, 1975), something we perform (Butler, 1990). Surely sex is what differentiates males and females, yet there exists another term that makes approximately the same difference; gender. Gender is defined as the physical and or social condition of being male or female and sex as the state of being either male or female (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2003, pp 518 – 1147). Sex, in this sense, is a biological characteristic; it refers to a set of physical conditions, whereas, gender is defined as a social construct which is dealt with in the fields of cultural and gender studies, and the social sciences. Gender, thus, is an involvement of biological sex which carries biological distinction into domains in which it is totally irrelevant.
For years, researchers operated with the basic mutual use of the two terms. Bergvall
(1999) explains that historically, the two terms were used to depict biological rather than
social divergence, but later on the predilection for the term gender emerged and has been
used as a more polite term to avoid the taboo inclusion of sexuality. Consequently, general
usage of the term gender began in the late 1960s immensely appearing in the professional
literature of the social sciences.
Later in the late of the 1970’s, the tendency in using the term gender helped in differentiating those aspects of life that were more easily assigned or understood to be of social, including language, rather than biological origin (Crawford, 1992). Another researcher, who advocates the shift in using the term gender over sex at a sociolinguistic level, is Holmes (2001) notes:
I have used the term gender rather than sex in this revised edition because sex has come to refer to categories distinguished by biological characteristics, while gender is more appropriate for distinguishing people on the basis of their sociocultural behaviour, including speech (p. 150).
Holmes explains her preference in employing gender by the appropriateness of the latter that is witnessed in the professional literature, referring to social conditions, over sex which remains suitable for biological differences that originally occur.
To date, two main views are considered regarding sex and gender. A view that has
arisen in the past few decades is that “gender is socially constructed rather than genetically
transmitted. In fact, “it is likely that gender will come to be used as a verb; to be gendered
or to gender something or someone” (Eunson, 2012, p. 2). This is referred to as the
constructivist approach where sex and gender are seen as two essentially different terms in
which sex determines inherited characteristics and gender defines roles that are socialized or
nurtured. Essentialists who opposed this view use the two terms interchangeably to refer to
a product of evolution and biology. They certify that the two are essentially the same
(Eunson, 2012). Hereafter and following theorists’ recommendations, we will refer to the
two terms gender and sex as a concept that describes social variations in contrast to
biological ones.
1.1.2. Gendered language
In recent years, largely as women have engaged in the workplace in huge numbers, the noticeable communicative style differences between men and women have been discussed publicly where unique conversational styles have been observed and communicative conflicts have been encountered. This dilemma interested both researchers and lay persons seeking to overcome breakdowns in communication between the sexes (Mulac, 1998). Thus, scholars have started examining gender communication and conversational style of each gender. As a result, the term genderlect has been introduced to define the language of the sexes or gendered language. Identical to the term dialect, a variety of language that is spoken in a particular geographical area in a country or by a particular group of people, genderlect is a form of a language that is linked not to geography or to family background but to the speaker's sexual gender (Genderlect, 2013).
A consensus has been grown in the social sciences suggesting that men and women speak two disparate languages; that women use language more for social purposes with verbal interaction serving as a goal in itself; whilst men are more likely to use the language for the instrumental ends conveying information (e.g., Colley et al., 2004; Herring, 1993).
Some researchers (e.g., Mulac, Weimann, Widenmann, & Gibson, 1988) found that
questions are more common in women’s contributions to dyadic interactions (e.g., “Does
anyone want to drink something?”), whereas directives that tell the audience to do
something (e.g., “Let’s go get some drinks”) are more likely to be found in men’s
conversational contributions. Lakoff (1975), as well, provides a set of features that
characterize the sexes’ languages emphasizing the vocabulary used by both. She denotes
that women use more detailed and evaluative adjectives than men who give less detail and
be objective. These differences are the ultimate cause for communication paralysis (Table
Table 1
Women’s language versus men’s language
Women’s Language Men’s Language
Attenuated assertion Strong assertions
Apologies Self-promotion
Explicit justifications Presuppositions
Questions Rhetorical questions
Personal orientations Authoritative orientation
Supports other Challenges others’ humor/sarcasm
Source: Susan C. Herring 1993 Electronic Journal of Communication
Elgin offers communication techniques to bout gender style differences in her book entitled Genderspeak (1993). Deborah Tannen, a well-respected linguistics professor and scholar, has conducted research and published books about gender communication including her national bestseller, You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation.
According to Tingley in her book Genderflex (1994); genderlect portrays active process: “to
temporarily use communication behaviors typical of the other gender in order to increase
potential for influence” (p. 39). Provisional adaptation to a different style of communication
is necessary due to the existing differences in the way men and women communicate. The
fundamental objective of differences adjustment is efficacious communication with
members of the opposite sex.
1.1.2.1. Gender stereotypes
Gender differences begin at very early ages. It is deemed as an inherently communicative process that is constructed and performed broadly via language. Effectively, gender stereotypes are nurtured at a very young age when boys are brought up to be strong and powerful, and girls to be more mince and lady-like. All children around the age of four have a wide understanding of their gender and combat in order to adhere to these existing roles (Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2003). Surrounding family, friends and media represent factors that all persuade individuals to adapt to their stereotype causing them to strive for constancy between their biological sex and what is expected of them (Eddleston, Veiga, &
Powell, 2003). It is very common that when the speaker describes a color as baby blue, pink, mauve or lavender the speaker is more likely to be imagined as a woman than a man.
The latter is expected, rather, to use strong expletives and less standard language.
Gender stereotype roles direct subconsciously how a person is to communicate relating to their gender. Schneider 2005 supplies common female stereotype traits are affectionate, emotional, friendly, sympathetic, sensitive, and sentimental; stereotypic males’
traits include dominant, forceful, aggressive, self-confident, rational, and unemotional.
Lakoff (2004) believes that these sex roles cause women to convince themselves they are marginal to men leading to the perception of women as second class to men in a hierarchal order. In turn, this leads to the association of men’s high status as seen as superior to women. This puts women at a disadvantage seen as marginal and less serious because they are not exposed to males’ opportunities due to their gender stereotype.
1.1.2.2. Sexiest language
Another twist on language and gender issue has been directed toward sexist
language: “language that either calls unnecessary attention to gender or demeaning to one
gender” (Brown, 2000, p. 259). Nowadays, writers are more careful to switch from using the generic he and instead to pluralize or use s/he, in addition, the use of terms like:
mankind, human, people…etc obscure women contribution to language, what comes to coin later on the so called “Woman’s Language” (Brown, 2000). Lakoff (2004), a professor of cognitive linguistics, explains this believing that those who control language have in their possession the means to acquire and exercise power.
Woman’s language (WL) has as its basis the stand that women are marginal to the crucial concerns of life, which are very much considered by men. Both the ways women are expected to speak, and the ways in which women are spoken of mirror the marginality and deficiency of women. In adequate women's speech, feelings’ expressions of uncertainty are favored over strong expressions that are averted (Eichhoff-Cyrus, 2004). Thus, the personal identity of women is linguistically immersed; the language works against treatment of women, as serious individuals with strong views (Lakoff, 2004).
Feminists all over provoked debate arguing that sexist language can have real world consequences for gender relations and the relative status of men and women reflecting the presupposition of a male-dominated “patriarchal society”, and recent research suggests that grammatical gender can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines (Boroditsky, 2009). Kramarae and Treichler (1985) offered a Feminist Dictionary; an alternative dictionary permitting the people worldwide to explore the histories, processes and uses of words. It moreover compelled us to deeply consider the basis for which the words are chosen and what meanings are corresponded to them, probing not to qualify new definitions but to challenge, instead, existing ones and visualize alternatives.
1.1.2.3. Strategies to avoid sexiest language
Sexist language, then, makes up an image of a society where males have highest
social and economic status than females. Here was the arising for using nonsexist language
that many believed it may change the way that users of a language, particularly English, think about gender roles (Lakoff, 197). Gender neutrality is a variety of “linguistic prescriptivism” that aims at getting rid of any reference to specific sex in terms that describe
people (Gender Neurality, 2012). For instance, the
terms policeman and stewardess are considered as sexiest words; the corresponding gender- neutral terms are police officer and flight attendant respectively.
Over and above that, some traditionally gender-neutral terms, such as chairman and
mankind are increasingly seen by some, but not all, as being gender-specific (Trudgill,
1995). Nowadays many publishers and organizations including governmental agencies have
guidelines informing authors how to avoid language which either excludes women or
stereotypes them in negative ways (examples: spinster for bachelor, heroine for hero; Table
2). The guidelines supply to the participants to be loose and free from sexist and racist
expressions using rather alternatives provided (chair and humankind for the previous
examples), thanks to several decades of feminist reforms, which present conscious choices
users of language can make. Truly, several academic and governmental settings have turned
out to depend on gender-neutral expressions to convey inclusion of all genders (gender-
inclusive language).
Table 2
Gender-specific and gender-neutral nouns in English
Male Female Neutral
Host Hostess -
Bachelor Spinster Single person
Hero Heroine
-Steward Stewardess Fire attendant
Mailman
-Letter carrier
Chairman
-Chair
Mankind
-Humankind
Source: created by the students
1.1.3. Males/Females’ talk theories
Since the late 1980s, there has been tremendous wave of studies in male and female communication. The explosion of these studies has been dominated by one word:
differences. The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different, captivated both the public and popular media.
John Gray’s (1992) Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, which argued for enormous psychological differences between women and men, has sold over 30 million copies and been translated into 40 languages. Deborah Tannen’s (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation argued for the different cultures hypothesis:
that men’s and women’s patterns of speaking are so fundamentally different that men and women essentially belong to different linguistic communities or cultures. That book was on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly four years and has been translated into 24 languages. Other little hard-edged scientific works to be read including; Deborah Blum; Sex On The Brain (1997), Anne and Bill Moir; Why Men Don’t Iron (1999), Allan & Barbara Pease; Why men Can’t Listen & Women Can’t Read Maps (2011), Simone Baron-Cohen;
The Essential Difference (2003) and dozens of others like them, have argued for the
differences hypothesis: that males and females are, psychologically, socially and biologically, vastly different.
Yet, another different insight has emerged attracting little interest—the gender similarities hypothesis (Epstein, 1988; Hyde, 1985; Hyde & Plant, 1995; Kimball, 1995).
This view holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. This view stood out as unusual, because the aim of most prominent research studies is to find differences rather than similarities between the sexes. Similar to our work, the following are the main gendered talk theories supporting the differences hypothesis:
nature versus nurture, report versus rapport, and Venus versus Mars.
1.1.3.1. Nature versus Nurture
Nature/nurture controversy continues to be largely influential in the psychology of gender differences. Since ever, it was known that men and women have different evolvements which allow each to different complementary functions; men hunted, women nurtured (Blum, 1997). As their bodies are physically contrastive to adapt to particular tasks, so do their minds. So far, the debatable question that blew the world apart is whether these evolvements are natural or environmental. Historically, cultural determinists have assumed that the mind is a blank slate on which culture, parents could write whatever on that blank slate, and biology is totally ignored when explaining behavior; including linguistic behavior (Pease & Pease, 2011). Women are better communicators just because their mothers were too and their foremothers also. Scientists, on the other hand, offer a somehow rigorous evidence of why we think differently and contend that biology and chemistry are highly responsible.
Indeed, Gender-related speech in linguistic behavior has been investigated over the years through two main contradictory sources; socio-cultural studies and biological studies.
The socio-cultural approach focuses on the environment, society and heritage in general. It
emphasizes the socialization processes for the development of appropriate gender speech styles which provide a cultural understanding and explanation of the diversities among the sexes because the differences themselves changes from one society to another. As Gal, an anthropologist linguist, pointed out “male-female differences in speech have been found in every society studied; but the nature of the contrasts is straggling, occurring in different parts of the linguistic system: phonology, pragmatics, syntax, morphology and lexicon”
(1991, pp. 181-182). Another example which highlights cultural differences is Keenan’s (1974) found that unlike Anglo-Saxons norms of speech of men and women, Malagasy men are characterized by using indirect, polite speech while women tend to use more direct and straightforward style.
Years later, the biological approach shows that we are more a product of our biology
than the victims of social stereotypes thanks to advanced computer brain-scanning
equipment using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which measures electrical activity in
the brain. This equipment has helped to locate different brain functions and allowed to see
the brain operating live and answered many questions about male and female differences
(Pease & Pease, 2011). Biological approach highlights the functions of brain’s two
hemispheres which are clearly indicated in Figure 1 below. As it has been hypothesized,
women might use both hemispheres for language functions, thus being better verbally
skilled. On the other hand, men predominantly use left-hemisphere for language functions,
which might lead to less well-developed verbal abilities (Cameron, 2009).
Source: Adapted from Pease, 2011
Figure 1: Brain’s two hemispheres
Many studies have been made in order to confirm the hypotheses of the biological approaches. In 1997, Bente Pakkenberg from the Neurology Department of Copenhagen Municipal Hospital demonstrated that, on average, a man has around four billion more brain cells than a woman but, generally, women test around 3% higher in general intelligence (that includes linguistic intelligence) than men. In 1999, brain researcher Professor Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Centre discovered that women have more grey matter than men (Pease & Pease, 2011). Grey matter is where the brain does its computational work and makes women better communicators than men (Gur, 1992).
Bellow (Figure 2) an MRI brain scan from research conducted by Dr. Tonmoy Sharma, head
of cognitive psychopharmacology at the Institute of Psychiatry, London, in 1999. Clearly,
males have few spots for speech functions operating in the left brain. For males, language is
not a crucial brain skill. For women it is different, language is a specific area located mainly
in the front left hemisphere with a small specific spot in the right hemisphere; having speech
on both brain sides makes women better conversationalists. Comparing the two figures, one
can see why women are excellent communicators and men are not.
Location of male
speech and
language. (Black areas represent activity.)
Location of female
speech and
language. (Black areas represent activity)
Source: Dr. Tonmoy Sharma, Institute of Psychiatry, London, 1999.
Figure 2: MRI brain scan for location of male and female speech and language.
Eventually, it is now proven that “The wiring of our brain in the womb…will determine how we think and behave” (Pease & Pease, 2011, p. 23). Our instincts are simply our genes determining how our bodies will behave in given sets of circumstances. That is;
biological patterns cause us to perceive the world in different ways and have different values and priorities. Not better or worse - different.
1.1.3.2. Report versus rapport
Numerous psychology books have been written describing men and women as alien
beings and their communication breakdowns as a catalogue of misunderstanding (Cameron,
2007). The most popular deputy of this formula is Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics
at Georgetown University. As a student of Robin Lakoff, Tannen had been introduced
to Lakoff’s works on gender and language, then decided to research gender differences more
profoundly and ended up by contributing articles on language to numerous scholarly books
on conversational styles of both sexes, including: That’s not What I Meant! How
Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), and You Just
Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation (1990). In her book You Just Don’t
Understand, Tannen treats gender linguistic differences taking a sociolinguistic approach
since she believes that “because boys and girls grow up in what are essentially different cultures...talk between women and men is cross-cultural communication” (Tannen, p. 18).
The most essential implication to Tannen’s work is arguing for the different cultures hypothesis; that men’s and women’s patterns of speaking are so fundamentally different that men and women essentially belong to different communities of practice or cultures. Tannen advocates that women and men have different speech styles, and she defines them as:
rapport-talk and report-talk respectively. The term rapport or relationship-oriented talk displays the connection that is cultivated between us and the people that we come in contact with. It is the reason why we feel comfortable and trust people, and lack of rapport is why we would feel unease and skepticism with others. Report or task-oriented talk, in contrast, is a way to give information and produce solutions to problems achieving higher status and power in conversation. It is to maintain superiority and dominance over others and feel independent. Generally, women use language for Intimacy and connection, thus rapport-talk.
“Girls are socialized as children to believe that talk is the glue that holds relationships together” (Tannen, p.85), so as adults conversations for females are “negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus” (Tannen, p. 25). In contrast, conversations for males are for information, hence Tannen’s term report-talk. When having part in a conversation, men aim at keeping the upper hand and protecting themselves from others' attempts to suppress them, so conversation for adult males becomes a contest “in which he [is] either one-up or one-down”
(Tannen, p. 24).
Since then, writers become fond of highlighting the difference in genders speech patterns presenting men and women communication as a “cross-cultural communication”
which has itself became a principal, “an unquestioned article of faith” (Cameron, 2007). Yet
another scholar who advocates Tannen’s hypothesis singling a scientific approach is Simone
Baron-Cohen. The Essential Difference (2003) of Baron-Cohen is a little harder-edged popular scientific book that discusses gender differences. According to Baron-Cohen, both sexes communicate differently, and women do it better, because of the wiring of their brains.
In fact, the female brain tops in verbal functions than a male brain which is better adjusted to visual-spatial and mathematical functions-Women love discourse, men like action. He considers the gulf between the two to be the “essential difference” on their brains.
All along the line of his research, Baron-Cohen is cautious to speak about “people
with female/male brain” rather than “men and women”. Actually, he accentuates three
categories of brains; men with female brains, women with male brains, and individuals of
both sexes with “balanced” brains. However, because the trend is for men to have male
brains and women to have female brains, he refers to the major brain categories as male and
female. The female-brain tasks make use of a capacity for empathy, closeness and
communication, whereas the male ones exploit the ability to analyses, directness and
dominance. Overtly, Baron-Cohen view postulates Tannen’s claims on report/rapport talk
admitting that women are more verbally skilled than men. Today female brains can be
categorized as E-brains (empathizing brains) while male brains can be categorized as S-
brains (systemizing brains) each with particular abilities to handle as it is shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Empathizing versus systemizing brains
People with E-brains are more prone to … People with S-brains are more prone to …
