S/he is a Wo/man: The Role of Language in the Construction of Gender

1. Aims
- focus on the relation between gender and language: How does language influence gender? What
impact does gender have on language? Is our behaviour as men or women natural?
-sex and gender: To what is extent is the first one biological and the second what social? How welldefined are the categories male-female, masculine-feminine? Why should we study language and
gender? What are the main approaches which have been adopted in the studies of language and
gender?
- focus on differences which have been identified along the years between the speech of women and
that of man with respect to the vocabulary, to the preference for standard or non-standard forms, to the
usage of language tools that presumably convey uncertainty, and to verbosity;
- sexist language: showing how language conveys and perpetuates sexism through various tools that
fall under the categories overt and indirect sexism.
2. Sex vs. gender, biological vs. social?
- making a distinction between sex and gender = a conceptual breakthrough for second-wave
feminism (Talbot 2010:7);
- sex is biological and an attribute that we are built with vs. gender is something social which we
learn, build and develop, a construct;
debate: how much of our identity as a man or a woman is biologically determined, and how much
socially determined? no clear answer, the social and the biological cannot be clearly separated, and

this is noticeable when analysing aspects such as aggressiveness and pitch:

higher level of testosterone men are more aggressive than women?
- Talbot (2010:8-9): research on pre-school children: even if the difference in the level of testosterone
is insignificant, boys still are more aggressive than girls unclear whether the level of testosterone is

connected with aggressiveness;

bigger length of mens vocal tract men have lower pitch?
- Talbot (2010:13): experimental study: people can distinguish between the voices of boys and girls
even before puberty, when the length of their vocal tract is equal children consciously or
unconsciously manipulate their voice, so before being affected by biology (the length and thickness of
vocal cords, the size of Adams apple), the difference in pitch is determined socially.

But why is there no clear border between sex and gender?

Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003:10): there is no single objective biological criterion for male
or female sex; sex is a combination of endocrinal, chromosomal, and anatomical characteristics
selected based on cultural beliefs about what actually makes someone male or female.

Fausto-Sterling (2000:3): our beliefs about gender affect what kinds of knowledge scientists

produce about sex in the first place.

Science (medicine) interferes to make people closer to the norm of man/woman: babies considered
abnormal surgical and endocrinal manipulations to bring them closer to the socially imposed
standard: e.g. a requirement imposed by common medical practice is that both a penis smaller than 2.5
cm and a clitoris longer than 1 cm undergo surgery and are reduced to an acceptable size clitoris
regardless of the other sexual attributes of the neonate (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003:11).
Gender a construct, something that we perform our behaviour, including our linguistic one,
cannot be explained only by resorting to biology we need gender.
Male-female, masculine-feminine: clear-cut categories?
We generally associate males with masculinity and females with femininity, but males can be
feminine and women can be masculine, both masculine and feminine are gradable and beyond this
grammatical attribute they both involve degree. Halberstam (1998): female masculinity exists, but it
has been ignored because of the presupposition that masculinity involves power and domination and
their correlation with females is undesired.
If gender is a continuum, what can we say about sex?

Bing, Bergvall and Freed (1996): more than two sexes exist, there are about seventy types of

intersexed individuals, one in 30 000 infants is intersexed.

Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003:11): one in 100 babies have a body that does not conform to the
standard male/female at birth; one in 1000 male infants is born with two X chromosomes, and 1 in
13000 neonates is insensitive to androgens or has a different configuration and combination of
genitals and reproductive organs.
the dichotomy male-female is not as clear or as reliable as we think gender and sex = continua.
3. Why should we study language and gender?
Talbot (2010) - two main views on the relationship between language and gender:
a. the weak view language = mirror which reflects society and the social divisions on gender
grounds (Talbot 2010:15);
b. the stronger view language creates the gender divisions that it reflects, it creates and controls
our reality.
- a and b radical, the truth is in the middle BUT a + b language is an important and powerful tool
involved in the process of shaping the society and our mentality; language plays an important role in
the construction of gender;

- becoming aware of the power and importance that language has, realising that it can convey or
create inequality the desire for change reforms (codes of practices that promote inclusive
language);
-changes in language difficult to accomplish, require time BUT gender and language studies are
helpful: the first steps (raising awareness and stimulating social change).
4. Approaches to language and gender

Deficit: womens language is deficient compared to that of men.

e.g. Lakoff (1973): the marginality and powerlessness of women BUT: no evidence;

Dominance: language is a tool which reflects and supports male dominance.

e.g. Dale Spender- Man Made Language

Difference: Coates: men and women are part of different subcultures they use language
differently; advantage: women are no longer seen as oppressed and powerless (Coates 2007:66).
e.g. Tannen- You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (1990)
Issues: intra-gender differences and the similarities between men and women are ignored, so is the
issue of power (the equal-but-different-myth); the social consequences of differences are ignored
and the dominating behaviour is reinterpreted; cross-sex talk is compared to cross-cultural talk,
implying that men and women are part of different sub-cultures; emphasis on miscommunication and
ignorance of the social dimension of performing gender.
All the three approaches: imply that gender is binary (conservative); use differences in favour of male
dominance; disregard context, similarities, and intra-gender differences.
The social constructionist approach: gender = social construct, dynamic and continuously changing,
not given and static (Coates 2007).
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet describe two major shifts in the study of language and gender:
- discourse turn - an analysis of discourse and its significance for gender; language is historical
and dynamic; mutability of linguistic units which need to be analysed in a context, in connection with
the functions that they serve;
- performance turn: gender is something that one does; we perform gender and language is one of
our tools.

5. Growing up differently?
a child is born Its a boy/girl! , usually, a gendered name is given (exceptions: names that are not
sex-exclusive (Chris, Pam), names that were previously used for males and now used for females

(Evelyn, Whitney));
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003): adults see and treat babies differently, depending on the sex they
ascribe them:

- Condry and Condry (1976): the cry of an infant is perceives as angry if it presumably comes from a
boy and as fearful and plaintive if adults believe that the baby is a girl.
- Maccoby and Jacklin (1987): initially, male infants cry as much as female infants, but adults react
differently to their cry, so boys cry less and less as they grow old.
Differences in the way boys and girls speak and are spoken to:
- Parents use more diminutives and inner state words in the conversations with girls, and more direct
and emphatic prohibitives in those with boys.
-Gleason (1980) teaching politeness: boys and girls - similar treatment from parents BUT different
models: mothers use more polite formulae than fathers.
- It is assumed that girls are superior to boys in the process of language acquisition: boys acquire
vocabulary slower (Nelson 1973), girls use modals more often than boys (1983), but maybe these two
studies simply reflect slower maturation.
- Fisher (1958): girls use the standard variant [] more often than boys so maybe children perceive
the standard as typical for female speech (Coates 1993:159).
- Romaine (1978), Macaulay (1978): studies on 10 year-olds in Edinburgh and Glasgow; the results
showed that girls used the non-standard variants for the variables (gs), (i), (au) and (a) less frequently
than boys; BUT when she analysed the used of the non-standard variant [u:] in three age groups in
Edinburgh, Romaine noticed that its use decreases with age. Maybe children acquire the ability to
code-switch?
- Haas (1978) and Swann (1987) boys talk more: longer utterances (Haas), more turns, more words
(Swann); mixed-sex conversations: everybody supports male domination.
6. Vocabulary
- Cambridge (1754): women use ephemeral words which reflect the unimportance of what they say.
- Lord Chesterfield (1754), unknown author (1756): women frequently use words such as vast, vastly,
excessively, amazingly, which show that they have an unoriginal, repetitive vocabulary, filled with
adjectives and adverbs that are used like some fashionable items, in many contexts, regardless of their
meaning.
-Jespersen (1922) and Lakoff (1973): there are certain adjectives typically used by women: adorable,
divine, lovely, nice, pretty, sweet, etc. Lakoff claims that, if men use such adjectives or precise colour
names, it can damage their reputation.
- Jespersen: the intensifier so shows that women start talking without having thought out what they
are going to say.
Neither one of these accusations is supported by evidence, they are mere attempts to find inferiority in
womens speech.

7. The use of standard and non-standard forms

- Lakoff (2004:80): womens grammar is hypercorrect; boys drop their gs more than girls.
- Trudgill (1974): sociolinguistic survey on the variable (ng) with its standard [] and non-standard
variants [n], using the method of the taped sociolinguistic interview. Results show that the women in
each social class use the prestige variant [] more than the men in the same social class in all styles.
The informants are also asked to self-evaluate and women tend to over-report, while men underreport, leading Trudgill into claiming that women use the standard more because it carries overt
prestige (helping them appear more refined and aim towards a higher social position), while men
under-report and use the non-standard because it carries covert prestige, conveying desirable
masculine attributes.
Problems with Trudgills results and assumptions (Talbot 2010:23-26):
- the survey only included 50 people so any generalization is highly unreliable;
- social class was assigned to women based on the occupation and earnings of their husband/father, so
the classification is unreliable;
- all the informants, regardless of their status or background, were subjected to the same interview;
- women were interviewed by highly educated men, which probably added pressured on them to
speak closer to the standard;
- we do not know if the interviewers accommodated to the speech of their informants;
- Trudgill starts from the presupposition that mens behaviour is the norm, trying to explain why
women use the standard more frequently, not why men use it less; it is womens behaviour the one
which has to be accounted for;
- if men use non-standard forms because they carry covert prestige, are they not also status-conscious?
BUT there are many other studies (Macaulay 1978, Newbrook 1982) which lead to the conclusion
that women use standard forms more frequently than men, so what are the reasons behind their
choices?

status-consciousness: the sensitivity of women to linguistic norms, generated by their insecure social

position (Coates 1993:78); overt and covert prestige;

social psychology: women use standard forms because it helps them acquire a greater status, while
men use the non-standard ones because they convey solidarity; both help men and women to assert

their distinctiveness (Coates 1993:83).

Deuchar: face (dignity, status) and power: standard speech allows speakers with less power to

protect their face and pay attention to others face; a safe strategy for women;
Talbot (2010:26-28): market force view and social networks view: economics, group membership, the
tightness of communities and work patterns and relations are important factors that influence ones
speech and linguistic choices and preferences (e.g. Milroys study in Belfast).

8. Uncertainty (Lakoff 1973)

Hedges convey uncertainty or are used to reduce the unfriendliness of a statement, but, according to
Lakoff, women use them even when they are certain about what they are saying and their statements
do not offend anyone because they believe and are taught that being assertive is not ladylike, and
through the use of hedges they apologize for making a claim and even for speaking, giving the
impression that they lack authority and that they are uncertain. But Lakoff offers no evidence and,
since she states that hedges are used by people who lack self-confidence, maybe this happens

regardless of their gender.

Tag questions can convey uncertainty and Lakoff claims that women use them more often than men,
especially in situations when they express an opinion for which they seek confirmation and support,
but they do not want to seem too direct or assertive (1a), thus avoiding conflict and expressing
uncertainty.
(1)

a.

The results of the Eurovision Song Contest werent fair, were they?

b.

People use referential tags regardless of their gender, dont they?

c.

Its about the results of the exam, isnt it?

d.

That was not as good as expected, was it?

However, besides the fact that she offer no evidence, Lakoff disregards the fact that tag questions do
not always have the same function and there are different types of tag questions used to fulfil different
purposes (Talbot 2010). The referential tags (1b) indeed expresses uncertainty, but the affective ones
convey different information: the facilitative tag (1c) encourages participants to participate in a talk,
conveying solidarity and closeness, while the softening tag (1d) diminishes the threatening nature of
criticism or command (Talbot 2010:39). According to Holmes, women indeed use more tag
questions, but they use facilitative ones (which do not express uncertainty), not referential ones (used
more often by men).
9. Verbosity
- numerous proverbs and examples in literature which claim that women talk too much; - Spender:
when silence is the desired state for women [] then any talk in which a woman engages can be too
much (1980:42, quoted by Coates 1993:35);
- the ideal = silence (Silence is the best ornament for a woman.);
-Shirley and Ardeners theory of muted groups;
- many domains in which women are muted, such as the media;

- Coates (1993:192): in mixed interaction women tend to speak less, initiating only about one-third
of all conversations and power relations are reflected and reproduced through talk, which is
dominated by men.
10. Sexist language
Many studies (Martyna 1983, Bem et al. 1973, Adamsky 1981) have shown that language,
and implicitly sexist language, not only signals the presence of an issue such as sexism in a society,
reflecting peoples beliefs and perceptions, it also influences these beliefs and perceptions, so making
people aware of the sexism in language and triggering the desire for change are important issues for
sociolinguists and feminists.
What forms does sexism take in language?
Overt sexism
Mrs and Miss vs. Mr
- Mrs and Miss, unlike Mr, carry information about the persons marital status;
- Dr, Professor do not define women in relation to men, but it is problematic to use them outside
the working environment;
- Ms introduced, present on most official forms in Britain, but this form is used by the media to
criticize or ridicule and many believe that it is used only by divorced women, feminists, lesbians,
man-haters and women who are living with men without being married to them (Mills 2008:64);
Names of women
-can convey sexism: many are derived from male names (2a) or are diminutives (2b):
(2)

a.

Stephen: Stephanie, Christopher: Christine, Peter: Petra (Mills 2005:82)

b.

Ginette, Suzette, Lynette, Janette (Mills 2005:82)

Woman, lady, girl

- woman, lady, girl acquired negative connotations:
-woman is negative when it is used to refer to men (3);
-lady, which according to Lakoff (1973), is an euphemism for woman, is more common and it is used
more frequently than its male correspondents lord and gentleman, and in contexts such as (4) it
confers a frivolous, or nonserious tone to the sentence (Lakoff 1973:59), also reminding of the age
of chivalry when women were helpless;

- lady is also used to confer dignity to low-status professions (saleslady, cleaning lady, *cleaning
lord);
-girl has, according to Lakoff, the advantage of being devoid of sexual connotations, but it conveys
immaturity and irresponsibility.
(3)

Dont be such a woman! (Mills 2005:85)

(4)

A lady I know is a dean at Oxford.

Occupations

- referring to womens occupations is problematic;

-English lacks a grammatical gender gender became a semantic category with social implications
( Hellinger 2001);
- terms denoting occupations: contrast between how one pronominalizes high-status occupations (5a),
and low-status occupations (5b):
(5)
(6)

a.

lawyer, politician, physician, scientist, surgeon he

b.

babysitter, nurse, schoolteacher, secretary she

female surgeon, female politician, male nurse, woman writer

- social gender = stereotypical assumptions about what are appropriate social roles for women and
men, including expectations about who will be a typical member of the class of, say, surgeon or
nurse (Hellinger 2001:108);
- prestigious occupations generic he; deviations gender is marked (6);
a tendency of using he; why? the ideology of MAN (male-as-norm);
-sometimes suffixes are used to form female variants of names of occupations (actress, poetess,
stewardess, comedienne, aviatrix) but they express a sense of lack of seriousness (Mills 2005:70)
that the male equivalents lack; however, some claim, that at least they make women visible.
Generics
- he it is not understood as generic and confuses the reader;
alternatives have been found: s/he, they, he or she (signal the fact that a deliberate effort is made to
include women), using the passive, alternating between she and he (confusing), use she; they are
important because they address both males and females;
- man, mankind also understood as referring to males; there are cases when man cannot be replaced
by woman or person (7), and it cannot be used as a generic for woman (8) it is not really a generic;

(7)

to be man enough, to be the right man for the job, man in the street

(8)

*Man is a mammal which breastfeeds his young. (Mills 2005:66)

(9)

Circumcision lingered much longer in America, where [] more that 90% of Americans
were circumcised at birth (quoted in Mills 2005:69)

- man is also used as an affix: man-power, man-hours, craftsman, dustman, fireman, policeman (also,
usually understood as referring only to males);
- other generics can be used with the meaning man/men (9).
Derogation
- Mills (1989:xiv, quoted in Kochman-Haadyj 2007:209): terms used for females are likely to become
pejorative and to acquire negative sexual connotations;
- many pairs of words where only the female term acquired negative connotations:
adventurer/adventuress, bachelor/spinster, courtier/courtesan, god/goddess, governor/governess,
host/hostess, king/queen, lord/lady, master/mistress, priest/priestess, sir/madam (Mills 2005:84)
Zoosemy, foodsemy, sexuality
- many animal metaphors for women, which carry negative sexual connotations;
- terms in the category of equines (10) usually refer to wanton women or prostitutes;
(10)

a.

mare the female of any equide animal used as an insult to refer to despised women

b.

nag an inferior or aged and unsound horse

c.

hackney an ambling horse or mare, especially for ladies to ride on (Kietyka

2005:170-174).

- terms in the categories canidae and felidae: bitch, cat, minx, puppy, pussy; similar negative sexual
connotations;
- names of domestic animals ugliness: cow, gib, mare, sow (Kietyka 2005:182)
- words that denote food are used as terms of endearment (11a) or refer to female sexual organs (11b)
they imply that women are used for consumption;
(11)
(12)
(13)

a.

cherry, cookie, dish, honey, sugar, sweety-pie (Greer 2008:297)

b.

cake-roll, jelly-roll, honey-pot (Greer 2008:297)

a.

to get someone pregnant, to put a bun in the oven (Mills 2005:79)

b.

Im expecting, Im pregnant, Im in the family way (Mills 2005:79)

a.

Casanova, gigolo, Jack the lad/lad, stud (Mills 2005:86)

b.

easy lay, goer, scrubber, slag, slut, tart, whore (Mills 2005:86)

- pregnancy: described from a male perspective, with women portrayed as passive (12b) and men as
active (12a);
- discrepancy between the words used for men and those used for women (13a) with many sexual
partners (13b);
sexism is evident in words that refer to womens sexuality.
Indirect sexism
- sexist statements: express stereotypical beliefs about women/men; carry the idea that the experience
of men is human experience; regard womens activities as trivial or secondary, unlike those of men
(Mills 2008:2);
- identifying overt sexism and generating reforms positive effects (Britain: increase in the number
of women in the workplace; institutional support for people who protest against overt sexism);
BUT also negative reactions to campaigns against sexist language:
- the alternatives are odd/ridiculous/difficult to use/sound forced;
- the media ridiculed campaigns by propagating absurd ideas ( history vs. *herstory);
- Cameron (1995): reform = verbal hygiene, result of fears about incorrect, irritating or offensive
usages (Mills 2008:6);
many sexist words became stigmatized so more masked strategies to convey sexism have appeared
indirect sexism defined as: one which in some ways attempts to deny responsibility for an
utterance, mediating the utterance through irony or disguising the force of the sexism of the utterance
through humour, innuendo (Mills 2008:135).
Types of indirect sexism:

humour: - jokes reinforce unequal power relations (Mills 2008:141);

- burden upon the receiver to share the joke (Benwell 2006, quoted in Mills 2008:141) it is
problematic for women to challenge sexist jokes, they risk seeming puritanical, humourless and
overly literal (Mills 2008:145);
- confusing: does humour fight or perpetuate sexism?

sexism at the level of presupposition: advertisements; sexist readings a matter of personal

interpretation?
- Mills (2008:139-140) analyses two articles published in The Independent, one about Baroness
Blackstone (vice-chancellor of a university) and the other about Paul Mackney (trade union official);

in the article about Blackstone there is information about her clothes and the fact that she is a
grandmother;
sexism very complex, both direct and indirect; it is important to raise awareness because change
can happen;
11. Conclusions
the relation between language and gender and the role that language plays in the construction
of ones gendered identity very complex;
sex and gender = continua male-female, masculine-feminine are not clear-cut categories;
the biological and the social work together (e.g. pitch);
beliefs, conventions, stereotypes, norms imposed by society affect the individuals behaviour,
including the linguistic one;
our gendered identity (with all its aspects, including language) is affected by many factors and
social variables (sex, gender, age, race, etc.)
language = a tool in the construction of ones gendered identity/ a mirror of the norms
imposed by society and of its beliefs and stereotypes, of the way we perceive man and women
and of the power relations between them;
language = resource and tool which can perpetuate inequality/ can be used to fight against
sexism; / mirror of unfair treatment and of the beliefs that lead to it; / weapon, it can have
positive effects on the way that women and other discriminated categories perceive
themselves, and also on the way that society perceives them;
language is fluid; context is important;
the study of language and gender makes the first step towards equality by raising awareness.

References

Alter, C. June 4, 2015. 8 Sad Truths About Women in the Media. http://time.com/?
p=3908138?xid=tcoshare, [accessed on June 7th, 2015]
Bergvall, V., Bing, J., Freed, A. (eds.). 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research:
Theory and Practice. London: Longman.
Coates, J. 1993. Women, Men and Language. Essex: Longman.
Coates, J. 2007. Gender. In C. Lamas, L. Mullany and P. Stockwell (eds.), The Routledge
Companion to Sociolinguistics, 62-68. New York: Routledge.
Coates, J., Cameron D. (eds.). 1988. Women in Their Speech Communities. London:
Longman.
Eckert, P., McConnell-Ginet S. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality.
New York: Basic Books.
Greer, G. 2008. The Female Eunuch. London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
Halberstam, J. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hellinger, M. 2001. English Gender in a global language. In M. Hellinger and H. Bumann
(eds.), Gender Across Languages, vol. 1, 105-113. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Jespersen, O. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Ellen
and Unwin.
Kietyka, R. 2005. Zoosemic terms denoting female human beings: Semantic derogation of
women revisited. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International review of English
Studies, 41: 167-186.
Kochman-Haadyj, B. 2007. Low wenches and slatternly queans: On derogation of women
terms. Studia Anglica Resoviensia 4: 206-228.
Lakoff, R. 1973. Language and Womans Place. Language in Society 1: 45-80.
Lakoff, R. 2004. Language and Womans Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maccoby, E., Jacklin C. 1987. Gender segregation in childhood. In H. Reese (ed.), Advances
in Child Behavior and Development. New York: Academic Press.
McElhinny, B. 2003. Theorising gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In J.
Holmes and M. Meyerhoff (eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender, 21-42.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Mills, S. 2005. Feminist Stylistics. Taylor&Francis e-Library.
Mills, S. 2008. Language and Sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schilling, N. 2011. Language, gender, and sexuality. In R. Mesthrie (ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 218-237. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sunderland, J. 2006. Language and Gender: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge.
Talbot, M. 2010. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tucker, S. 1961. English Examined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.