In this section, we will look at the earliest research, all conducted around the same time, on language and gender. Two types of research were conducted. One has a sociolinguistic/ anthropological linguistics base and the other is from a feminist perspective (that developed into three different theories). One of the first published reports available on the English language and gender is that of Jespersen (1922) who wrote that women‘talk too much’ and that their sentences are unfinished, thus reinforcing the stereotype of women’s language and behaviour as illogical and gossipy. During the years that followed, due to a lack of translations and other limitations in accessing material written in languages other than English, it is difficult to find similar research based on texts from other societies and languages except for some in Japanese.‘Genderlects’ in Japanese has generated an enormous interest by linguists since early times; however, these studies have been mostly descriptive in nature (e.g. Kikuzawa 1929; Mashimo 1969) and they have contained evaluative comments that are very similar to Jespersen’s. Most importantly, many scholars and educators stipulated how‘women should speak and behave’ as early as the seventeenth century (Endo 1997). What is interesting is that despite different ideologies the patriarchally framed results are similar for different cultures.
The work that created the basis for current research directions was Lakoff’s (1975) seminal paper, based on observations, which characterizes the language used by women as consultative and cooperative. Women’s language, she writes, exhibits a number of features such as the high frequency of hedges, tag questions, modal constructions, qualifiers, and final intonation in statements that indicate lack of confidence. The use of empty adjectives and intensifiers is abundant, but the use of expletives is very low. These observations reinforced the stereotype about women’s behaviour, but at the same time it triggered an interest in the actual use of language by women.
It is interesting that a similar work was published in Japan by Akiko Jugaku in 1979. She writes about the close relationship between the Japanese language and the inequalities in a society based on gender stereotypes, which she admits even influence her. By looking at a variety of texts, Jugaku deftly demonstrates the influence of a patriarchal system in Japan and how this system is embodied in almost all aspects of language. She includes modern magazines, songs, television programmes, classical literature, and other forms of Japanese art to show how language‘creates’ the concept of‘femininity’ (Jugaku 1979). Naturally, it is difficult to know whether Jugaku was influenced by Lakoff’s work as it is not acknowledged as a source. However, Jugaku’s 1966 publication‘Retorikku: Nihonjin no Hyoogen’, with several chapters dedicated to women and
language, suggests that her ideas were developed independently. It should be stressed that women’s language research in Japan has a very long history even though the earlier focus was on the lexicon or syntax and ignored the social aspects of language use (see e.g. Endo 1997; Reynolds-Akiba 1993; Nakamura 2004).
Lakkof’s work in many ways is the foundation of present day research on language and gender. Although Jugaku’s work is not known in the West, it is fair to say that at least in Japan, her influence can be strongly felt in feminist research. While it is not the goal of this chapter to discuss the universality of gender differences in language, the fact that these two important works were published on two opposite sides of the Pacific suggests that women’s social status in most countries of the world faces similar challenges (see e.g. Atanga et al. 2012).
Around the same time, studies that took a sociolinguistic/anthropological linguistic approach were conducted by Labov, Trudgill, and Sherzer. Labov ([1966] 1998) and Trudgill (1972) carried out major projects, looking at differences in speakers’ pronunciation. What they found was that women use ‘standard’ pronunciation more frequently than men regardless of social class. These results further helped to spread the perception that women are more conservative and politer than men as can be seen in the studies of Trudgill (1972), Abu-haidar (1989), etc. It is interesting that a comparable study in Amsterdam yielded similar results (Brouwer 1989); however, the addition of more variables such as education and having children showed that demographic factors do affect the choice of standard language use. Nonetheless, Labov’s and Trudgill’s studies have been influential in creating the perception that women are more con- servative and are conscious of prestige language (although Arabic presents a different case because it is a diglossic society. This will be discussed more in detail below). This phenomenon has been explained in terms of women’s lower status in society whereby it is usually women who are in disadvantaged social positions and so they see language as a way to achieve higher status (Brouwer 1989).
The influence of Labov’s work can also be observed in research that looked at the use of different languages or varieties of language (High and Low) in different societies. Arabic speaking countries are known for their diglossic situation with the existence of Classic Arabic or Standard Arabic (H) and also colloquial varieties (L) that are all used concurrently. Early studies on Standard Arabic and Colloquial Arabic suggest, contrary to the results by Labov and Trudgill, that men’s pronunciation is closer to the more prestigious Standard Arabic (Bakir 1986). Similar studies in other countries where Arabic is spoken seem to confirm this observation (e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Iraqi (Abu-haidar 1989)); however, Ibrahim (1986) contends that it is not possible to compare Classic Arabic to English because Classic Arabic is only acquired through education. Similarly, there are many prestigious colloquial varieties, therefore, to exclusively associate prestige and H variety is untenable. Due to their social situation women in these countries consciously choose the L variety because it carries the most appropriate social connotations. Although these studies were done more than forty years ago, they are an important reminder of the danger for researchers that transferring concepts applicable in one culture or society to another can yield inaccurate results.
A different diglossic situation exists where a different language is used by men and women. This circumstance is closely related to geographical position and intrinsically tied to political and historic developments. In many countries or regions in the world, particularly those that were colonized, more than one language is spoken. One of these languages is considered H (usually the language of the colonizers) and the local language or languages are regarded as L. For example, in many South American countries, Spanish is the H language and Aymara, Quechua, and many other languages are the L language. However, the relative status of these languages is not as clearly demarcated as in other cases because speakers feel a strong sense of identity
towards Quechua or Aymara despite the fact that they are aware that knowing and speaking the H language is the key towards social mobility (Howard-Malverde, 1995). Although she mentions it only briefly, Howard-Malverde acknowledges that the diglossic situation of women is closely tied to economic and cultural factors.
Sherzer (1987) reports that in some societies (Kuna Indians of Panama) where gender distinctions are clearly demarcated, verbal genre, speaking roles and patterns of speaking are similarly defined. He stresses the importance of avoiding the ethnocentric view of labelling women’s speech as inferior, and that‘gender distinctions in language must be seen in the context of sociological differentiation and cultural framing of which they constitute an integral aspect’ (Sherzer 1987: 119). A similar separation of language and gender can be observed in the case of the use of Hungarian and German in a small peasant community in Austria (Gal 1998) where there is a difference between the language used by young women and that used by the rest of the population. Regardless of their networks, it appears that young women prefer to use German as they see their life in the countryside as less attractive than living in the cities. This is in contrast to the young men who prefer to use Hungarian despite the relatively negative evaluation attached to the image of this language. Gal argues that the linguistic choices women make are closely related to their ability to participate in social change.
As noted previously, in some languages the gender of the speaker, or the listener, or both affect the employment of lexicon, syntax, or pragmatic elements. For example, Coasati or Thai speakers will choose a set of words, particles, etc. according to the speaker’s gender; while in Arabic the choice will depend on the listener’s gender. In Japanese, on the other hand, choices will depend on the gender of both the speaker and the listener. This contrasts with languages such as English, German, or French where neither the speaker’s or listener’s genders entail obligatory choices (Sherzer 1987). This aspect is of crucial importance in understanding how different cultures and languages perceive the relationship between gender and language (see e.g. Ide 2005).