The Mark of Eve
Baron's examination is based on the ideology that “women's language, if not entirely fallen from grace, is secondary and derivative, inferior to man's, and an inappropriate model for imitation by either women or men” (5). Many early commentators on the English language “accepted the story of Eve's derivation from Adam and imposed this mythological pattern upon linguistic phenomena, where feminine forms are almost universally derived from masculine ones” (4). As a result, Christian societies have regarded women's language as inferior to men's, “to be praised or condemned, ridiculed, ignored, or at best, studied as a curiosity” (1). Most detrimentally, men have used their “superior” language to limit the range of women's linguistic activity to the home and hearth. This is evident in many societies, not just those which adhere to Creation's model of male superiority. Women are traditionally tied to the domestic spheres of house-keeping and childrearing because they are the primary caretakers of the children they bear. Baron argues that since “women must use a language that they regard as both man-made and male-controlled,” the creation of new sex-neutral terminology is needed to eliminate gender-biased language (3). But the creation of a new lexicon is not enough. Social attitudes towards gender roles must first be altered before women can gain access to the means of language enrichment that men enjoy.
Differences in Men's and Women's Language
Baron employs a type of sociolinguistic study which Coates refers to as the “dominance approach.” This evaluation is concerned with the method by which men dominate women through language. Coates adheres to the “difference approach,” in which the focus is upon the cultural inheritance of linguistic differences. These differences, Coates contends, are directly related to social roles. The next section of this essay will consider the actual differences in men's and women's language, as documented by Coates throughout her analysis.
Generally, men and women differ in vocabulary, swearing and taboo words, grammar, literacy, pronunciation, and verbosity. Coates defines women as “paratactic,” and men as “hypotactic.” These terms were coined by the early 20th century Danish professor of the English language, Otto Jesperson. Parataxis is “ a term used to describe a sequence of clauses where there are no links at all” (I got up, I went to work). In addition to women's language, this type of language is typically found in Anglo-Saxon prose, speech, and restricted code. Hypotaxis is “the term used to describe a sequence of clauses where the links are subordinating conjunctions” (After I got up, I went to work/I went to work after I got up). In addition to men's language, this type of language is typically found in Renaissance and post-Renaissance prose, writing, and elaborated code (27). Because of these differences, Jesperson asserts that women are “emotional,” whereas men are “grammatical” (29). Coates also defines women's language as sensitive, tentative, informal, and cooperative. She defines men's language as formal, dominant, and self-centered. Regarding taboo language and swear words, Coates explains that, while men use profanity abundantly, women are experts at euphemism, and that just because they don't enjoy profanity regarding sex, they still enjoy the act and have a language with which to refer to it (23). She adds that women swear more frequently in the company of other women, and men's usage of profanity drops dramatically in mixed-sex conversations (128).
The greatest difference in men's and women's languages is within the social construct; men and women employ many differing tactics during social interaction. According to Coates:
The evidence at present suggests that women and men do pursue different interactive styles: in mixed-sex conversations this means that men dominate the conversation by becoming silent. Women make greater use of minimal responses to indicate support for the speaker. It also seems that women use more hedges, while men talk more, swear more and use imperative forms to get things done. Women use more linguistic forms associated with politeness (139).
Men are often formal in their language, while women are generally informal. For example, Coates points out the difference in the bedside manners of men and women physicians: “Male doctors use a style of talk which is more authoritarian and less sensitive to the patient than that of female doctors” (11). As a result, she argues, male doctors are less effective than female doctors in getting patients to cooperate with medical procedures or courses of treatment. This personal sympathy permeates women's language. In general, Coates claims, women give far more compliments than men. (Although this is often attributed to the fact that when a man compliments a woman, it is often translated as sexual harassment) (129).
As the “emotional” gender, women generally serve as the facilitators of conversation. Men aim to dominate the interaction. Coates elaborates:
Research carried out in this field suggests that men typically adopt a competitive style in conversation, treating their turn as a chance to overturn earlier speakers' contributions and to make their own point as forcibly as possible. Women on the other hand, in conversation with other women, typically adopt a cooperative mode: they add to rather than demolish other speaker's contributions, they are supportive of others, they tend not to interrupt each other (10).
Because women are so polite in their social interactions, their language is sometimes described as “tentative,” or incomplete. Women often employ the use of hedges, which are linguistic forms such as I think, I'm sure, you know, sort of, and perhaps which “express the speaker's certainty or uncertainty about the proposition under discussion” (117). This tactic is generally a method of acquiring feedback or approval within the conversation. However, linguist Robin Lakoff equates it to unassertiveness, and argues that women are “socialized to believe that asserting themselves strongly isn't nice or ladylike, or even feminine” (117). Since women often serve as the facilitators of conversation, hedging is generally a method of avoiding offense.
In same-sex interactions, men's and women's language varies even more drastically. According to Coates, in all-women groups, “women discuss one topic for half an hour or more; they share a great deal of information about themselves and talk about their feelings and their relationships.” Men, on the other hand, “jump from one topic to another, vying to tell anecdotes which center around themes of superiority and aggression. They rarely talk about themselves, but compete to prove themselves better informed about current affairs, travel, sport, etc.” (188).
Gendered Language in Other Cultures
While most of Coates' analysis pertains to the English language, she also offers evidence for differences in men's and women's languages in other cultures. These testimonies are vital to deconstructing Baron's assertion that religion is primarily responsible for gendered language. First, she documents phonological differences between men and women in Eastern Siberia: “The Chukchi language … varies phonologically, depending on the gender of the speaker.” This linguistic phenomenon also occurs within the Gros Ventre tribe in Montana, where pronunciation is a defining marker of sexual identity. Different pronunciations for the same words exist for these men and women, and “if anyone uses the wrong form, they are considered to be bisexual by older members of the tribe” (39). Second, Coates documents idiosyncrasies within the language spoken by the Yana in California. In this culture, “the language used between men differs morphologically from that used in other situations (men to women, women to men, women to women)” (39). Third, she records the linguistic habits of Trobriand islanders, where kinship terminology is organized on the basis of two criteria: same/different gender, and older/younger. Finally, she explains that in Mongolia, it is taboo to use certain words, and women's restrictions on language are even more bizarre:
Most linguistic taboos in Mongolia are concerned with names. Mongols avoid using the names of dead people, predatory animals and certain mountains and rivers thought to be inhabited by spirits. More particularly, women are absolutely forbidden to use the names of their husband's older brothers, father, father's brothers or grandfather. Women are not allowed to use any word or syllable which is the same as, or sounds like, any of the forbidden names (43).
These differences, which include restrictions on women's language, occur in many cultures outside of those which adhere to the Creation story. Gendered language exists for sociological reasons, not necessarily because of Baron's “Mark of Eve.”
Women as a Minority
The initial inclination of sociolinguists was to study the differences between higher and lower society language, which is why the preceding studies exist. However, more recently, since the emergence of a woman's equality movement, women themselves have become regarded as a minority group. Beginning in the eighteenth century, with the standardization of the English language, writers pointed out gender differences, particularly in the superfluousness of women's language. According to Coates, “In England, the eighteenth century saw the publication of numerous dictionaries and grammars, all written in an attempt to reduce the language to rule, and to legislate on 'correct' usage” (17). In 1741, Lord Chesterfield wrote that “ … letter writing among women is faultless, except in three particulars' which are 'a general deficiency of subject, a total inattention to stops, and very frequent ignorance of grammar'” (25). These scrutinies of women's language exist today. Still, women are blamed for their excessive use of adverbial forms. Jesperson more recently argues that women produce half-finished sentences as a result of not thinking before speaking (I must say!, The trouble you must have taken!). Eighteenth-century notions of grammar, which were prescriptive rather than descriptive, imposed a “natural order” of the superiority of male language. Eighteenth-century women's failure to grasp Standard English was a direct result of their lack of education. With the standardization of written language, oral tradition was considered informal and improper. However, women were not permitted the same access to education that men were, and therefore, could not acquire the proper semantics that had been prescribed for the language.
The Paradox of Women's Language: Garrulous or Silenced?
Not only were women criticized for their improper use of Standard English, they were (and still are) criticized for their garrulous nature. Coates cites Deborah Jones, who in her paper “Gossip: notes on women's oral culture,” defines “gossip” as “ … a way of talking between women in their roles as women, intimate in style, and domestic in topic and setting.” Coates adds that “using a term such as 'gossip' draws attention to the fact that the language women use when talking to each other has not traditionally been treated as serious linguistic data; by contrast, men's talk is seen as 'real' talk and has always been taken seriously” (135-6). She uses literary references, from both men and women writers, to prove that women are viewed as overly-talkative creatures. Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem of 1856 says, “A woman's function plainly is – to talk.” In As You Like It, William Shakespeare's Rosalind proclaims, “Do you not know I am a woman? When I think, I must speak” (33).
Despite the idea that women talk too much, they are expected to remain silent in the presence of men: “Silence is the best ornament of a woman” (English proverb) (34). Silence, says Coates, is made synonymous with obedience. Since their voices are suppressed, women belong to what anthropologists Shirley and Edwin Ardener refer to as a “muted group.” Muted groups are minority groups which have trouble expressing themselves to the dominant group. Coates adds that many muted groups are further silenced by rules imposed by the dominant group. In order to make themselves heard, women must take on the dominant (masculine) approach to language. Accordingly, women have assimilated into the dominant group in a variety of ways: using deeper voices (lower in pitch), swearing and using taboo language, adopting a more assertive style in group interaction, and by addressing themselves in public to traditionally male topics (business, politics, economics). However, this assimilation isn't necessarily conducive to personal communication. Coates argues that, in woman-to-woman interaction, their “powerless” forms of communication, when used reciprocally, approach “the ideal form of cooperative discourse” (139-40).
Language In Children
Much can be learned about men's and women's language potential by looking at children's language acquisition. Coates explains that girls are often more linguistically advanced than boys. This is attributed to the Freudian notion that little girls are effectively “little men,” and are more social and talkative than boys. At this stage, girls' talk is characterized as collaboration-oriented, while boys' talk is competition-oriented. In addition, boys' friendships are based on joint activity, while girls' friendships are based on talk (144). Even though girls start out as language savants, society soon imposes social norms that limit their ability to communicate. From social interaction, girls learn to create and maintain the relationships of closeness and equality, to criticize others in acceptable ways, and to interpret accurately the speech of other girls. Boys, on the other hand, are taught to assert a position of dominance, to attract and maintain an audience, and to assert themselves when another speaker has the floor (158). It is evident that, given these learned behaviors, boys will grow into language-dominating men and girls will develop into passive, inarticulate women. Coates' most compelling evidence regarding language in children lies in a 1973 Clarke-Steward observation of American mothers and first-born children. According to Coates, the language skills of girls in the areas of comprehension and vocabulary were significantly higher than those of boys. This result is attributed to the girls' more positive involvement with their mothers: “The girls' mothers differed from the boys' mothers in that they spent more time in the same room as their daughters, had more eye contact with them, used a higher proportion of directive and restrictive behaviors, and a higher ration of social to referential speech” (145). In other words, parents who were more linguistically interactive with their children fostered greater language acquisition. In the same study, fathers were found to interrupt their children more than mothers, and both fathers and mothers interrupted girls more than boys (153). As Coates remarks, “The implicit message to girls is that they are more interruptable and that their right to speak is less than that of boys” (154).
Conclusion
Despite her adherence to the “difference approach” of sociolinguistics, Coates reverts to Baron's “dominance approach” in her conclusion, determining that society is to blame for male-dominated language. Of gender inequality in the classroom, she writes: “Some schools are making brave efforts to combat these social pressures, by, for example, encouraging teachers to make sure they talk to and listen to girls as much as boys, but such efforts can do little to alter the fact that society constructs male and female roles as different and unequal” (202). The best advice she offers women lies in her description of what she refers to as “psychological androgyny.” Coates explains that “if masculinity and femininity are seen as two independent dimensions, then individuals have the choice of both characteristics” and that “androgynous behavior offers many rewards for women in contemporary society, allowing them a wide repertoire of behavior to cope with the wide variety of social roles they have to take on” (83). Therefore, it is not the best method for a woman to take on the linguistic garb of a man in order to assert her equality. She should present herself as either a gender-neutral communicator or one who wields the linguistic characteristics of both genders. Women must refrain from submitting to the linguistic bondage that men impose upon them. Coates proves that Baron's argument that language differs between men and women for theological reasons is not comprehensive enough to explain why the phenomenon occurs in a variety of cultures. Using the “difference approach”, she proves that women are bound linguistically because of their social roles. Women's language will only achieve equality with men's if women are granted equal access to language through educational, professional and social opportunities. Also, men must refrain from suppressing women's language. They must allow women to develop their own lexicon and grammar, just as men have been doing for thousands of years. Baron recognizes the need for agreement by both genders to construct a new, bias-free language, and that language is a social construct which depends upon mutual interaction to thrive. Ironically, he reminds his readers that language is a reciprocal process, and that even “Adam could not possibly have spoken before the creation of Eve” (13).
Works Cited
Baron, Dennis. Grammar and Gender. New York: Yale University Press, 1986. Print.
Coates, Jennifer. Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1993. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment