Name: Radwa Ayman

Program: Postgraduate Studies in Linguistics, Second Year

Course: Sociolinguistics
Presented to: Dr. Abeer Sultan

1
Paper 2: Language and Gender

This paper, based on Chapter 13 of Wardhaugh's An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, will shed

light on the differences in how men and women speak, the reasons behind these differences, and
the ongoing debates about sexism in language.

The relationship between language and gender is a key topic in sociolinguistics that examines
whether men and women use language differently. Researchers study whether these differences
come from the structure of language itself or from social roles in society. There are also debates
about whether languages can be considered sexist, or if it is the people using them who are
sexist. These questions have generated much discussion, though many remain unresolved.
Cameron (1998b) explains that masculinity and femininity are not fixed traits but are learned
through cultural influences. Men and women do not simply follow rigid rules for "appropriate"
speech based on their gender. Instead, they learn a wide range of gendered meanings and adjust
their language depending on the context, whether speaking with friends, in professional
settings, or in public. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) add that gender is unavoidable in
society, shaping both how we behave and how others interact with us. As they state, gender
becomes a fundamental part of our identity because societies are organized around gender
categories in different ways.

There are clear differences between men and women, both biologically and socially. While
biological factors like genetics and physical traits create inherent distinctions, many behavioral
differences in speech patterns come from social influences rather than natural causes. Society
teaches boys and girls different ways of speaking from an early age, reinforcing gender roles
through language use. These learned behaviors often outweigh any biological predispositions.
A clear example comes from Labov's study of Philadelphia speech patterns, which showed that
women tend to follow official language rules more closely than men when those rules are
recognized as proper speech. However, when natural language changes emerge within
communities, men adopt these new patterns more quickly than women. This finding challenges
stereotypes by showing women as guardians of traditional speech standards while men often
lead linguistic innovation. Another revealing case comes from the Carib Indians of the Lesser
Antilles. Early reports claimed men and women spoke entirely different languages - Carib for
men and Arawak for women, supposedly stemming from a historical conquest where Carib men
killed Arawak men and married Arawak women. However, linguists later found this to be
2
untrue. While genuine differences existed, they represented gender-based variations within a
single language rather than separate languages. Boys learned certain speech forms from their
fathers and girls from their mothers, resulting in noticeable but not completely distinct ways of
speaking. These examples demonstrate how social expectations shape speech patterns more
than biology alone, showing how gender roles influence language use across different cultures.

To fully understand these differences, researchers examined the variations between men's and
women's speech in three key areas: phonology, morphology, and word choice. First, researchers
have documented clear phonological differences in how men and women speak. In Montreal,
studies found men were far more likely than women to omit the /l/ sound in French pronouns
like ‘il’ and ‘elle’. Similarly, Scottish schoolgirls tended to pronounce the /t/ in words like water
and got, while boys more often used glottal stops instead. These systematic variations in
pronunciation patterns show how gender influences even the most basic levels of speech.
Beyond individual sounds, Brend's (1975) research highlighted differences in intonation;
women more frequently used rising pitch patterns associated with politeness and surprise, while
men favored falling patterns that conveyed certainty and authority. This perceived difference in
authoritative speech had real-world consequences, as seen when Margaret Thatcher, Britain's
first female Prime Minister, received vocal coaching to sound more "appropriate" for her role.
Advisors specifically told her to lower her pitch, reduce her vocal range, and speak more slowly
to match the deeper, more monotonous delivery associated with male leaders. This striking
example shows how society not only observes phonological gender differences but actively
enforces them when women enter traditionally male-dominated spaces.

Second, many studies of gender differences in morphology have focused on English. Robin
Lakoff's influential 1973 work, while largely based on personal observation rather than rigorous
data, made several notable claims about how women use different word forms than men. She
argued that women use specific color terms like mauve, beige, aquamarine, lavender, and
magenta that most men avoid. Lakoff also identified adjectives such as adorable, charming,
divine, lovely, and sweet as being used predominantly by women. Beyond individual words,
English maintains morphological distinctions through gendered suffixes like actor-actress and
waiter-waitress. Lakoff demonstrated how these supposedly equivalent word pairs carry
different social meanings - for example, while you can say "She's Fred's mistress," you cannot
say "He's Sally's master." She showed how terms like professional, bachelor-spinster, and
widow-widower develop unequal associations, proving that even morphologically parallel terms
for men and women reflect deeper societal biases.

Third, cross-linguistic studies of word choice reveal how deeply gender is embedded in
3
everyday vocabulary. A striking example comes from Japanese, where women and men use
completely different words to refer to themselves, marking gender identity through basic
pronouns. Male speakers refer to themselves as boku or ore in informal contexts, while women
use watasi or atasi - a distinction children learn early in life. For example, a man would say
boku kaeru (I will go back) while a woman would phrase it as watasi kaeru wa (I will go home).
Japanese women also signal their gender through sentence-final particles like ne or wa, which
men typically avoid. Interestingly, it's been noted that these patterns are shifting: junior high
school girls in Tokyo have increasingly adopted the traditionally male pronoun boku, explaining
they "cannot compete with boys in classes, in games or in fights with watasi." This change has
spread to older female speakers as well, showing how rigid gender markers can evolve when
social conditions change.

Beyond lexical and phonetic differences, gendered communication extends to paralinguistic

behaviors. Studies suggest men and women use different gestures, body language, and vocal
tones, often positioning women as more submissive. For example, women are frequently
addressed by first names or terms like lady, miss, dear, or even baby and babe, while men
receive more formal titles. Women also face a wider range of address terms and are treated with
more familiarity by men than men are with each other. Additionally, women are stereotypically
expected to avoid profanity, though shows like Sex and the City challenge this assumption. In
some cultures, like the Araucanian Indians of Chile, these differences are extreme: men speak
freely in all settings, while the ideal wife remains silent in her husband’s presence or speaks
only in whispers at gatherings. These patterns reveal how paralinguistic norms reinforce
gendered power dynamics.

Building on these observed differences, Holmes (1998) proposed five "sociolinguistic

universal tendencies" about gendered speech patterns. First, women and men develop different
patterns of language use. Second, women tend to focus on the affective functions of an
interaction more often than men do. Third, women tend to use linguistic devices that stress
solidarity more often than men do. Fourth, women tend to interact in ways that will maintain
and increase solidarity, while (especially in formal contexts) men tend to interact in ways that
will maintain and increase their power and status. Fifth, women are stylistically more flexible
than men. These tendencies suggest that across cultures, gender consistently influences how
people use language to achieve different social goals.

Wardhaugh in this chapter introduces three claims about possible explanations for such
differences. First, it's been claimed that men and women are biologically different, and that this
difference affects how they use language. According to this view, women are naturally more
4
caring, supportive, and cooperative, while men are more independent and competitive. These
traits are believed to be connected to biological factors such as brain structure and hormones,
and they are said to influence speech behavior. For example, it is claimed that women prefer
supportive and polite speech, while men prefer more direct and assertive language.
However, Wardhaugh explains that there is little or no strong evidence to support this idea. In
fact, he says that this explanation is mostly based on common stereotypes, not real research. It
may sound like a simple answer to a complex issue, but it does not help us truly understand why
men and women speak differently. Wardhaugh calls it “a facile solution,” meaning it is too easy
and not very useful. Because of this, many researchers reject this claim and believe we should
look beyond biology to find better explanations.

The second claim offers a different explanation for gendered language differences. While the
first claim focuses on biological factors, the second claim argues that social organization is best
understood as a system of hierarchical power relationships, where language reflects and
reinforces these power dynamics. In this view, the differences in how men and women speak are
not due to biology, but rather to the unequal distribution of power in society. Men have more
power and status, and this is shown in the way they use language. They use language to
dominate both other men and women, while women, who are less powerful, speak in ways that
seek support and connection with others. According to this claim, language behavior reflects
male dominance, and if women are to succeed in a system where power is important, they must
learn to dominate as well. For example, men take control of conversations, interrupt others,
choose the topic, and generally use language to display authority. Women, feeling less powerful,
may adopt more prestigious language forms in order to protect themselves when dealing with
men. This can also make them seem different from less powerful men of the same social class.
Even though women may have weaker social networks, they are more sensitive to language and
more likely to use standard forms.
A good example of this is seen in Lakoff’s (1975) argument, which is based on the idea that
men are dominant and women lack power. She suggests that if women want to change their
situation, they will have to speak more like men. Others agree with Lakoff’s view. For example,
DeFrancisco proposes that power should be at the center of feminist analysis, and that social
categories like gender, race, and class act as tools of oppression. Crawford also claims that
power relations are the best explanation for the differences in male and female language use.
Her goal is to create a feminist social science that focuses on these inequalities.
However, this dominance explanation is not without criticism. Talbot warns that this approach
can be too broad, since it sometimes assumes that all men are in a position to dominate all

5
women, which is not always true. In some societies, women are not without power and may
control certain aspects of life. So while this second claim highlights how power and status shape
language, Wardhaugh notes that dominance alone cannot fully explain all gendered speech
differences. Still, this claim provides an important perspective on how language can reflect
larger social structures.

Another explanation for differences in gendered language use is that men and women are social
beings who have learned to behave in certain ways. Language behavior is largely learned, not
natural. Men learn to speak like men, and women learn to speak like women, based on the
different life experiences that society gives them. This view is often called the difference view,
and sometimes also the deficit view, as it focuses on the idea that men and women grow up in
different social and linguistic worlds. According to this claim, men and women belong to
different sociolinguistic subcultures, especially in places like North America. Because they have
learned to do different things with language, especially in conversation, their interactions can
often lead to miscommunication. Maltz and Borker (1982) give examples from North America
to show how this miscommunication happens. For instance, women tend to use mhmm
frequently just to show they are listening. In contrast, men use mhmm less often, and when they
do, it usually means they agree. As a result, men may wrongly believe that women are always
agreeing with them and feel confused about what women really think. On the other hand,
women may get frustrated with men who do not use mhmm at all, and think they are not
listening. These misunderstandings happen because men and women follow different
conversational rules.
They also differ in how they use questions. Women may ask questions to maintain
conversation and keep it going, while men tend to see questions mainly as a way to request
information. The two groups also have different ideas about linking topics, about what counts as
aggressive language, and about how to deal with problems. For example, women may see
aggressive speech as negative and personal, while men may see it as just a normal part of
conversation. When facing problems, women often want to share, discuss, and get support,
while men prefer to offer solutions or even give advice. Because the rules each group follows
often conflict, communication between men and women can be difficult.
Some efforts have been made to eliminate sexist language, but these changes are limited if the
basic relationship between men and women in society stays the same. While many of the
suggestions to avoid sexist language are reasonable, some—such as changing history to
herstory—are, as Lakoff points out, rather absurd. Certain terms, however, can be replaced quite
easily. For example, early humans can be used instead of early man, salesperson instead of
salesman, ordinary people instead of the common man, and women instead of the fair sex. Still,
6
some parts of language may be harder to change, such as the distinction between he and she. It
may not be the language itself that is sexist, but how people use it. Men and women use
language for different purposes, and as long as gender differences are connected to differences
in access to power and influence, we will likely continue to see differences in language as well.
Power and influence are also shaped by factors such as education, social class, and regional
background. These factors are known to affect language, and gender is another such factor.
While we may wish that this kind of variation did not exist, it may be unavoidable. In fact, we
may not be able to choose which aspects of variation to eliminate and which to keep, even if we
would like to.

Language and gender studies have developed in interesting ways in recent years. One of these
developments is known as queer linguistics or lavender linguistics. This area of study focuses
on the language used by non-mainstream groups, such as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and
transgender people. These studies focus on sexuality, rather than just sex or gender. A major
claim in this field is that earlier studies may have put too much focus on sex or gender and that
this focus may have been misdirected.
In their book on sexuality, Cameron and Kulick (2003) take a postmodern approach,
influenced by thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan. They argue that a concept called
"desire" should be central to understanding human behavior. They explain that desire includes
more than just preference for sexual partners. It also includes non-intentional, non-conscious,
and non-rational parts of sexual life. These unconscious parts may not be shown on the surface
the same way as chosen sexual identities like “gay,” “lesbian,” or “straight.” However, Bucholtz
and Hall (2004) disagree with this view. They believe that “desire” is too vague to be useful and
that identity and power are still very important in this kind of research. It is not yet clear how
important this focus on marginalized groups will be for the study of language and gender. Some
research, such as Barrett’s study, has given useful results. Ignoring such studies might give the
impression of using “power” oppressively. Whether this will become a major area of the field is
something that only time will tell.

To conclude, the study of language and gender shows that men and women often speak
differently in areas such as pronunciation, word choice, and communication style. Several
explanations have been suggested, including biological differences, power relations, and
different patterns of socialization. While each explanation adds something useful, no single one
can fully account for all the differences. Efforts to avoid sexist language have led to more
inclusive forms, and recent research has begun to explore how gender is shaped through
language use, especially through the lens of queer linguistics. As Wardhaugh explains, “There

7
are differences in gendered speech, some undoubtedly real but others almost certainly
imaginary. Any differences that do exist surely also must interact with other factors, e.g., social
class, race, culture, discourse type, group membership, etc.” This shows that gendered speech
must be understood within the broader social context in which language is used.

Reference:
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Blackwell Publishing.