Gender and Language in Social Relations - Dissertation Example

 Gender and Language in Social Relations Gender has been described as the state of being male or female with social and economic perceptions, as opposed to sex that captures only captures an individual’s biological traits. It is a key element of social relations, which is loosely linked to differences between the sexes where relationships are encoded in linguistics and symbolic representations, social practices, institutions and social identities. It also forms the foundation for power articulation and is multi-faceted and dynamic hence the convergence of gender and language. This journal will not only delve into gender as a discipline but will also debate about the different implications of different gender definitions and approaches used in analyzing the production and interpretation of texts and speeches. An interdisciplinary discussion that cuts across the ethnography of communication to stylistics through varionist sociolinguistics is essential. The facet that men and women use language differently is common but the important variable has been the person being spoken to. This is opposed to the commonly known basis of sex (Victor, 2009). According to a research done by Adrienne Hancock and Benjamin Rubin, a researcher at the department of speech and hearing and a masters’ student at the George Washington University respectively, that was published in the online edition of the Journal Of Language And Social Psychology, there is no difference in how both women and men speak, but engaging in a conversation with men and women on the same topic has different results. The researchers found more interruptions among those who spoke to females as opposed to those who spoke to males. In this context, the researchers cited that they were yet to learn why it happens this way. Countless psychology books have also tried to explain this phenomenon by coming up with theories like the Mars and Venus theory just but to mention a few. Deborah Cameron, in her article in the Guardian, tried to explain this theory. She says that the differences ascribed to males and females in terms of conversation are not products of nature but of nurture where the wiring of the female brain makes her excel in verbal tasks while the male is adapted to visual-spatial and mathematical tasks. She further attests to the fact that women prefer to talk while men prefer actions (Victor, 2009). An essential factor ascribed to successful conversation revolves around whether the individuals that are conversing uphold the ideal conversation model that entails taking turns when speaking. What this means is that at any given time, only one speaker ought to relay their information after which the other speaks. Participants normally attempt to maintain smooth shifts of speaking to keep the conversation flowing. It is, however, common, in light of gender disparity, for individuals to disregard the turn-taking protocol ascribed to a conversation. More often than not, males interrupt female speakers and usurp the speaker rights entitled to the female speaker at that particular time. They often assume the turn to speak whenever they want irrespective of whether the incumbent speaker stops. (Jane, 2005). The example herein captures a sister and brother in a conversation about wild rice: Maria: wild rice is delicious; you have never tasted it yet so (xx intercepted).. Mark: well the Indians Maria: …(attempts to finish her point but Mark is quick to continue making his point) Mark: do not eat it so why should you? Maria: most probably they do… Bill: (intercepts) they do not In the example herein, Bill, the interpreter, stops Maria the speaker from completing her turn and at the same time gains himself a turn. It is emergent that within mixed-sex conversations, males tend to interrupt women more frequently compared to women. Considerable evidence from empirical research cites that women have a p[reference for collaborative speech that expresses support and solidarity while men prefer a competitive style of conversation to highlight dominance and individuality (Jane, 2005). This idea of difference in language is a myth in every sense as is held by certain writers and psychologists. How it happens is a mystery. An example on this mystery is that of a manager of a call center in England who was asked why women constituted the majority of his employees and not men. The answer he gave was cryptic in nature but with a serious meaning. The manager said he wanted people who can talk more to customers as well as interact with them and women, he concluded, are naturally good at this. Based on that kind of attitude from employers, it is emergent how disadvantaged men are, and with the increasing service sector industry the world over, men are bound to loose a lot in terms of job placements (Deborah, 2007). Baron-Cohen in his book, The Essential Difference, argues that people with female brains make the most wonderful counselors, primary school teachers, nurses, therapists, social workers or personnel staff, while those with male brain make most of wonderful scientists, engineers, mechanics, technicians, musicians, architects, electricians, plumbers, programmers or even lawyers. These differences are, according to Baron, the essential difference of the male and female brain where the female brain makes its use for empathy and communication while the male brain, he says, exploits the ability to analyze complex systems. He is careful in in his analysis and even says there are some people with mixed brains. Language and communication, based on this analysis, matters more to women than to men and women are considered more verbally skilled compared to men (Thome, 2003). An interesting revelation is that men have been found to use language in getting things done. Deborah also conclusively intimates that men competitively use language where they reflect their general interest in the acquisition and maintenance of status while women use it in reflecting their preference for equality and harmony. Secondly, the difference normally leads to communication breakdown between the sexes, where each sex does not get what the other is trying to put across. This is common in heterosexual relationships. The theory of Mars and Venus is patronizing towards men where men have realized that any shortcoming should be ascribed to a female brain (Thome, 2003). For instance, housework and other kind of tasks at which men are poor, they consider female tasks. This deduction, therefore, brings the relationship between language, gender and brain function, to the subject of power where the male-dominated society gives a woman a second position between the sexes. Society is forged that way and even the females deem it normal. An example is my grandfathers’ generation that did not see the importance of women except in areas of conception, kitchen and other weakly chores as they considered them. They believed that conscription into the army was a preserve of men, along with driving and provision for the family. I know he will turn in his grave if he was to see the kind of jobs women do nowadays. These stereotypes have been the thorn in flesh for women’s development and the cause of communication breakdown among the sexes. When men are praised as competitive and women as cooperative, conversationalists, fuel the already-perceived differences. In 2006, when a popular science book called the Female Brain claimed that women averagely utter twenty thousand words a day while men utter seven thousand words, the difference was visible and confirmed the popular belief, a certain professor of phonetics found that notion hard to believe. Mark Liberman, just like his peers, went to the footnotes of the Female Brain to establish whether the author’s paradigm was merely meant to satisfy his curiosity. From his research he deciphered a lopsided conclusion that the paradigm was fictitious and is how stereotypes are formed. In the American Psychologist journal of 2005, an article appeared titled The Gender Similarities Hypothesis; Janet S Hyde shows that in attempting to find gender differences, more similarity of often emerges compared to difference (Deborah, 2005). Since she is a Meta analyst, who uses a statistical method that collates many findings and draws overall conclusions from such findings, her method is disputed because scientists believe that different studies of the same method are the key to any scientific breakthrough. As such, the interruption rates between men and women would be varied and a conclusive research would be the only breakthrough of such research. Ben Zimmer, in his article with the Boston Globe titled ‘How Twitter Language Reveals Your Gender-Or Your Friends’, talked about a group of young sociolinguists who started an annual conference called New Ways Of Analyzing Variation where they looked at how speech patterns related to group identity. They found quite interesting facts on the computer-mediated language, more so on twitter. They claimed that females use more of pronouns, emotions like being sad and in love, and abbreviations associated with online discourse like (lol). Men on the other hand used standard dictionary words, numbers and proper nouns. This analysis highlights the peculiar habits of tweeting and how they are determined by gender. The Influence Of Feminism On Language And Gender Though other works of gender and language existed before the modern women movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The movement’s contribution to language and gender was an impetus to this study. The second wave of the women liberation movement in the late 1960s was prompted in a large part by the civil rights movement in the United States and many other countries. Though seen as anti-men, it has received recognition from major international bodies like the United Nations where gender equality is championed for both sexes. Language became a particular feature in the women liberation movements where certain languages and terms were deemed impolite towards women. An example is that of American feminist Robin Morgan who in 1968 in Going Too Far, cited that the very semantic of language reflects women’s condition. She claimed that we, women, do not even bear our own names but those of the father, waiting to exchange it for that of the husband. Emily Tooth on the other hand was also railing against one man’s tents, while Germaine Greer in his book Female Eunuch (1972), shows how terms of women endearment are also names for food like honey and sweetie. Through such languages and words as manageress or miss, it was argued that men degrade women. Since language is also considered to influence thought and behavior, these feminists rejected the use of certain terms. The use of words such as chairperson, which seek to avoid the generic assumption of superiority of men, was promoted (Lakoff, 1976). The use of Ms. was instituted to mean both married and non-married women; this was to avoid bias, against women. These words and many more were to be used by responsible persons in their books as well as speeches. Universities like that of central Lancashire, for example, produced a code of practice on non-gender specific terminology in 1987 which consisted of telephone listings, forms of address, procedures in meetings and letters and went as far as noting that the use of words such as love, darling and dear to refer to women amounted to lack of equality and mutuality. Their main concern was with the abstractness of the English language where they wanted either replacements or alternatives that could represent women in a more inclusive and positive way (Deborah, 2007). However, even with their clarion calls, they were still challenges more so from conservative males who saw it as outrageous. They opposed changing their names and even referring to them through such endearments apart from few who toed the line. Advocating for the adoption of non-sexist language also had little success since actual changes through recommendation and documentation in dictionaries or codes of practice was minimal (Lakoff, 1976). Context, Language and Gender Context connotes participant interpretations of certain words, where an overlapping speech could be seen as hostile. Due to male dominance, social context was also deemed important in the cultural difference approach for not only understanding the difference in meaning but also its origins. Deborah (2008) claims that boys and girls do grow up largely in single sex groups that are apparently different. Their formative contexts entail different linguistic practices to which different tendencies in adult male and female languages can be attributed. Discourse and Discourses This is the broad stretch of written or spoken language more so the linguistic and accompanying paralinguistic interactions between people in a specific context for example a classroom discourse, which is that language associated with a classroom. It helps the use of language to be relevant within certain context. Gender and discourse are interchangeably used to drive the point home. Before the advent of feminism, male dominance was particularly conspicuous and this helped in with the identification of certain context of speech or even engagement as opposed to the situation pursuant to feminism which distorted that dominance so each and every context had to involve both males and females. It is in the discourse that men and women are treated differently owing to the difference in communication, where in terms of leadership a woman is ignored, more so in high leadership positions due to their emotional language. This becomes the basis for vouching for gender equality. A study in the field of organization has shown that the capability of men and women to lead may be affected by the notion of emotional language, which is not suitable for a leader (Jane, 2006). Deborah (2005) also shows that in many organizations, differences in gender may be a surrogate for differences in job functions, level in hierarchy, proximity, work group composition, numerical balance and status. He further claims that women have not acquired status and influence compatible to that of their male counterparts in organizations. Interestingly, gender practice is variant in different areas. Johnson (1996) states that gender practices differ from culture to culture, place to place, and group to group, and is at the intersection of other aspects of social identities. Hence, practice in language may vary in a particular group. Donna (2007) who studied the close relationship between gender differences and learning styles found that men were more likely than women to prefer the abstract conceptualization mode of learning. Another study by Logan and Johnston (2009) found that girls had better reading comprehension, read more frequently and had a more positive attitude towards reading and school; this shows that males and females have different learning styles which can be affected by differences in the use of language (Alice, 2014). On the focus of socio-political gender hierarchy, Tannen (1990) argues that the language accommodation practices of white middle class American mothers are disempowering since they render mothers virtually invisible to activities involving their children. Unlike the Samoan mothers, she observed that white middle class American mothers’ child-centered practices which include a simplified register, protoconversations, unidirectional praising and verbal guessing of unintelligible responses projects a subordinate image of a mother that clearly contrasts with the prestigious and authoritative image of a Samoan caregiver whose practices maintain their high-ranking position in traditional family structure. American mothers participate in the prevailing middle-class American egalitarian ideology (Deborah, 2007). From this perspective, parents adhere to a principle of symmetrical solidarity whereby their socialization practices seek to minimize the inherently asymmetrical parent-child relationship (Ben, 2012). Viewing these practices in terms of their ideological significance, one can see that women, and particularly mothers, are socialized to behave according to specific naturalized scripts aided by the gender polarizations created in a patriarchal society (Ben, 1993). Failure to recognize participation in the accomplishment with children is one such practice. Drawing on psychoanalytic insights, Ben (1993) explains how lack of mutual recognition between mother and child result in loss of maternal subjectivity where such loss is problematic not only for the mother but also for the child who needs to grow through a relationship with a person who perceives herself as a subject in her own right (Alice, 2014). One may also argue that maternal socialization practices are influenced by political assumptions of gender and power. The manner in which these practices are viewed can lead scholars to favor one interpretation or belief over another. I have learned, however, to readjust the lens when necessary and to evaluate research using various frames in order to grasp the whole interactional picture. Such a perspective fosters further growth and learning because it allows students to hear the voices of all scholars’ work through different lenses, and to accept them on their own terms. These are the insightful comments given to me once by one very fine scholar. Solution to gender differences The solution of gender differences is of particular concern because without solving these issues, generation after generation will always be stuck. First, a compromise must be struck with the extreme feminists who want everything masculine to have a female alternative. Such tasks are time-consuming and it would only be wise if these extreme feminists dropped such a stance and embraced other kinds of equality that are offered like in employment places. Secondly, traditional stereotypes like a woman’s place being in the kitchen and the likes should be done away with and equal opportunities granted to both the boy and girl child right from birth so that as they develop, they grow having confidence and a sense of belonging not to grow with an inferiority complex. Like the Samoan women, the American middle-class wife should practice such virtue since it espouses a child’s development. Dynamism in the modern world should also enlighten conservative believers that time has changed and embracing change is the solution to all these stereotypes. Conclusion Different studies have proven that gender and language is evolving. It is difficult, more so for conservatives to accept this change. Feminists with their radical stance against male dominance and their perceptions about language change to accommodate every individual without prejudice have proven to be a game changer. Women emancipation in various fields that had been a preserve for men has also helped a great deal. It will, however, take time before women and men are considered completely equal in light of their capacities as humans. Bibliography Alice, R., 2014. Women Get Interrupted Even More By Other Women. New Republic. Ben, L., 1993. The Lenses Of Gender. London: Yale University Press. Ben, Z., 2012. How Twiiter Language Your Gender Or Your Friends. The Boston Globe . Deborah, C., 2005. Language ,Gender And Sexuality. New York: Am Assoc Ling. Deborah, C., 2007. Language And Gender. The Guardian, p. 12. Donna, D., 2008. Working Papers In TESOL And Applied Linguistics. Teachers College, Columbia University. Jane, S., 2006. Language And Gender. London: Routledge. Johnson, U. H. M., 1996. Language And Masculinity. s.l.:Willey Blackwall. Lakoff, R., 1976. Language And Woman's Place. New York: Octagon. Psychology, J. O. L. A. S., 2005. Female Brain. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology. Robin, M., 1968. Going Too Far That The Very Semantic Of The Language Reflect Women's Condition. s.l.:s.n. Simon, B.-C., 2004. The Esential Difference:Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism. Reprint Edition ed. s.l.:Basic Books. Tannen, D., 1990. You Just Dont Understand:Women And Conversation. New York: Morrow. Johnson Sally, U. H. M., 1996. Language And Masculinity. s.l.:Willey Blackwall. Thome B, K. C. N., 2003. Gender And Society. New York: s.n. Victor, S., 2009. Rediscovery Masculinity:Reason,Language And Sexuality. New York: s.n. Read More