How Gender Determines our Language

It goes without saying that were all different and the way we communicate with other people is also very unique. Those differences in communication style and way we express our feelings and emotions depend on several aspects. Where we are from, our background and brought up can tell a lot about who we really are. Age is also a very important aspect for it reflects our level of certain knowledge. Our style, however, very much depends not only on above characteristics, but also on our gender. Women and men speak differently, and those differences are allied with their gender.

Language representations

Language can act as a powerful source of discrimination. Since we rely
on language to communicate with each other, the way we describe
ourselves and others, or the way in which we address one another, can
have a deep impact on our self-image and our relations with other
people. If individuals or groups are labeled consciously or
unconsciously in stereotyped ways, they often experience pain, develop
a negative self-image, feelings of inferiority and even expressions of
anger. Such feelings can place a strain on relations between groups
and individuals. It is therefore important for authors, editors,
professional writers, public speakers and all others who use language
in a public manner to be aware of how discrimination through language
operates intentionally or unintentionally, and how language can also
be used to eliminate such discrimination. Language plays a powerful
role both in contributing to and in eliminating discrimination.

The chapter "Language and Gender" that I have read explains how
language can be used to discriminate against individuals and groups on
the basis of their sex. This chapter also provides some helpful
information, which certainly will help us teachers to recognize and
avoid discriminatory practices.

Avoiding discriminatory language

Using non-discriminatory language does not involve the conscious
learning of a new language in order to communicate; this is due to the
fact that people continually learn new words, expressions and
constructions. Language is dynamic and reflects changes in society and
contributes to such changes. Using non-discriminatory language is, of
course, a part of this dynamic process.

Broadly speaking, in most cases, using non-discriminatory language
means avoiding certain expressions and selecting others that already
exist in the language. Sometimes it may involve combining existing
words into a new compound word. Only in exceptional cases a completely
new word or expression has to be "created".


Alternatives for "he", "him" and "his"

English does not possess a third person singular pronoun which is
gender-neutral. Instead the "masculine" pronouns "he", "him" and "his"
are generally used to refer to both men and women. This is confusing
and inaccurate and makes women invisible. There are many ways of
replacing the "he / him / his" pronouns without distorting the message
or compromising style or readability. Here are some major strategies:


- recast the sentence in the plural

- leave out the pronoun

- repeat the noun

- use 'he or she', 'she or he' or in writing 's/he'

- recast the sentence and use another pronoun, for example, 'you', 'I'
or 'we'

- recast the sentence to avoid pronouns


In speech it is common practice (however, considered ungrammatical) to
use the pronoun "they" as in: "If a student wants to get a practice
test, they should come to my office between 2 and 4 p.m. today".


Avoid Alternatives

businessman business executive, business manager, business owner,
business person,

entrepreneur, financier, investor, proprietor

[S] businesswoman, businessman, businessmen business community,
business people,

[S] businessmen and businesswomen

cattleman cattle breeder, cattle owner, cattle producer, cattle
raiser, cattle worker, farmer

chairman the chair, chairperson, convener, coordinator, discussion
leader, head (of) ,

leader, moderator, person chairing a meeting, person in the chair,
president,

presiding officer

[S] layman, laywoman

laymen laypeople, laypersons, lay community, laity

milkman milk deliverer, milk supplier, 'milko' (informal)

policeman member of the police, police officer (term indicating rank)

[S] policewoman, policeman

postman letter carrier, mail carrier, mail deliverer, postal delivery
officer, postal worker,

'postie' (informal)

[S] post woman, postman

salesman sales agent, sales associate, sales attendant, salesperson,
sales representative,

sales worker, shop assistant, shop attendant

[S] salesman, saleswoman (not saleslady or sales girl)

spokesman (principal) advocate, official, representative, (person)
speaking on behalf of ,.speaker, spokesperson

[S] spokesman, spokeswoman

sportsman athlete, player, sports competitor, sportsperson

[S] sportswoman, sportsman

Do not use weathergirl if the forecaster is a woman.

workman worker, employee, working person

Occupational nouns and job titles, which refer exclusively to women,
should also be avoided. Often these have been derived from male job
titles by adding such suffixes as -ette, -ess and -trix. This practice
reinforces the view that women's status is dependent on, or derived
from, that of men. Job titles like "girl friday" and "salesgirl"
trivialize the work women do.

Women should be shown as participating equally with men. Generic
terms, for example "doctor", "lawyer" and "nurse", should be assumed
to apply equally to a man and a woman. Expressions such as "male
nurse", "woman doctor", "lady lawyer" and "woman reporter" should
therefore be avoided in contexts where the reference to a person's sex
is irrelevant. If gender specification is necessary, the use of the
adjectives "female" and "male" before the gender-neutral noun is
preferred.

Titles and other naming practices

Naming practices for women and men are often asymmetrical. Inequality
is implied, for instance, in cases where a woman's title is not
mentioned but a man's is; where a woman is addressed simply by her
first name but a man is addressed by his title, first name and
surname; and in some salutations, directed to a man and a woman, when
the woman is not addressed. Other practices also can create the
impression that women deserve less respect or less serious
consideration than men do, such as when endearments are used to
address women in situations that do not justify such words.

"Mr", "Ms", "Mrs", "Miss"

Use of the title "Mr" before a person's name identifies that person as
a male adult. The titles "Mrs" and "Miss", however, not only identify
the person addressed as a woman but also make known her marital
status. The title "Ms" was introduced so that a woman is not required
to reveal her marital status and so that people writing to or
addressing a woman are not required to guess it by using "Miss" or
"Mrs". "Ms" should be used for a woman whose title preference is
unknown. It should be followed by the woman's own name, or if she
prefers, her spouse's name. Any given names or initials used in
connection with the title "Ms" are invariably the woman's and not
those of her spouse. "Ms" is the same whether singular or plural.


Currently debates have been held about most of the features mentioned
above. Much work has been done on pitch, intonation, politeness and
"correctness". Sociolinguists such as William Labov have constantly
suggested that women speak a form of language close to the standard
than men of a similar social background. I wonder again, how should
this be interpreted if it is true? Does it mean that women are
linguistically more conservative than men?. This claim makes me think
that further investigation should be conducted about this in order to
find out whether it is a real fact or just speculation based on sexist
beliefs.

There is an area that has received more attention in recent times,
"communicative styles" or "strategies". Initially research was carried
out on private conversation but more recently attention has focused on
women's linguistic behavior in the workplace. Deborah Tannen has
published various books on women's communicative strategies, including
one based on analyzing the work environment. Tannen's work has
motivated some controversy among linguists. Her views can be
summarized as follows: men tend to employ "contest" strategies and
women "community" strategies. If we accept this dichotomy, it would
provide a realistic explanation for women's lack of development in the
workplace. We might deduce from this that women are too busy
establishing a kind of "community" instead of climbing the social
ladder by getting involved in contests, just like men, which are more
successful in the world of business because of the way they are
(competitive).

Amount of Talk

Silence and talkativeness is another interesting aspect of
gender-specificity in conversational strategies due to the fact that
women are said to be more talkative than men. Nevertheless, this has
not been proved so far, on the contrary it's seems easy to became
aware of the fact that men talk more than women in public settings and
men are less involved in private talks. I think that women tend to
talk more in private with female friends about topics that might often
be considered "girls talk" by men. Topics that seem to be important
such as sports, politics and economy have always been regarded as
serious and interesting topics, while topics such as child-care and
personal relationships have been labeled as trivial. This might simply
be a reflection of social values which define what men do as
important, and what women do as less important.

Language, Gender and Politeness.

Studies conducted in gender and politeness have put forward the notion
that women are necessarily always more polite than men. I argue that
the relations between gender and politeness there are circumstances
when women speakers might appear to be acting in a more polite way
than men due to the fact that they have to stick to a stereotype of
"being a woman" that has been long believed and supported by people.
On the other hand, there are many circumstances where women will act
just as impolitely as men. From my point of view politeness and
impoliteness are just beliefs about how people interact and about
those people as whole, and are not simple classifications of
particular types of speech. I think people who live in community
negotiate consciously or unconsciously with what they perceive to be
"the rule". Therefore, I question the way that previous research on
politeness has assumed that there is relation between masculinity and
impoliteness and femininity and politeness.

According to Brown and Levinson's model individual speech acts are
considered to be either polite or impolite. I believe that communities
are able to identify whether speech acts are considered polite or
impolite. Stereotypes of gender may play a role in the decisions that
such communities make about politeness, but, nevertheless, individuals
within communities may use such stereotypes strategically depending on
what their goals are.