Irene van Baalen - Male and female language growing together.doc

Male and female language: growing together?

Irene van Baalen

Published: 19 April 2001 (HSL/SHL 1)

1. Introduction

Although the difference in language between men and women has been widely discussed, most of the literature on the subject concentrates on two main theories. The first is the “dominance approach” (supported by Lakoff 1975; Fishman 1983), which claims that the difference in language between men and women is a consequence of male dominance and female subordination. In this view, women are a suppressed minority group. Supporters of the “difference approach” (Coates 1986; Tannen 1990) on the other hand, believe that men and women belong to different subcultures and that any linguistic differences can be attributed to cultural differences.

During the last few decades, rigid role patterns have changed and as a result gender notions have changed as well. Men and women are increasingly becoming each other’s equals in areas of education and profession. This implies that, in Western society anyway, the concept of masculinity no longer exclusively brings to mind the image of tough guys who work all day and leave the upbringing of their children to their wives; it can now also be associated with men who take care of children and do domestic chores. Men are encouraged to open up and  share their feelings, whereas this was quite unusual in the times of rigid role patterns. Women can now work in almost every profession they aspire to, and they can continue to work after having children without being regarded as bad mothers. As language helps people to create their identity and their gender, it makes sense to assume that when people’s ideas of masculinity and femininity change, their language changes as well. My hypothesis is that the language of men and women is becoming more similar as a result of changing gender notions.

Until recently, the language of men and that of women were perceived as being very different from each other. Specifically, male use of language was considered the norm and women’s language was deviant from that norm, thus being regarded as inferior to that of men. Following this belief, it has been claimed that there is a typical female language. According to Lakoff (1975) this style is marked by the use of certain linguistic features such as hedging devices, tag questions, intensifiers and qualifiers, so-called “trivial lexis”, “empty” adjectives and rising intonation on declaratives. The link between these markers is their alleged common function in communication: they weaken or mitigate the force of an utterance. Lakoff’s characterisation of language suits the rigid role patterns that existed decades ago. More recent research has shown, however, that women’s language is not as weak and tentative as Lakoff suggested. O’Barr and Atkins (in Coates 1998) have shown in their study of language used in American courts that the mainly female characteristics of language as described by Lakoff were in fact not characteristic of female language. They suggest that this use of language should not be called “female language” but “powerless language” as it is characteristic of people in powerless positions (either because of their relatively low social status or because of lack in experience in the courtroom). They suggest that this use of language by female speakers is a reflection of American society, in which women often have subordinate positions. Likewise, Harris (1984) argues that people’s use of tag questions does not express uncertainty or a request for confirmation as was commonly assumed, but that it actually reflects a very powerful act in that questions demand answers. From this point of view, women are not tentative and insecure but authoritative and powerful.

Although in my opinion men and women are equal and should not be looked upon as coming from different subcultures as is claimed by supporters of the “difference approach”, I do think that there is a difference in the way language is used by men and women. In my opinion this is due to the way boys and girls are raised linguistically. However, as gender notions change, the traditional upbringing of children may also change. In order to test this hypothesis, I have taken the use of hedging devices by men and women as a case study. Hedging devices are semantically empty phrases like I think or you know. Holmes (1996) claims that they may express that the speaker is not committed to what s/he is saying and that they can be used to soften or mitigate utterances in order not to hurt the addressee’s feelings. As hedging devices have often been considered a characteristic of female language mainly, e.g. by Lakoff (1975) and Fishman (1983), it is my aim to find out whether even today hedges are still mainly a characteristic of female language and whether men use fewer or different hedges. If the language of men and women is becoming more similar, as the changing gender notions might lead us to expect, it could be possible that men and women are becoming more alike in their use of hedging devices. This would mean that the difference between “powerful” and “powerless” language as described by O’Barr and Atkins is diminishing.

In order to test this hypothesis, I recorded six of the BBC Five “Ruscoe on Five” programmes which were broadcast on weekdays between 2 and 4 p.m. in the period of December 1997 to April 1998. “Ruscoe on Five” was a programme in which Sybil Ruscoe, the programme’s host, discussed news items and social issues with people who were invited to the studio and listeners who called in to give their opinion on a subject. In my analysis of these programmes I looked in particular at the use of hedges by men and women. In addition, I took a number of quotations from the programmes and asked native speakers of British English, men and women alike from different generations, born in the 50s or 60s and in the 70s or early 80s, to look at the quotations and indicate whether they thought a man or a woman was being quoted. The purpose of this survey was to find out whether these two generations have different perceptions of typically male and typically female language.

2. Linguistic forms of hedging devices

Hedges have multiple functions. They can add a degree of uncertainty and non-commitment to an utterance and indicate that a speaker does not want to give up his/her speaking turn yet. This leads us to consider which phrases or words can act as hedging devices. Coates (1996: 152-173) names several words and phrases, such as maybe, sort of, you know, may and might and I mean. Holmes includes pauses and hesitations like …eehm… and … eeh … in the category of hedges since “they can be used to express a speaker’s reluctance to impose” (1996: 75). She lists fall-rise intonation, tag questions and modal verbs, lexical items such as sort of and I think (1996: 74-75). In her study of politeness devices, Holmes found that women seem to use tag questions more as positive politeness devices while men use them more to ask for information or confirmation of assumptions. Other differences in the use of hedging devices between men and women found by Holmes involved the use of the lexical items you know, I think and sort of. Women tend to use the solidarity marker you know (used most often between people who know each other well as it emphasises shared knowledge) as an addressee oriented positive politeness device when it protects the speaker’s positive face needs. Men, on the other hand, use you know more in its referential meaning when it refers to presupposed shared knowledge or acts as a hedge on the validity of a supposition. In Holmes’s data, I think was often used as a booster by women and they also used it as a positive politeness device (expressing agreement with the addressee) more often than men did. Sort of occurs most often in informal contexts and can also function as a solidarity marker. According to Holmes’s data women tend to use sort of more often than men.

In contrast with Coates and Holmes, Hirschman (1994) does not make use of the term hedging devices in her paper which she originally presented in 1973. Her research covered male‑female differences in conversational style and she studied cross‑sex conversations as well as single-sex conversations. She uses the terms “fillers” and “qualifiers”. “Fillers” are defined as phrases that could appear anywhere in the sentence and that could be deleted from the sentence without a change in content. Hirschman divides “fillers” into two groups, the first consisting of um and its variants uh and ah, like (when not used as verb or preposition) and well, not in initial position. The second group includes the phrases you know and I mean which are often used “when the speaker is groping for words but doesn’t want to give up the claim to the floor” (Hirschman 1994: 432). The second category of “qualifiers” is characterised by the fact that their deletion only affects the degree of assertiveness of a sentence and does not change the content of the utterance. The group defined as “qualifiers” by Hirschman consists of several subdivisions. Phrases of the type I think, I assume and I mean are qualifiers as well as the adverbials maybe, relatively, generally and the adverbials used with a negative (not) really, (not) very. Generalised adjuncts, for example, (or) something, (or) whatever, sort of and kind of also function as qualifiers. Other qualifying expressions, e.g. modals, quantifiers like many and some and sentence operators like it seems that function in a similar way and can also be deleted with minimal syntactic adjustment.

Taking account of the discussion of hedges by Coates, Holmes and Hirschman, I have listed six categories of linguistic forms of hedging devices.

1. fall-rise intonation patterns;
2. phrases like I mean, I think, I assume, I guess, sort of, kind of, you know;
3. adverbials such as maybe, probably, relatively, generally, really;
4. the modal verbs may, might, would and could;
5. lexical items such as perhaps, conceivably, or whatever, or something;
6. tag questions such as isn’t it, are you, can’t she.

In the analysis of the radio programmes, the first category has not been taken into account. As the speakers came from all over Britain I found it difficult to establish which intonation patterns were part of a particular accent and which were really meant as hedges. These linguistic forms are rather equivocal since there are many phrases that can act as hedging devices in people’s language. However, the phrases do not often by definition function as hedges as can be seen in the following example.

Example 1: … and that’s the sort of harassment I mean, rather than physical touching …

In the analysis, I have distinguished between phrases that were meant as hedging devices and phrases that were not meant to hedge an utterance. Hedges are phrases that can be left out without changing the contents of the sentence.

3. Hedging devices in male and female conversations

The basic function of hedging devices is to indicate that speakers are not committed to what they say. In other words, they avoid making explicit statements. The interpersonal function of hedges is to take account of the feelings of the addressee. Conversations are not just about people and events, they also reveal the speakers’ attitudes to their addressees. Hedging devices are useful to express opinions but to soften them in the process. According to Coates (1996: 156), protecting face needs is an important function of hedges. Face needs are the need to feel acknowledged and liked (positive face needs) and the need to have one’s personal space respected (negative face needs). Hedging devices help the speaker to avoid imposing on people. Tannen (1990) and Coates (1996) found that the use of hedges by women is closely related to the speaking styles and kinds of conversations women have. Tannen (1990: 77) argues that “for most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships”. Women place emphasis on “displaying similarities and matching experiences” (Tannen 1990: 77). Coates (1996: 162) claims that the use of hedges by women is closely related to three aspects of their conversations. Women often discuss sensitive topics which may arouse strong emotions in the speakers and their addressees. In order to avoid creating arguments, they tend to hedge their assertions. The second aspect of all-female talk is mutual self-disclosure. Telling others about personal experiences (necessary for establishing friendship) is easier when it is done in a mitigating way and hedges are useful for doing so. The third aspect of women’s talk is that a collaborative floor is maintained. A collaborative floor involves social closeness, and the group’s voice is considered to be more important than an individual opinion. In this respect it is important for women not to make hard and fast statements about topics that could be sensitive to others. Knowledge of topics of conversation also plays a role in the use of hedges. Women are more inclined to downplay their authority, as playing the expert in a conversation creates social distance. In other words, women sometimes deliberately use hedging devices to avoid a hierarchical structuring of relationships.

All-male talk is different. It is characterised by a one-at-a-time structure. There is little overlap in men’s conversations and consequently “the ideas expressed by individuals in those turns are seen as individually owned” (Coates 1997: 124). Male friendships do not seem to place a great value on talk; men concentrate more on doing things together, such as sports. On the other hand men generally place greater value on what is being said, on exchange of information. Tannen (1990: 77) calls this phenomenon “report talk”: for men “talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order”. She claims that men establish their status by “exhibiting knowledge and skill and by holding centre stage through verbal performance such as story-telling, joking or imparting information” (1990: 77). Men do not often discuss personal things but their conversations seem to involve sports and politics quite frequently. Since no collaborative floor is maintained in their conversations, men do not feel as strong a need to agree with each other as women do. When politics or other rather impersonal things are discussed and when there is no need to agree on a subject, men could be expected to use fewer hedging devices than women do. This is not to say that men do not use any hedges at all. They use hedging devices in different ways, for example to indicate that although they may not have the right words at hand, they are not giving up their speaking turn.

With respect to cross-sex conversations, the supporters of the “dominance approach” see women as weak and tentative participants in conversations whereas men determine which subject is discussed for how long. According to the “difference approach” men and women must make adjustments in order to make conversations possible. One of the supporters of the “difference approach” is Tannen, and she argues that communication between men and women is cross-cultural communication. In her opinion, a fundamental difference between the two sexes is that men see themselves as “an individual in a hierarchical social order” (Tannen 1990: 8) while women consider themselves “individuals in a network of social connections” (Tannen 1990: 9). Meinhof and Johnson, on the other hand, emphasise that men and women still draw on the same linguistic resources. They hold the view that “there must be some degree of similarity or overlap in the speech of men and women, otherwise it would be impossible to envisage a situation where they could ever communicate” (Meinhof and Johnson 1997: 11). In informal cross-sex conversations women are said to make more efforts to keep the conversation going by asking questions. Fishman (1983) observes that while women invest considerable effort in thus supporting the conversational needs of men, they do so at their own expense. Men usually determine the subject of the conversation and the point at which new topics are brought up. Holmes (1992b) claims that men are more likely than women to dominate the speaking time on formal and public occasions, which would be in agreement with Tannen’s view that men are much more practised in report-talk or public speaking since they employ that speaking style in all-male conversations with friends as well. In view of all this, men would not be expected to use many hedging devices in cross-sex conversations as they are usually in control of them.

4. The “Ruscoe on Five” programmes

In “Ruscoe on Five” Sybil Ruscoe, the programme’s host, discussed news items and social issues with people she invited to join her in the studio. Sometimes listeners also called in to give their opinion on a subject. In most of these programmes both men and women joined the discussion, which is why this particular programme was highly appropriate for my study. In analysing six of these broadcasts, I distinguished between hedges and non-hedges based on the criteria explained above. Thus, a particular phrase or word qualifies as a hedging device when it can be left out without changing the contents of the utterance.

Most of the topics in the programmes were introduced by a BBC reporter. These parts have not been taken into consideration, as the speech is not spontaneous but carefully planned and prepared. This kind of speech will have to sound impartial and confident and will as a consequence not contain many hesitations, minimal responses or hedging devices. Another characteristic of these parts in the programmes is that the reporters are not influenced by what others say. Participants in a discussion have to adjust what they say, how they say it and when they say it to the other participants. The reporters were not interrupted and did not have to provide reactions on the spot. This is not to say that the other speakers could not in some way plan what they were going to say, but they had to take account of what the other speakers said and the direction in which the host of the programme led the discussion. Since I believe that the number of hedges used by the speakers could well be influenced by their knowledge of a particular subject, I have tried to characterise each of the participants in the discussion as either an expert, i.e. a person with a lot of knowledge of the subject in question, or as a non-expert, i.e. a person with little or only basic knowledge of the topic. In all of the analyses the host Sybil Ruscoe was classified as a non-expert since she would only have basic knowledge on the topics of discussion in comparison with the people invited to the studio, who are often specialists in a particular area.

Altogether I recorded and analysed six programmes. The topics of the programmes were “Prozac”, about the effects of using the drug Prozac, “Drink and Drive”, which was a general discussion about punishment for drinking and driving, and “Child Care”, about standards that childcare centres have to meet. The programme about “Women in the Royal Navy” dealt with the changes that the Navy has gone through since women were allowed to join it, “Child Exploitation” dealt with the abuse of children abroad and in the UK, and, finally, “Women in the Anglican Church” dealt with the position of women in the church. The topics were various and ranged from rather general, as for example the programme about women in the Navy, to quite emotional, such as child abuse. Another fact that contributes to the general character of the study is that the participants in the discussions probably come from different social backgrounds, in other words, this study did not focus on members of one particular social class.

In analysing the six programmes, the numbers of hedges used by the participants in the programmes were normalised to two hundred words per speaker. In calculating these figures I counted utterances as units rather than the words of each utterance.

Example 2:  … it means that i… the trial …

I included … eehm ... and ...eeh ... as well as units similar to i… in example (2). The reason for this is that … eehm ... and ... eeh ... have a communicative function in that they express the speaker’s wish to hold the floor in a conversation even though at that particular moment s/he may have difficulty in finding the right words to express what s/he wants to say. As for the few instances of people beginning to say a word such as in I mean i… it, these units are of course not completed words but they indicate that the speaker does not want to give up his/her speaking turn yet and is trying to avoid interruptions from other participants by immediately correcting him/herself.

The traditional role patterns and earlier perceptions of women’s language might lead us to expect a big difference in use of hedges between the fifteen men and seventeen women who participated in the six “Ruscoe on Five” programmes. It could be expected that the number of hedges is greatest in the category of nine female experts since this category corresponds both to the expectation that women use most hedges and to the assumption that female experts hedge their utterances to avoid sounding authoritative. The eight female non-experts should then use more hedges than the four male non-experts. The eleven male experts in the programmes, who would need to boast their knowledge to get a respected place in the hierarchy, would use fewest hedges. However, if men and women have indeed become closer in their language, their use of hedging devices would be similar, and male and female non-experts would be close to male and female experts.

Overall, this study showed that there is no significant difference between the two sexes with respect to their use of hedging devices. Table 1 shows the results for the categories men and women.

Table 1: Figures for all men and women

As can be seen in Table 1 above, there is a significant difference in the number of units produced by men and women. The contribution of the seventeen women to the programmes is almost twice as big as that of the fifteen men, while on average the women use more hedges. The normalised figures, however, are identical for men and women. Both groups use approximately three hedging devices in every two hundred units. However, when the speakers are subdivided into experts and non-experts, a different picture emerges. Table 2 shows the figures for the categories expert and non-expert.

Table 2: Figures for men and women and experts vs. non-experts