The deficit approach. Are
women really deficient of male language? I don’t think so. In an era of what is
supposed to be equal, just and open-minded, one would think stating that men
are more capable of using language than women is purely sexist. Nonetheless,
this obviously isn’t the case considering Robin Lacoff believes that women use
hedges and empty adjectives which show their uncertainty and tag questions
showing they are looking for confirmation. Surely these are all traits of male
language as well?
One of the common traits
of female language according to Robin Lacoff is the incorrect use of the word
‘like, well I have witnessed many men who frequently use this word in the wrong
context. Furthermore, I have come across many women who don’t show signs of
using this type of language. Therefore I would agree with Deborah Tannen’s
theory, stating that language is demographic and depends on where you’re from,
your social class, culture and age. Because it’s true isn’t it? The way you
speak depends on mostly, your upbringing; people are influenced by the way the
people around them speak. In response to the nature/nurture debate, I would
argue that the way in which you use language is largely dependent on the way
you’re brought up, not your biological make-up or whether you’re male or
female.
As for the dominance
approach, I know it is true that many men have the tendency to dominate
conversation, but isn’t this purely down to personality and again, your upbringing?
It isn’t only men that dominate conversation, many women to this too. There are
more women than ever following professional career paths; surely they need
confidence and the ability to use dominating language in the board room in order
to succeed in this way. Take Margaret Thatcher for example, the only female
Prime Minister; can you imagine her being dominated by men in conversation? And
there are many other women out there like her who too wouldn’t allow men to
dominate them. Despite this, Zimmerman and West still see men dominating
conversation as a sign of women having restricted linguistic freedom and men,
therefore seeking to impose their dominant status through applying constraints
towards women in conversational talk. I believe this theory is far too
stereotypical of men and women and also sexist towards women as it states they
have restricted linguistic freedom; which doesn’t apply to all women.
The difference approach is
too stereotypical, yes, some males and females speak differently but this isn’t
determined by their gender alone. This approach seems to state that women speak
in one particular way and men in another and argues that this is because men
and women belong to different subcultures. But this simply isn’t the case. How
can this possibly be true when there are so many men and women each with
different personalities? We can’t put people into specific groups according to
how they use language and suggest that just because you’re female you use more
politeness strategies and if you’re male you are more direct and aggressive
with conversation, for example. Everyone is different and your gender doesn’t
determine the way in which you use language, it is based on factors such as
where you live and the family you come from. Yet, Jennifer Coates believes that
all-female talk is essentially cooperative in the way speakers help to
negotiate conversation and support each other’s rights as speakers. But this
doesn’t happen in all all-female
talk, it depends on who is part of the conversation. Some men use language in this way too and some
females don’t.
All in all, these three
approaches are far too stereotypical and we can’t say someone uses language the
way they do just because they are either male or female. The way you speak
depends on your family background, age, culture and social class. For example
someone living in London will have different language strategies than someone
from Somerset. Similarly, someone with a middle class background is likely to
speak differently from someone with a working class background.
