Commentary on "Language & gender: a brief literature
review"
Interpreting an author's style and stance
This text shows different aspects of how the writer (P.) uses language. We use 3 devices to comment on these features:
underlining
marks expressions which seem to take more of a tentative line of
speculation or question-posing, rather than asserting more definite positions.
bold face indicates the author's use of `stance' markers (i.e. more
overtly suggesting his own perspective or position);
italicised text marks the commentary on all aspects of what the writer is doing (including the significance of (some of) the bolded or underlined features).
Task: In addition to the above, consider:
LANGUAGE AND GENDER: A brief critical review
With the general growth of feminist work in many academic fields, it is hardly
surprising that the relationship between language and gender has
attracted considerable attention in recent years [P. starts by linking the significance of the subject to
wide interest and attention - leading into a review of that "literature"). In an attempt to go beyond "folklinguistic" assumptions about how
men and women use language (the assumption that women are "talkative", for
example), studies have focused on anything from grammar and vocabulary to aspects of
conversation analysis, such as topic naming and control, interruptions and other
interactional features (This introduces the
detailed object of study, before going on to talk about perspective or theory). While some research has focused only on the description of differences, other
work has sought to show how linguistic differences both
reflect and reproduce social difference ["While"
is typically used to concede a point, before making the point the author favours - which
focus do you think the author favours ?]. Accordingly, Coates (1988) suggests that
research on language and gender can be divided into studies that focus on dominance
and those that focus on difference [Notice:
1. P. is not saying that the subject can be divided, but that "research" on the
subject can be divided; 2. it’s not his division, but Coates’ division -
we’ll see this becomes important later on, 3. Why P. has placed dominance &
difference in that order].
Much of the earlier work emphasized dominance [The
language here points to the reason for dominance being discussed first ("earlier
work") - always have a good reason for sequencing any classification you make -
usually either by time sequence or importance]. Lakoff's
(1975) pioneering work [adjective of approval, also implying it’s among the
earliest work] suggested that women's speech typically
displayed a range of features, such as tag questions [e.g. "isn’t it ?"], which
marked it as inferior and weak. Thus, she
argued that the type of subordinate speech learned by a
young girl "will later be an excuse others use to keep her in a demeaning position,
to refuse to treat her seriously as a human being" (1975, p.5). While there are clearly some problems with
Lakoff's work - her analysis was not based on
empirical research [this is a negative
feature, suggesting lack of direct observation of language behaviour, & largely
speculation], for example, and the automatic equation [suggests over-generalisation] of subordinate with ‘weak’ is problematic [this is a useful expression, signalling you will now follow up with a
statement of why you find it problematic]- the
emphasis on dominance has understandably [approving] remained at the centre of much of this work [again, the ‘while’ clause admits problems, but the main
clause - P.’s view - suggests that, on balance, the work has been valuable]. Research has shown how men nominated topics more, interrupted more often,
held the floor for longer, and so on (see, for example, Zimmerman and West, 1975) [ P. balances Lakoff’s theoretical generalisations
with reference to some empirical studies]. The chief focus
of this approach, then, [this device (… , then,…)signals a summing up]
has been to show how patterns of interaction between men and women reflect the dominant
position of men in society.
Some studies, however, have taken a different
approach [this
stresses the approach or perspective rather than a black and white disagreement] by looking not so much at power in mixed-sex interactions as at how same-sex
groups produce certain types of interaction. In a typical study of this type [a useful way of taking one reference to represent many
others], Maltz and Borker (1982) developed lists of what
they described as men's and women's features of language. They argued that these norms of interaction
were acquired in same-sex groups rather than mixed-sex groups and that the issue is
therefore one of (sub-)cultural miscommunication rather than social inequality. Much of
this research has focused on comparisons between, for example, the competitive conversational
style of men and the cooperative conversational style of women. While some of the more popular work of this type, such as Tannen's (1987), lacks a critical dimension, the emphasis on difference has
nevertheless been valuable [this parallels
the concession made in the previous paragraph about Lakoff’s work] before in fostering research into gender subgroup interactions and in
emphasizing the need to see women's language use not only as `subordinate' but also as a
significant subcultural domain.
Although Coates' (1988) distinction is
clearly a useful one [more concession, but at a broader level - the whole division suggested by
Coates is given the same treatment - "while it’s useful, it has its
limitations"], it also seems evident that these two
approaches are by no means mutually exclusive [this
is the key point P. makes - criticising simplistic & "dichotomous" black and
white arguments]. While it is important on the one hand, therefore, not to operate with a simplistic
version of power and to consider language and gender only in mixed-group dynamics, it is also important not to treat women's linguistic
behaviour as if it existed outside social relations of power
[this is the key to the whole literature
review - THIS is the writer’s position. The ‘While clause balances the main
clause, which cautions the more recent ‘difference’ movement against committing
the same fault as the ‘dominance’ theorists].
Cameron, McAlinden and O'Leary (1988) ask [authority often evoked in this
manner to reinforce writer's favoured stance], "Can it
be coincidence that men are aggressive and hierarchically-organized conversationalists,
whereas women are expected to provide conversational support?" (p.80). Clearly, there is scope here for a great deal more
research [by pointing to the need for more research' plus offering a 5-point set of
recommendations, P. argues for change & turns this into a truly "critical"
review in the sense of arguing for change] that
- Is based on empirical data of men's and women's speech; [arguing against broad generalisations that are not grounded on observation]
- Operates with a complex understanding of power and gender relationships (so that women's silence, for example, can be seen both as a site of oppression and as a site of possible resistance); [arguing against over-simplification & "black & white" arguments]
- Looks specifically at the contexts of language use, rather than assuming broad gendered differences; [cautioning against making universal statements, holding that sociological or linguistic observations are invariably specific to particular contexts or cultures]
- Involves more work by men on language and gender, since attempts to understand male uses of language in terms of difference have been few (thus running the danger of constructing men's speech as the ‘norm’ and women's speech as ‘different’); [suggesting difference not be seen as "deviance" from a norm]
- Aims not only to describe and explain but also to change language and social relationships. [this is what makes this review "critical" in social theoretical terms - suggesting how we can promote change in our academic and social practices].
For a more sustained and in-depth exploration of stance and perspective in this author's work, see his recent book:
Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.