Language and gender is an area of study within sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and related fields that investigates varieties of speech associated with a particular gender, or social norms for such gendered language use.[1] A variety of speech (or sociolect) associated with a particular gender is sometimes called a genderlect.
The study of gender and language in sociolinguistics and gender studies is often said to have begun with Robin Lakoff's 1975 book, Language and Woman's Place, as well as some earlier studies by Lakoff.[2]
The study of language and gender has developed greatly since the 1970s. Prominent scholars include Deborah Cameron, Penelope Eckert, Janet Holmes, Deborah Tannen, and others.
Contents |
In 1975 Robin Lakoff identified a "women's register," which she argued served to maintain women's (inferior) role in society.[3] Lakoff argued that women tend to use linguistic forms that reflect and reinforce a subordinate role. These include tag questions, question intonation, and "weak" directives, among others (see also Speech practices associated with gender, below).[4]
Studies such as Lakoff's have been labeled the "deficit approach," since they posit that one gender is deficient in terms of the other. Descriptions of women's speech as deficient can actually be dated as far back as Otto Jespersen's "The Woman," a chapter in his 1922 book Language: Its Nature and Development. Jespersen's idea that women's speech is deficient relative to a male norm went largely unchallenged until Lakoff's work appeared fifty years later.[4] Nevertheless, despite the political incorrectness of the chapter's language from a modern perspective, Jespersen's contributions remain relevant. These include the prospect of language change based on social and gendered opportunity, lexical and phonological differences, and the idea of genderlects and gender roles influence language.
Not long after the publication of Language and Woman's Place, other scholars began to produce studies that both challenged Lakoff's arguments and expanded the field of language and gender studies.[4][2] One refinement of the deficit argument is the so-called "dominance approach," which posits that gender differences in language reflect power differences in society.[5]
Jennifer Coates outlines the historical range of approaches to gendered speech in her book Women, Men and Language [6] She contrasts the four approaches known the deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches.
"Deficit" is an approach established by Lakoff (1975) that introduces a 'women's language' as classified by linguistic trends in women's speech. This approach created a dichotomy between women's language and men's language. This triggered criticism to the approach in that highlighting issues in women's language treated men's language as the standard. As such, women's language was considered to have something inherently 'wrong' with it.
Dominance is an approach whereby the female sex is seen as the subordinate group whose difference in style of speech results from male supremacy and also possibly an effect of patriarchy. This results in a primarily male-centered language. Scholars such as Dale Spender[7] and Don Zimmerman and Candace West[8] ascribe to this view.
Difference is an approach of equality, differentiating men and women as belonging to different 'sub-cultures' as they have been socialised to do so since childhood. This then results in the varying communicative styles of men and women. Deborah Tannen is a major advocate of this position.[9] Tannen compares gender differences in language to cultural differences. Comparing conversational goals, she argues that men tend to use a "report style," aiming to communicate factual information, whereas women more often use a "rapport style," which is more concerned with building and maintaining relationships.[9]
The "dynamic" or "social constructionist" approach is, as Coates describes, the most current approach to language and gender. Instead of speech falling into a natural gendered category, the dynamic nature and multiple factors of an interaction help a socially appropriate gendered construct. As such, West and Zimmerman (1987)[10] describe these constructs as "doing gender" instead of the speech itself necessarily being classified in a particular category. This is to say that these social constructs, while affiliated with particular genders, can be utilized by speakers as they see fit.
Scholars including Tannen and others argue that differences are pervasive across media, including face-to-face conversation,[11][12] written essays of primary school children,[13] email,[14] and even toilet graffiti.[15]
Deborah Cameron, among other scholars, argues that there are problems with both the dominance and the difference approach. Cameron notes that throughout the history of scholarship on language and gender male-associated forms have been seen as the unmarked norm from which the female deviates.[16] For example the norm 'manager' becomes the marked form 'manageress' when referring to a female counterpart. On the other hand, Cameron argues that what the difference approach labels as different ways of using or understanding language are actually displays of differential power. Cameron suggests, "It is comforting to be told that nobody needs to 'feel awful': that there are no real conflicts, only misunderstandings. [...] But the research evidence does not support the claims made by Tannen and others about the nature, the causes, and the prevalence of male-female miscommunication."[17] She argues that social differences between men's and women's roles are not clearly reflected in language use. One additional example is a study she has done on call center operators in the UK, where these operators are trained to be scripted in what they say and to perform the necessary 'emotional labor'(smiling, expressive intonation, showing rapport/empathy and giving minimal responses) for their customer-callers. This emotional labor is commonly associated with the feminine domain, and the call center service workers are also typically females. However, the male workers in this call center do not orient to the covertly gendered meanings when they are tasked to perform this emotional labor. While this does not mean that the 'woman's language' is revalued, nor does this necessarily call for a feminist celebration, Cameron highlights that it is possible that with time, more men may work in this service industry, and this may lead to a subsequent "de-gendering" of this linguistic style.[18]
Communication styles are always a product of context, and as such, gender differences tend to be most pronounced in single-gender groups. One explanation for this, is that people accommodate their language towards the style of the person they are interacting with. Thus, in a mixed-gender group, gender differences tend to be less pronounced. A similarly important observation is that this accommodation is usually towards the language style, not the gender of the person . That is, a polite and empathic male will tend to be accommodated to on the basis of their being polite and empathic, rather than their being male.[19]
However, Ochs (1992) argues that gender can be indexed directly and indirectly.[20] Direct indexicality is the primary relationship between linguistics resources (such as lexicon, morphology, syntax, phonology, dialect and language) and gender. For example, the pronouns "he" and "she" directly indexes "male" and "female". However, there can be a secondary relationship between linguistic resources and gender where the linguistic resources can index certain acts, activities or stances which then indirectly index gender. In other words, these linguistic resources help constitute gender. Examples include the Japanese "wa" and "ze". The former directly index delicate intensity, which then indirectly indexes the male "voice" while the latter directly indexes coarse intensity, which then indirectly indexes the female "voice".
One of the ways in which the communicative behavior of men and women differ is in their use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as ‘mhm’ and ‘yeah’, which is behaviour associated with collaborative language use.[21] Men, on the other hand, generally use them less frequently and where they do, it is usually to show agreement, as Don Zimmerman and Candace West’s study of turn-taking in conversation indicates.[22]
While the above can be true in some contexts and situations, studies that dichotomize the communicative behavior of men and women may run the risk of over-generalization. For example, "minimal responses appearing "throughout streams of talk", such as "mm" or "yeah", not only function to display active listening and interest and are not always signs of "support work", as Fishman (1978) claims. They can - as more detailed analysis of minimal responses show -- signal understanding, demonstrate agreement, indicate scepticism or a critical attitude, demand clarification or show surprise". [23] In other words, both male and female participants in a conversation can employ these minimal responses for interactive functions, rather than gender-specific functions.
Men and women differ in their use of questions in conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine request for information whereas with women it can often be a rhetorical means of engaging the other’s conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from others conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use.[24] Therefore women use questions more frequently.[11][25] In writing, however, both genders use rhetorical questions as literary devices. For example, Mark Twain used them in "A War Prayer" to provoke the reader to question his actions and beliefs. Tag questions are frequently used to verify or confirm information, though in women’s language they may also be used to avoid making strong statements.[26]
As the work of Victoria DeFrancisco shows, female linguistic behaviour characteristically encompasses a desire to take turns in conversation with others, which is opposed to men’s tendency towards centering on their own point or remaining silent when presented with such implicit offers of conversational turn-taking as are provided by hedges such as "y’ know" and "isn’t it".[27] This desire for turn-taking gives rise to complex forms of interaction in relation to the more regimented form of turn-taking commonly exhibited by men.[28]
According to Bruce Dorval in his study of same-sex friend interaction, males tend to change subject more frequently than females.[29] This difference may well be at the root of the conception that women chatter and talk too much, and may still trigger the same thinking in some males. In this way lowered estimation of women may arise. Incidentally, this androcentric attitude towards women as chatterers arguably arose from the idea that any female conversation was too much talking according to the patriarchal consideration of silence as a womanly virtue common to many cultures. Goodwin (1990) observes that girls and women link their utterances to previous speakers and develop each other topics, rather than introducing new topics.[30]
However, a study of young American couples and their interactions reveal that while women raise twice as many topics as men, it is the men's topics that are usually taken up and subsequently elaborated in the conversation.[31]
Female tendencies toward self-disclosure, i.e., sharing their problems and experiences with others, often to offer sympathy,[32] contrasts with male tendencies to non-self disclosure and professing advice or offering a solution when confronted with another’s problems.[9]
Self-disclosure is not simply providing information to another person. Instead, scholars define self-disclosure as sharing information with others that they would not normally know or discover. Self-disclosure involves risk and vulnerability on the part of the person sharing the information.[33] Self-disclosure, when it comes to genderlect is important because genderlect is defined as the difference in male and female when it comes to difference of communication. When it comes to men and women they have completely different views of self-disclosure. Developing a close relationship with another person requires a certain level of intimacy, of self-disclosure. Gradually, you begin to feel comfortable enough with the other person to trust him or her with your feelings, your dreams, and your self-doubts, and be confident that the other will not reject or blame you."Self-Discolsure.". http://zegex.com/. Retrieved 11-21-2011.</ref> It is much easier to get to know a woman than it is to get to know a man because it has been proven that women get to know someone on a more personal level and they are more likely to want to get to know someone to share their feelings with them. A man can simply make a friend then get in a fight with him or her then be fine all within 5 minutes because they don’t hold as much tension as women do.
It has also been said that people share more on a computer. Men and women both are more likely to give more of an opinion over the computer than they would be to do it to someone’s face, this is because its easier to type something into a computer than it is to have to talk to someone in person, especially when it is a sticky situation. People are more confident when talking on a computer because the opposite person cannot see them, which makes it easier for them to say how they really feel without feeling self-conscience about the situation they are in. This can work to an advantage or a disadvantage because people might say something they shouldn’t say due to the fact that they have more courage, or thinking of it in the opposite view someone could say something that needs to be said that they wouldn’t normally say without the computer there to help them.
Research has been conducted to examine whether self-disclosure in adult friendship differs according to gender and marital status. Sixty-seven women and fifty-three men were asked about intimate and non-intimate self-disclosure to closest same-sex friends. Disclosure to spouse among married respondents was also assessed. The intimate disclosure of married men to friends was lower than that of unmarried men, married women and unmarried women; the intimate disclosure of these last three groups was similar. Married people's non-intimate disclosure to friends was lower than that of unmarried people, regardless of gender. Married people's intimate disclosure to their spouses was high regardless of gender; in comparison, married men's intimate disclosure to their friends was low, while married women's disclosure to their friends was moderate or even as high as disclosure to their spouses. The results suggest that sex roles are not the only determinant of gender differences in disclosure to friends. Marital status appears to have an important influence on disclosure in friendship for men but not for women. It was concluded that research on gender differences in self-disclosure and friendship has neglected an important variable, that of marital status."[34] This research goes to show that when a man is married he is less likely to have intimate self-disclosure, this is because he has a wife and does not want to betray her because he knows what he would be doing would be wrong. However, the research also showed that the married women didn’t change much in either situation, this is because women always communicate like this so they don’t think much about how they are acting or if what they are doing is wrong because women are so much more personal the way it is anyway.
A big factor that we don’t consider when it comes to genderlect is the factor that men communicate different with other men than they do with other women. Women tend to communicate the same with both men and women because they are intimate and personal with everyone in general. "Male and female American students who differed in masculinity and in femininity self-disclosed to a same-sex stranger in contexts that made either social/expressive motives or instrumental motives salient. The results were consistent with the primary assertion that measures of sex role identity are better predictors of contextual variations in self-disclosure than is sex per se. Sex consistently failed to predict subjects' willingness to self-disclose, both within and across contexts, whereas femininity promoted self-disclosure in the context that was clearly social and expressive in character. Although masculinity failed to exert the expected facilitative impact on self-disclosure within the instrumental context, it nonetheless influenced the results; androgynous subjects, who scored high in both masculinity and femininity, were more self-revealing across contexts than was any other group."[35] This research shows that people who are both masculine and feminine have the ability to still self disclose very clearly, while being strictly feminine or strictly masculine won’t work to one’s advantage because they don’t get the full spectrum and are not open-minded to things.
Men and women also tend to have a different type of humor, give this scenario some thought. "Through the regulation of privacy boundaries and coordination of rules, the partners are able to reduce ambiguity about the meaning of behavior and determine insights into a partner's intentions. However, partners must come to a mutually agreed upon set of rules so that they can coordinate the management of the private information effectively. For example, on a night out with another couple, the husband of one of the couples begins to give a detailed description of pet names he has for his wife to the other husband. After the evening ends, the wife directly informs her husband that the pet names he calls her should be kept only between the two of them. This information is not for anyone else to know. She is operating under the boundary rule that such information should be kept private between the couple. In his defense, the husband explains that while growing up his parents used the pet names they had for each other in public frequently, and he did not consider it of any significance. Here is a communication event in which turbulence occurred because of a failure by the couple to coordinate a privacy boundary around this information. As a result, the rules that maintain this information are necessarily renegotiated and new boundary rules are formed to manage access to the information. The adjustment is essential for both the husband and wife to have the same definition of "pet names" as private information."[36] The man thinks this is a good conversation topic while the woman is embarrassed and mad at her husband that he would bring this topic up in the first place. This is an example of how men and women tend to think differently from one another.
Self-disclosure is also very important when it comes to a close relationship between a boy and a girl. We all know that trying to communicate between a couple is one of the most difficult setbacks that most couples are forced to face. When it comes to dealing with the reasons as to why a girl thinks differently from a boy and vise-versa, there isn’t really a specific reason as to why which makes it difficult to understand. In some relationships men are even more open than the women they are dating, which makes it even more difficult to understand. This scenario is a good example of self-disclosure and relationships. Self-disclosure seems to be one of the most important qualities in close relationships. For instance, studied American heterosexual couples with various measures twice a year. By using the average scores of both partners, they found that self-disclosure was higher in those couples who remained together at the second administration of the surveys than in those who broke up between two administrations. Similarly, asked heterosexual couples who had just begun dating to complete a self-disclosure measure and to answer the same questionnaire four months later. They found that couples who were still dating four months later reported greater self-disclosure at the initial contact than did those who later broke up. This test proves that self-disclosure can be good for a relationship. If someone can be open with his or her significant other then they won’t start to feel trapped, but it is when someone starts to feel trapped and cant talk to the other person about it that things don’t work out.
Self-disclosure is a tricky subject because not all women communicate the same and not all men communicate the same, however, men on average are less open then women which is an obvious tool to know. It takes getting to know a man before he will open up to someone as compared to a woman where she is more likely to try harder in order to get to that point.
Aggression can be defined by its’ three intersecting counterparts: indirect, relational and social. Indirect aggression occurs when the victim is attacked through covert and concealed attempts to cause social suffering. Examples are gossiping, exclusion or ignoring of the victim. Relational aggression, while similar to indirect, is more resolute in its attentions. It can be a threat to terminate a friendship or spreading false rumors. The third type of aggression, social aggression, “is directed toward damaging another’s self-esteem, social status, or both, and may take direct forms such as verbal rejection, negative facial expressions or body movements, or more indirect forms such as slanderous rumors or social exclusion.” [37] This third type has become more common in adolescent, both male and female, behavior. [38]
Dr. M.K. Underwood, leading researcher in child clinical psychology and developmental psychology, began using the term social aggression in several of her experiments. [39] In one study, Underwood followed 250 third-graders and their families in order to understand how anger is communicated in relationships, especially in face-to-face and behind-the-back situations. It was found that technology and electronic communication has become a key factor in social aggression. This discovery has been termed cyber-bullying. In another experiment, social aggression was used to see if verbal and nonverbal behaviors contributed to a person’s social value. [40] It was found that those who communicated nonverbal signals were seen as angry and annoyed by their peers. In a third study, the experimenters determined that while socially aggressive students were vastly disliked, they were alleged to be the popular kids and had the highest marked social status. Most research has been based of off teacher assessments, case studies and surveys.
For years, all research on aggression focused primarily on males because it was believed females were non-confrontational. Recently however, people have realized that while “boys tend to be more overtly and physically aggressive, girls are more indirectly, socially, and relationally aggressive.” [41] In a study done measuring cartoon character’s aggressive acts on television, these statistics were found: [42]
Physical and social aggression emerge at different points in life. Physical aggression occurs in a person’s second year and continues till preschool. Toddlers use this aggression to obtain something they want that is otherwise denied or another has. In preschool, children become more socially aggressive and this progresses through adolescence and adulthood. Social aggression is not used to acquire materialistic things but to accomplish social goals. [43]
Starting in first grade, research has shown that young females are more disliked when they are socially aggressive than when young males are physically aggressive. However, until the fourth grade there is an overall negative correlation between aggression and popularity. [44] By the end of fifth grade, aggressive children, both male and female, are more popular than their non-aggressive counterparts. This popularity does not insinuate likeability.
In the seventh grade, social aggression seems to be at its peak. When eight, eleven and fifteen-year-olds were compared, there were high reports of social aggression but no apparent statistical differences between the age groups. [45]
Several studies have shown that social aggression and high academic performance are incompatible. In classrooms where is was a high achievement record, researchers were less likely to find social aggression. Vice versa can be found for classrooms with a low achievement record. [46]
In adolescence, social aggression boosts female’s popularity by maintaining and controlling the social hierarchy. Furthermore, males are also ranked higher in popularity if they are physically aggressive. But, if males practice relational or social aggression then they are seen as unpopular among their peers. [47] When it comes to different forms social aggression, males are more prone to use direct measures and females indirect.
In addition to gender, the conditions in which a child grows up in also affects the likelihood of aggression. [48] Children raised in a divorced, never married or low-income family are more likely to show social aggression. This is speculated because of the higher rates of conflict and fighting already in the household. Parents who use an aversive style of parenting can also contribute to the social aggression in their children. [49] Researchers venture that “perhaps children who are treated harshly by parents have a higher baseline level of anger…and may lack the opportunities to practice more direct, assertive strategies for conflict resolution so may be prone to maligning others or lashing out when they are angry.” [50]
Through the last couple decades, the media has increased its’ influence over America’s youth. In a study done measuring the aggressive acts committed by cartoon characters on television, out of 8,927 minutes of programming time 7, 856 aggressive acts took place. This is roughly .88 aggressive acts per minute. [51] Because television and cartoons are one of the main mediums for entertainment, these statistics can be troubling. If children relate to the characters, then they are more likely to commit similar acts of aggression. For teenagers, popular films and series such as Mean Girls (2004), Easy A(2010) and Gossip Girl (2007) have shown an exaggerated, damaging view of how society works. Already, latest studies have shown an increase of social aggression in girls. Other experiments, such as one done by Albert Bandura, the Bobo Doll Experiment, have shown similar results of society shaping your behavior because of the impact of a model.
The development of social aggression can be explained by the social identity theory and evolutionary perspective. [52]
The social identity theory categorizes people into two groups, in-groups and out-groups. You see yourself as part of the in-group and people who are dissimilar to you as part of the out-group. In middle and high school these groups are known as cliques and can have several names. In the popular 2004 teen drama Mean Girls, “varsity jocks,” “desperate wannabes,” “over-sexed band geeks,” “girls who eat their feelings,” “cool Asians” and the “plastics” were several cliques from the movie. [53] Two common middle and high school cliques seen in everyday life are the popular crowd, in-group, and everyone else, out-group. The out-group has several other divisions but for the most part the in-group will categorize the out-groups all as one.
Around this time, it becomes important for a females social identity to be associated with the in-group. When a girl possess qualities that are valued in the in-group, then her social identity will increase. However, if her characteristics resemble those of the out-group, then she will be attack the out-group in order to keep her social standing within the in-group. This intergroup struggle, also known as social competition, mostly comes the in-group condemning the out-group, not the other way around. [54]
Moreover, social aggression can lead to intragroup competition. Inside the social groups there is also a hierarchal ranking, there are followers and there are leaders. When one’s position in the group does not lead to positive self-identity, then the group members will feud with one another to increase status and power within the clique. Studies show that the closer a female is to her attacker, the less likely she is to forgive. [55]
Where the social identity theory explains direct social aggression, research done in the evolutionary perspective explains indirect social aggression. This aggression stemmed from “successful competition for scarce resources… and enables optimal growth and development.” [56] Two tactics used are the coercive and prosocial strategies. The coercive strategies involve controlling and regulating all resources of the out-group through a monopoly. For this scheme, one must rely heavily on threats and aggression. The other strategy, prosocial, involves helping and sharing resources. This method shows complete dominance for the in-group, because in order for others to survive they must subordinate themselves to receive resources. Ability to control resources effectively results in higher-ranking in the in-group, popular crowd.
Social aggression can be detrimental for both ends of the spectrum, the out-group and in-group members. Longitudinal studies prove that aggression can lead to victims feeling lonely and socially isolated. In addition, targets report feeling depressed and affected by other health risks such as headaches, sleepiness, abdominal pain and bedwetting. [57]The aggressors on the other hand, were suggested to “encounter future problems in social relationships or emotional difficulties during early childhood.” [58] In academics, victims were reported to having below average test scores and low achievement.
Studies that measure cross-gender differences show that females find social aggression to be more hurtful than males do. The results of the hurt and pain felt by female victims can be seen in all ages. [59]Pre-school teachers have reported several cases of female students feeling depressed. In high school, the female victims begin to slowly isolate themselves. A year later, this seclusion has led to social phobia. Furthermore, in college, pressure and aggression from Greek life has lowered life satisfaction and increased antisocial behavior in several female students.
While social aggression has several downfalls, it has also led to a mature social competence of males and females. Being part of an in-group can increase a person’s self worth and contribute to his or her personal identity. In terms of the evolutionary perspective, being able to control definite and indefinite resources can increase a person’s social competence. [60] Some research argues that reports of social aggression and bullying can teach students in school what is considered unacceptable behavior. In a 1998 survey, 60% of students found that bullying “makes kids tougher.” [61] However, there is additional need for support on this claim.
Since 1992, there have been nine school intervention and prevention programs, which have met the rigorous criteria of efficacy, to avert social aggression. [62] The programs include Early Childhood Friendship Project (2009), You Can’t Say You Can’t Play (1992), I Can Problem Solve (2008), Walk Away, Ignore, Talk, Seek Help (2003), Making Choices: Social Problem Skills for Children (2005), Friend to Friend (2009), Second Step (2002), Social Aggression Prevention Program (2006), Sisters of Nia (2004).
When designing a prevention program, it is important to remember to keep the program age and gender appropriate. [63] For example, Early Childhood Friendship Project and You Can’t Say You Can’t Play have visual activities for the preschoolers and integrate puppet shows into the lesson plan. In addition, because males and females approach aggression differently there must be personalized plans to fit both genders.
However, intervention programs even with the best intentions can be harmful. [64] For one, the progress of the intervention can be short lived. Studies have measured the effectiveness of intervention programs three separate times during the course of one year and no improvements were shown. Secondly, because social aggression is said to increase social identity and belonging to a group, many students have tried to disrupt the programs. A third implication is that the interventions need to study how adverse behaviors develop. Otherwise the solution might not fit the problem. Lastly, the programs must be designed to fit the needs of girls and boys and not the ones of the researchers. If the intervention program is designed to give insight for research rather than reducing and bettering aggression, then it can be detrimental to society.
It appears that women attach more weight than men to the importance of listening in conversation, with its connotations of power to the listener as confidant of the speaker. This attachment of import by women to listening is inferred by women’s normally lower rate of interruption — i.e., disrupting the flow of conversation with a topic unrelated to the previous one[65] — and by their largely increased use of minimal responses in relation to men.[22] Men, however, interrupt far more frequently with non-related topics, especially in the mixed sex setting and, far from rendering a female speaker's responses minimal, are apt to greet her conversational spotlights with silence, as the work of Victoria DeFrancisco demonstrates.[27]
This, in turn, suggests a dichotomy between a male desire for conversational dominance – noted by Helena Leet-Pellegrini with reference to male experts speaking more verbosely than their female counterparts – and a female aspiration to group conversational participation.[66] One corollary of this is, according to Jennifer Coates, that males are afforded more attention in the context of the classroom and that this can lead to their gaining more attention in scientific and technical subjects, which in turn can lead to their achieving better success in those areas, ultimately leading to their having more power in a technocratic society.[67]
Lakoff (1975) identified three forms of politeness: formal, deference, and camaraderie. Women's language is characterized by formal and deference politeness, whereas men’s language is exemplified by camaraderie.[68]
Politeness in speech is described in terms of positive and negative face.[69] Positive face refers to one's desire to be liked and admired, while negative face refers to one's wish to remain autonomous and not to suffer imposition. Both forms, according to Penelope Brown’s study of the Tzeltal language, are used more frequently by women whether in mixed or single-sex pairs, suggesting for Brown a greater sensitivity in women than have men to face the needs of others.[70] In short, women are to all intents and purposes largely more polite than men. However, negative face politeness can be potentially viewed as weak language because of its associated hedges and tag questions, a view propounded by O’Barr and Atkins (1980) in their work on courtroom interaction.[5]
Some natural languages have intricate systems of gender-specific vocabulary.