Group 2

- Anisa Ayu Oktaviani

- Ajeng Puji Lestari
- Endoh Raudoh
- Ilmiyah Hadi
- Imadiah Mulqi
- Meidianza Fathayasir. S
- Milda Solinda
- Nursyifa Wijdaniah
- Syfa Athifah Ningrum
- Winda Nur Aliah

Explanations o women’s linguitics behaviour

 The social status explanation

Some linguistics have suggested that women use more standard
speech form than men because they are more status-conscious than men.
The claim is that women are more aware of the fact that the way they
speak signals their social class background or social status in the
community. The woman use more standard speech forms as a way of
claiming such status.
The fact that women interviewed in New York and in Norwich
reported that they used more standard form than they actually did has also
been used to support this explanation. Women generally lack status in the
society, and its suggested some try to acquire it by using standard speech
orms, and by reporting that they use even more o these form that they
actually do.
An america study compared that speech of women in service
occupations, working in garages and hotels. For example, with the speech
of women working in the home. A variation on this explanation suggests
that standard of prestige forms represent linguistic capital which people
 use to increase their value or marketabillity in some contexts. The
advantages of occunting for higher proportion of such forms in the speech
of those in the white collar professional workforce, especially when they
are interacting with people they want to impress.

 Woman’s role as guardian of society’s values

The fact that women use more standard forms than men points to
the way society tend to expect ‘better’ behaviour form women than form
men. Little boys generally allowed more freedom that little girls.
Misbehaviour from boys is tolerated where girls are more severely than
rule-breaking by men. Women designated the role of modelling correct
behaviour in the community. following this argument, society expects
women to speak more correctly and standardly than men, especially when
they are serving models for children’s speech.
This explanation of why women use more standard forms than men
may be relevant in some social groups, but it is certainly not true for all.
Interaction between a mother and her child are likely to be very relaxed
and informal, and it is in relaxed informal contexts that vernacular forms
occur most often in everyone’s speech.
Standard form typical associated with more formal and less personal
interaction.

Subordinate Group Must Be Polite

People who subordinate must be polite such as children are expected to be

polite to adults. Women as a subordinate group must speak carefully and politely
to avoid offending men. It is not immediately apparent why polite speech be
equated with standard speech. It is perfectly possible to express yourself politely
using vernacular liverpool or glaswegian accent and possible to be very insulting
using RP. By using standard frms a woman is protecting her ‘face’. She als
avoiding offence to other.
 Suggesting that women use the standard frms to protect her face is not
very different frm saying she is claiming more status than she entitled t,cmpared t
men from the same social group. Women’s greater use of standard form not only
to protect their own face, but also to those of the people they are talking to is more
promising. It is consistent with other evidence f women’s sensitivity to their
addresses.

Vernacular Forms Express Machismo

One answer which has been suggested to the question why don’t men use more
standard forms? Is that men prefer vernacular form because they carry macho
connotations of masculinity and toughness. If this is true, it would also explain
why many women might not want to use such forms.

There’s is some evidence to support the suggestion. The speakers on a tape

who were identified as most likely to win in a street fight were: home who used
most vernacular forms. The fact that Norwich men tended to claim that they used
more vernacular forms than they actually did while the woman didn’t, supports
this explanation too.

The converse of this claim is that standard forms tend to be associated

with female values and femininity. Some linguistics have pointed to the associated
of standard forms with female teachers and the norms they impose in the
classroom, with the suggestion that boys may reject this female domination, and
the speech forms associated with it, more vigorously than girls. More generally in
the society, a preference for vernacular forms may be a reaction to what is
perceived as overly influential female norms.

This explanation seems consistent with much of the sociolinguistics

evidence which has accumulated. It is worth asking, however, what is implied
about the values expressed by working class women’s speech.

There are other problems too. If a higher frequency of vernacular forms

conveys connotations of masculinity or promiscuity. Then why do all speakers
form all social classes use more vernacular forms in relaxed situation .
Some Alternative Explanations

1. How are women categorized?

It is perfectly possible for a woman to be better educated than the
man she marries, or even to have a more prestigious job than him.
Women’s use of more standard forms would require no explanation at all.
They would simply be using appropriate forms which accurately reflected
their social background. When women are classified by their husband’s
social group, miscategorisation is one plausible explanation of their speech
behavior.
2. The Influence of the Interviewer and the Context
In some contexts, such as formal interviews, women tend to be
more cooperative conversationalist than men. By contrast, men in such
formal contexts seem to be less responsive to the speech of others, and to
their conversational needs. in fact, it seems very possible that working-
class men might react against the speech of a middle-class academic from
the university, and so in their interviews they may have diverged in their
speech forms, using more vernacular forms precisely to distinguish
themselves from the interviewer.
In such circumstances, it is likely that the interview context would
be considerably more comfortable for men than for women, especially for
middle-class men. Male solidarity would reduce the formality of the
context. This too might account for men’s greater use of vernacular forms.
Moreover, in one of the earliest social dialect surveys, the fact that men
used more vernacular forms than women in these interviews does not then
seem so surprising. It can be accounted for by the fact that the interview
context was different for women and men.
Standard speech forms are used in more formal contexts. Where
women use more standard speech forms than men is social dialect
interviews, this may be due to the fact that they experienced the interview
as a relatively formal interaction with a stranger. This explanation
accounts for the difference in women’s and men’s speech forms by
referring to the relationship between the people concerned in the context in
which they are operating. It provides a thought-provoking alternative to
explanations which characterize women as statues-conscious individuals
who use more standard speech forms to ensure they are perceived as
socially statusful.
A researcher believes the statues dimension is more influential in
accounting for linguistic differences than the solidarity dimension, for
instance, will provide a different explanation from one who sees a person’s
social contacts as more influential in accounting for their speech than their
social class background. In concluding this section, it is worth noting that
although gender generally interacts with other social factors, such as
status, class, the role of the speaker in an interaction, and the informality
of the context, there are cases where the gender of the speaker seems to be
the most influential factor accounting for speech patterns.
In some communities, a woman’s social status and her gender
interact to reinforce differential speech patterns between women and men.
In others, different factors modify one another to produce more complex
patterns. But in a number of communities, for some linguistic forms,
gender identity seems to be a primary factor accounting for speech
variation. The gender of speaker can override social class differences, for
instance, in accounting for speech patterns. In these communities,
expressing masculine or feminine identity seems to be very important.