38, S,5
I ToBelhrerornottoBeleve 2 ,
To Believe or
not to Believe...
Language/Sex Research
The deficient woman
As with so much of the knowledge we have inherited, women appearas
deficient- or deviant - in studies of language and sex. And, as with so
many other research areas in the socalsciences, when the assumptions
om which this knowledge has been constructed are examined, ii/
becomes increasingly clear that this female deíiciency often has its
origins in the research premises and procedures themselves. By
beginning with the initial assumption that there is something wrong with
women's language, research procedures have frequently been biased in
avour of men. The presentation of skewed findings has helped to
Tstablish the defciency of women's language and in conveniently
Tular logie has thereby helped to confirm the validity of the initial
premise that women's language is inferior.
Susanne Langer (1976) has emphasized that the way a question is
formed determines in part the answer that can be given; in language/
sex research there are numerous questions which have been formulated
in terms of the inadequacy of women's language, with the result that
many of the answers are conhned to measurements of that
inadequacy. It seems that all that is necessary is a basic assumption that
there is something wrong with women and it is possible to find in their
of
anguage by legitimated, "objective' means a vast array
peculiarities which help to justify their subordinate position insociety.
One of the contributions that feminism has made to language/sex
Tesearch has exposing this bias against
been that of women ("bias>
1 A746
hardly secms an appropriate term gven the degree to which research
has been geared to find in favour of men) and of
framing questions
which are not
conceptualized in terms of debciency, and which,
therefore, wil not automatically lead to answers which support the case
thar there is
something torong with. women, and their language.
2
Itis political choice on the part of femiists to índ in favour of
women but this is mo different from non-feminist researchers who have
exercised their political choice by almost always inding in favour of
men. The difserence is that feminism acknowledges its politics
Social beliefs about women have been brought into the research
REcess and in traditonal studies there are few unexpected entries in the
inveurory of women's linguistie dhciencies. Robin Lakof (1975) has
rlined what shethinks
are the commonly held
sa+ent
charmaerisics of
women's anguage, and she states that women_lack auhority and
e
seriousness, they lack conviction. and .conhdence In her view, in
Comparison with the (ostensibly) forceful and effective language of men,
women ate tentative, besitant, cven trivial, and are therefore "defciem
It would be unfortunate and unjust - to be unduly criial of
. 1 29 0
Lako's fndings on women's language for she was one of the early
feminists who began to explore - and to make zccepable - such
Y
research. Her study, Language and Woman's Place, has been
16
9 inluential; it has also been constrained by some of the seris
1ssumptions of the lingistic paradigim in which she worked. But as he
ypotheses andtheories serve to illustrate some of the waya in which the
deficiency of women's language has been constructed, I am using them
t o genera lize about the deñciencies of language/sex reach.
For example, Lakoff accepts that men's language is superior and she
N.
ssumes that this is a feanure of their linguistie performance and not of
their sex. She alsocompareswomen to a malestandard. She takesmale
\ anguage as The norm and measureswOrmenagainstt, +hd one outcome
ofTthsprocedureis to.classify any diffetence.on_the part of women s
'deviation' Given these practices, it is unlikely that Lakoff could have
artived at positive hndings for women, for any
differencs revealed,
whether T prioduct.of. language.OF OSE3, would be predisposed to
interpretation as.yetmore-evidencs ol female deficiecy.
Terhaps one of the best illustiations of language/sex research in
2
action is that of the work which has been
undertaken on the use of the
tag question. When the starting, premise is that women lack the
forcefuldess and effectiveness of men's language, then hypotheses and
N20
explanatipns are formulated to account for female hesitancy. The search
N
ida**

To Beleveor not to Belleve
to locate the vehicle which carries these seatures begins and Lakoff
speculated that it was the tag quesuon which permitted women to
cxercise hesitancy and qualiicaion.
Linguistically there is some dificulty in dehning a tag quesuon: it is
supposed to be a form which is half-way between a declarauon and
question. It is a question which is added on to the end of a staiement, as
in "It's a nice day, isn't it?° or 'I'l bë home by
midnight, all right?"
and it issupposedly a means whereby the user can make a declaration
without being asserive. (One of the dificulties with tag questions is thar
it is almost impo_sible to differentiate grammaically the 'tentative' ones
from the forceful' ones, as in, for example, 'You won't do that again,
will you?') However, despite the inherent difhculty in categorizing tag
questions, ir appears that some researchers were sufhciently coavinced
ofthe merits of the argument to investigate empirically women's use of
the tag question. The resulis were disappointing. In those studies where
the results were reported, men were found to use more tag questions
than women (Dubois and Crouch, 1975).
It s at this point thai
some of the distorions in the research process
become even more interesing. First, it is possible that we do Dot know
just how frequently women were tested for tag questions and found
wanting, for it is possible even probable that to some researchers
-
such resulis might have been considered 'unhelpful', the study deemed
to be a faikre, and the findingEs unreported. Like many other
disciplines, linguístics is not known for its abundance of publications on
unconfirmed hypotheses. Second, there is the distinct possibility ofa
double-standard at work here and that a tag queston is being deáned as
thefemale use of paricular form; when men use the same form it is
a sex research, and it needs to be noted that it is in the interests af
alled something else. This would help to explain the discrepancy
berween the beliess about women's language and the empirical reality.
But it is the third point which I find the most fascinating and the most
revealing.
Although the iniial hypothesis was that ug questúons contained the
key to hesitancy and tentativeness, the discovery that men use more of
them has not been accompanicd by a single suggestion that it is men
who might lack conhdence in their language.
In a socicty which exercised no bias on the grounds of sex, the
finding that men ustd more tag quesúons han women could have been
scen as signihcant, could have been enthusiastically reporned in the
iterature as a breakhrough and could have resulted in numerous
hypotheses about the deviancy or dchciency of men's language. This
150
To Belbeve or not
10 to
Belv
cxposes one of the most serious laws in language/sex research.
Experiments and theories have been constructed on the premise that
women's language is inserior and by some strange "logic', where this
premise has remained unproven, the result is not the rejection of the
initial premise, bui the 'explanation that researchers have been
looking in the wrong place' Tbe belief in the dehciency of women's
language can remain unchallenged regardless of the research outcome.
The belicf that there is something wrong with the languaze of more
than half the members of society has been reinforced rather than refued
in language/sex research despite the paucity of empirical andings to
support such a conteotion (Krameret al., 1978). In a socicty wbere
women are devalued it'is not surprising that their angage shOud E
devalued, but íew have suggested (apartirom feminists) that this might
(be a function of judements based on sex and not on language. Because
ofthe defhciencies in research- and pot in women- the findings in this
area need to be treated with considerable caution.
Language is not an insignificant dimension. To be inferior when it
comes to language is frequentdly to be discounted. In a hierarchical
societry predicáted on divisions and inequaliry and construcied on a
cocept of leaders' (and necessarly "followers"), i is not coincidece
that the anguage of women is held to be lacking in auuboriry,
forcefiulness, eiectiveness, persuasiveness. anguage is one means by
which women may be disqualised an ostensibly "objecive' grounds and
their oppression translated into nionalP argument. Whether sex
in
diferences language are real ot imaginary, or whether they are
Products of sex or society, have not been prioriy questions in language/
a male
supremacist sociery to promote prejudice against women's language.
SomelinguisIs have becn more-than helpfulin his enierpris
Almost since the acceptance of linguisics as a respectedseld of study
it has been and
possible to quote 'auboriies whose claims have been
-
itimated are
iherefore enshrined in the literature on the -
of
déficiencies women's languge. Oto Jespersen (1922), for example,
detailed these dehciencies in disparaging terms and claimed that
women, by virtue pf their sex fshrank from_coarse and gros
sxpressions and had a preferepce for
veiled and indirect
xpressions' which precluded them from being as effecive as men. But
itappearsthat it was pot suficient t itemize women's inadequacies: it
was also necessary to protect the lapguage and one must ask whose
-
language it is in this frame of reference - from their inluence.
3.
 To Believe or not to Bel1eve
According to jespersen, women had a debilitating effect upon the
language (p. 246) and it was reasonable for men, 'certainly with great
justice Ito] object that there is a danger of the language becoming
languid and insipid if we are tò content ourselves with women's
expressions Jespersen maintained that "vigour and vividness countTor
something and becxuse, in his opinion, women lacked such qualities
and could make no such contribution, their language was perceived as a
threat.
Jespersen, an esteemed and stil oft-quoted linguist, offered no
convincing evidence for his forcefA and authoritative pronouncèments
but his own debciencies have been largely overlooked by many of his
modem counterparts who have côntinued the quest to document the
negative features of women's langiage and to assume that the language
is the pardeular preserve of men.
Some imale linguists have been quite explicit in their assertion that the
language (or parts thereof) belongs to males. Sruart Flexner (1960) for
example, confined himself to a siudy of vernacular words coined byi
men (slang) and then concluded that it was males who were the makers)
and innovators of language. For his purposes, women had no claim to
language and as be made no attempt to study women-and any possible
coinages they may have produced there was lirle likelihood of his
assumption being challenged. Brian Foster (1976) also reveals a
signifieant "slip' when he documents some of the changes which have
cccurred in English and states that 'Some psychologists should really
tell us what emvies and unfulfilled longings czuse women to steal the
names of mep's clothes' (p. 142).;His case that women have stolen the
names of cilothes that manifest lirnde sex typing is unconvincing, but his
assumpion that the anguage is owped by men- for one can only steal
from an owner is quite revealing.
Although, on one hand, it is justihable for women to protest that
these assumptions about language as male propery are the
manisestations of sexist bias, on the other hand the case for the English
language being male property can also be justihed. It does not,
however, take the form which gives consensus to the properry rights of
males but rather exposes their appropriation of language.
A man's language
To suggest that English is a man's language is frequently to arouse
Josephe ne 12 To Belheve or not to Belive
Peeunli indignation of some people who feel secure in staing the obvious; that
is, because women use the language it cannot therefore be the property
of males. But it is perfecdy feasible to suggest that women have been
JostpHNG
obliged to use a anguage which is not of their own making. For
ERENA PPUC H example, Cora Kaplan (1976) has pointed out that even though
advantages would accrue to men in a patriarchal society if women were
not permitted to use the language at all, there would so be
disadvantages, and the compromise - constructed by males- has been
to allow women to express themselves, but only in male terms. In this
JostrHNE way, women remain 'outsiders", borrowers of the angage. This
keRENHAPPvuH. I. analysis is shared, in difering derees, by many feminists, amoog them
Sheila Rowbotham (1973a) who has said that this borrowing resrics
women "by affirming their own dependence upon the worcs of the
powerful' (p. 32), and male propery rights to the language re
reinforced rather than weakened by women's we of anguge. So
although it is readily demonstra ble that both sexes use the language, this
cannot be taken as suf+cient evidence that both sexes stand in the same
relationship to that language. On the contrary, it is also demonstrable
(though for many reasons not quite as evidem) that language is primar+ly
the product of male effort and that historically and curremty- men
have held greater 'rights' to language.
That the English languag has been literaly man made and that it is
still primarily under male control is the substance of this book. This
over language
monopoly is one of the means by which maes bave
ensured their own primacy, and consequetly have ensured the
invisibility or 'other' nature of females, and this primacy is perperuated
while women contimue to use, unchanged, the language which have wc
inherited. Rather than unmask some of the mechanisms whereby the
male supremacist (or, in Kaplan's terms, patriarchal) society is
maintained through language, research has sometimes assisted in
securing and sustaining these mechanisms. Studies on sex differences in
language use have too frequently supported male supremacy and studies
on sexism and language have too seldom seen through the mechanisms.
But research is also a social prodct and it is therefore not
that a male supremacist society should design research whichsurprising
is bound
to male supremacist considerations. The parameters of the quesion
help to ordain the parameters
of the answer.
the
 To Belicve or not to Beleve
13
The legacy
Language/sex rescarch has been split into rwo discrete and usually
unconnected areas and this split has not aided feminist
analysis of
language. It is not surprising thar this, division should have arisen, for
historically there has been a linguisic radition of separaung the
language as a system from the people who use it, and this tradiion is
Telected in the development of the dual areas of sexism in language
(wbere language is studied as an abstrat system without reference to the
contex) and sex diferences in language (where language use is
examined). The reatively recent growth of sociolinguisucs has been a
response to the inadecquacies and inacciuracies which are bound to occur
when this division is maintained; it was because this division was no
longer considered belpful thar sociolinguists began to collapse the
traditional dichotomy and to focus their attention on the social context
in which the language is used. Out of this came new insights into Black
language and language and class.
It is warth noting thar approximately ten years ago there was
widespread belief that there was something wrong with the language of
Blacks and of the working class, but that within those
ten years the
explanations have shifted so that there is now general consensus that the
dehciency' lies nor in Blacks or the working class but in sociery. We
can now appreciate that what has been termed correct' English is
nothing other than the blatant legitrimation of the white middle-class
code. Harold Rosen (1975) has made it clear that requiring working-
class people to use the middle-class code is tantamount to
requiring
them to use an alien language- a language not of tbeir own making.
Chris Searle (1973) has made the point equally clearly in relauon to
Blacks who required
are to use "the white man's anguage' which
consistemly denies and denigrates them.
The outcome of these studies concerned with class and ethnic
considerations has "been twofold. They have helped to foster
appreciaion for the codes of different groups and they have also belped
to expose some of the
means by which dominant group(s) constnuct and
perpetuate their power. There are no studies which I know that separate
classism and racism in language from class and ethnic analyses of
society, and this is where they stand in sharp contrast to language/sex
research wbere in general this cduality and separation still exist.
It is something of a puzzle that language/sex research should have
persisted with these hindering divisions. Certainly they have been
To Beleve or not to Belicve
unproituble from a feminist point of view. While these divisions are
maintained and while there is virtualy no cross reference between them,
many of the crucial questions which relate languuge to sociery go
unasked and unanswered. Whether the English language is a man'
language-in the same way that it is the anguage of the white middle
class-remains a question which cannot be answered fully wihin cither
area. Whether the language iself plays a role in any possibie se
diferences in language use also remains ouuside the province of eithe
arca and thereíore shares a similar'fate. Questions of the relationship
berween langiuage and power hover at the periphery of research, unable
1o become central as they do not conveniently fall into one or other
rescarch area.
Because I am not convinced that any useful purpose is served (from a
feminist point of view) in keeping the two research areas apar, I
propose to collapse them and bring them topether. The panen of male
control of language emerges more ciearly wben they are integrated. But
as czisting research îhdings are presenied in the divided forn I am
obliged to review them separately. Wherever possible I will make the
cross references which indicate wha has been "left out primarily as
result of what I would term the "divide and rule strategy which has
characterized language/sex research.
Sexism in language
One of the basic principles of fçminism is that society has been
constructed with a bias which favours males;
one of the basic priogines
of feminists who ar çoncerned with language is1har this_biaS Can be
Ioçated in the languags. The caim that English is biased in favour of
the male in both syntax and
semantics° (Schneider and Foss, 1977: ).
Broadly speaking, semantics refers to the meanings available within the
language, while syntax relers to the form (the sentence strnucture) in
which those meanins r e
conveyed. In this section I am primanly
concerned with semantics and am leaving the discussion of
syntax for
chapter 5.
This,bias in favour of males has most frequently been reserred to as
sexism in language
but other terms have also been used. Ann Bodine
(1975) for example makes use of the term androcentric (male centred)
in her cffort to expose the male
biay in the formulation of some of the
rues of the prescriptive
grammarians, and Joan Roberns (1976) uses

To Belleve or not to Belheve
the term masculist to abel the male bius in hrguage and gulh1
In designating the world view, the order under which we live and in
which languuge is integTml, Cora Kaplan (1976) uses the term
patriarchal. Athough all of thesezerms share common features and all
are attempes to label a
previously unnamed and uategorized
phenomenon, they do possess subtly disferent shades of meaning and,
for clarification, I am going to indilge in a semantic exercise and outline
what I mean by my usages of therh. The rwo terms which I favour and
which represent distinctions are those ofsexism and patiarchy. I accept
Kaplan's concept of patriarchy as the order under which we live, an
order characterized by male dominance and the means both actual
and symbolic - of perperusting thht dominance. I use sexism to denote
particular manifestaintions of that órder so that examples of the bias in
favour of males language or sociology for instance - is sexism.
That there is sexism in the Engish languuge is now well subsamiated
and generally accepred although ithere are of course some indivicuals
who will dispute- or more often tYivialize - its existence. Curremly, the
question is more one of degree and signibcance than acceptance.
Various deinitions have been pur forward and one criterion which has
beenused is that "the English language is sexist in so faras it relegatea
wornen to2 secondan and iníerior place in society (Eerger and
Kaçhuk, 997-2This criterion ean be reacily met by the simplest
exercises since all that is required is a lit of terms which relegate
women to a subordinate position. Some of the early research on serismn
and language was of this order as inventories of words were compled
which indicied that not only were there more words for males but that
there were more pasitive words; Julia Stanley (1977) pointed out that
there was no linguistic reason for this to be the case. Stanley also found
that many of the words for women had serual overtones and despite the
fact that there were more words for men, of the smaler sample assigned
to women there were 220 words for a sexu promiscuous female and
only 20 fora sexually promiscuous male (Stanley, 1973). This would
seem to indicate that the language - as a system- embodies sexual
inequality and that it is not women who enioy the advantage.
Such word counting was a 'necessary and imporant task in the
preiminary research aimed at documenting the existence of sexism in
angage, but it is also limited. Such activities despite the mumber of
lists and the number of items afford few new insights after the
establishment of
the fundamental inequities in terms of resources.
Having documemed the existence of seism in language what was
To Belicve or not to Believ
16
and funcion of thee
ters
required was an explaatoa of the oriin
and unfortumately this has not ahways been the direction which teserch
as aken.
What is the relatioship between women's devaustioa in hnguare
and their devaluation in society? What role have women played in the
corstruction of terms which demean, dey nd ciminish them? Have
women been instrumental in constructing seism in knguage, in coining
sennly debased mexmings for themselves? These quesions bave often
remained peripheral to research oa serism and anguage. Tbe emphasis
bas been on description rather than malysis, and references to the social
in our case, patriarchal) order in wich they beve arisen have ofen
been confned to the 1s parngraph of a report, wbere they bave been
accompunied by the sggesion th1t "more wark is required in this
area'. By and large the äscusion of the sigmifeance of eim n
anguage bas been superical.
The semantie derogation of women
Muriel Schulz (1975a) took ooe of the frst seps in rerin saism-in
knguage to sociery when sbe ineorporsted boch descripdve and
nalytical frames of reference in her invesdation sod suppested tht
there was a systematie basis to linguistic serism. To Scbulz, it as not
mere coincidence that there were more posiive words for males in the
anguage, nor was it n cident tthat there were so may neprtive words
for females with no semantic equimlent for males. Tbese maniiecdos
of a patriarchal order were rule soverned and the rule s that word
which are marked for females, which are sed in aocitionwith
femaes,become 'pejorated. Becsuse, irespective of aricin, r intent,
wordswhich r e marked female are merked negative, Schulz refered to
the sy'stematic, semandc derogdoa df women.
Others had already noted the way in which words becoe negstive
wbem they shit ito the female sphere, but their effors ad ofhen
stopped short at observadon. Few tenpts had beenmade to ink tbe
examples of sexism with patriarchal order. Miler and Swit (1976), for
example, observed that once a boy's name became popular s a girPs
name it lost its appeal and
usually ceased being used for boya Names
sch s Shirley, Leslie, Beverley, Evelyn and Sidney al bepan as boys
ames (and were
positive), were then used as girls' mmes (and became
negative), and now are rarely used for boys. Miler and Swit u e
 To Belheve or not to Beheve
17
convincingly that "once a name or a word becomes associated with
women, it is rarely again considered suitable for
males (p. 6) and they
also observed that there is no
reciprocity: he process docs not operate
in reversSC.
The word for women assumed
negaüve connotations even where it
designated the same sLate or condition as it did for men. Spinster and
bachelor, for example, designate an unmarricd adult but when this word
is marked for males it is
positive while when it is marked for females it
is negauve. The only variable is that of sex
and this vanable is crucial to
the semantic systen.
Whereas other studies made random reference to this
"double
standard' Schulz made the connection bctweea sex and semantics. She
documents the working of this semantic rule- which
of course did not
descend from the heavens "ready made' bur which was evolved
by tbe
human beings who constructed tbe
language.
The relaionship between sex and semantics is not
not confned to such blatant examples as thar of
occasional; it is
spinster and bachelor
but is all-pervasive, exxending to all words that are marked female. To
illustrate this point, Schulz tukes the case of man and woman and says
that no insult is implied if you reser to: semale as an old man: it is
inaccurate butis the assumpion is that there has been a mistake in
identity. This not the case if you
calla male an old woman; it is also
inaccurate but the assumption is that you intend insult. Woman does
no share equal stanus with man (linguisically or otherwise) because, in
accordance with the semantic rule, woman has become pejoated while
man has remained pure and untainted, protected by its
semamic
association with the male.
Schulz makes use of many comparable terms to illustrate tbe working
its positive meanings, Queen has also developed debased serul
of this semantic rule. She iavestigates the use of titles and shows that
connotations.
while male titles have retained their original positive meanings, female
tites bave frequenily undergone a dramaic 'dowahill slide', cnding
more often than not with sexually debased meanings. It is by this
process that mare posinive words are created for males.
Alkbough Lord still preserves its initial meaning, Lady has undergone
a process of "democratic levelling' and is no longer reserved for worncn
of high rank. (Robin Lakof (1975) makes a case for lady having
become a term of insult but ber argument appears to be relevant only
for American usage.) Baronet also functions in its ornginal sense
whereas its equivalent, Dame, has come to be used derogatively (again,
partcularhy in American usage). There has been some pejoraton of
To Belleve or not to Believe
governor
-
in
cockney usage lor example but it sill
-
serves in. is
original meaning whereas govemess has cOme to be used almos
exclusively in the context of young children and not in the context that
Queen Elizabeth I used it to denote her own power and
Lirle sigma seems to have become artachcd to sovereignty.
courtier, while it is
almost surprising to find that coirtesan was once an
equivalent tem, so
extensive are the sexual connotations it has acquired. Sir is still used as
a titde- and as a form
of respect-apd, unlike Madam, does not refer to
someone wbo keeps a brothel. Msuer, 100, has lost linle of its force
whereas Mistress has acquired almost cxclusively seual connotatioas
and is no longer associated with the person who accepted
respoosibility
and exercised control over the varied and essential tasks ofa household
In drawing atention to the loss of pariry between these
terms, Robin
Lakoff (1975) has pointed ou that there is considerable discrepancy in
meaning berween an old master and an old mistres.
With these titdes it can be argued that such terms did not have pariy
tobegin with partly because semales have always been inferior to mas
and therefore few insights can be gained from the documemation of
contemporary asymmetry. Because of the historical subordinaion o
women and the social
(pariarchal) practice of inheriting through the
male line, it was the Lord who inherited the tide and who took his
Lady.
But leaving aside these consideraions (and their ramibcanons for femae
family names), there are still instaoces- past and present-where it was
the female who was the 'genuine ide-bolder (usually in the absence of
a male hcir) and who conserred her status on
ber spouse. Elizabeth II is
no less a genuine' monarch than
her father, but whereas King retains
The for the systematic pejoration of female
case terms does not,
bowever, res solely on uitdes. Muriel Schulz uses this as but aoe
cxample of her thesis. All words-sepurdless of their origin- which are
associated with females acquire negative connotadons, because this is a
fundamenul semantic rule' ina society which constructs male
supremacy. When the same word shifs from being positive to being
negative once it has moved from ielerring to a male to referring to a
fcmale, then he 'logic' lies not in the word (and what it represets) but
in the sex. The way
meaning is created in our society depends upon
dividing the world into positive-masculine and negaive-feminine.
Schulz provides numerous exarmples of this semantic nule at work
and
although
Robin Lakof (1975)does
not posit the same underlying
 To Believe or mot to Beleve
9 To Belroe or not
20 to Belicoe
thesis as Schulz, her documentation supports Schulz's theory. Lakoff
has noted that whereas metaphors and labels are more of girl and woman, because semas are deáned
likely to have a traditionaly as
wide frame of reference wben appbied to men, the same metapbors and non males since males are
the sandard of comparison for the
labels are likely to narrow and assime sexual connotations when entire species, and women are the beings who contrast with them.
to women. One of the
applied
eramplès which Lakoff quotes is: that of Lecch's analysis, that the worid can be cávided into male nd mims
professional: the use of such a tem, be it applied to men or women, male, bas been justihed on the grounds of simplicity because almost all
should on "logical' grounds be "completely peralel sem1ntically'. But
when the sex changes, too dbes the arimate nouns in English are maseuline. This being the case, there are
so
meaning, indicating the ser implications for females forit mes that most of the
dimension of semantics (1975: 30): semantic space od
the language is occupied by males.
(a) He's a professional Masculinity is the unmarked form: the assumpion is that the world
(b)She's a professional is male unless proven aherwise. Femininty s the marked form: it is
the proof of otherwise. Numerous feminists bave also claimed that the
Hearing and knowing no more about the subject of the discourse
than male is the unmarked or assumed form (Todh, 1970) aod the writers of
this, what would one assume about them in each case?
the poster, 'The Feminist English Dctionary (1973), indic1te what
Certainly in (a) the normal cónchusion the casual eavesdropper
would come to was that "he' was a dactor or a lwyer or a role the male lexicographers (dictionary-makers) hrve played in
member of one of the oxber professions. But it is much ess reinforcing this semantic rule. It was men who made up the anguaçe
likely and recorded it, says Alleen Pace Nisen
that one would drawa similar conclusion
in (b). Rather, the firs (1977:34), and they
assumption that most speakers of English seem to make is that persistently defined themselves as occupying the pasitive sematic
she' is a prostitute, literally or figunively speaking. space.
This accumulated evidence led Juia Stanley (1977) to
The only way 'make meaning' df these discrepancies in meaning is to posit the
to theory of negative semantic space for women. It is not jas that the
posit the existence of a semantic rule which deteromines that any symbol vocabulary is divided into wo unequal portions with les Douns to redee
which is issociated with the female must assume negative (and to semales, argues
frequently sexal - which is alsd signiicant) connoatios. Even with
Stanley, but that this smaler mumber of words abo
encompasses that which is of lesser value. Words which are marked for
such
words as tremp, for examplé,
there is a shift to negative and senul
meanings when it is applied to females.
Semale refer to specifically female activiies which are enlurted from
male poit of view (p. 66)%
When women attempt to move outside the lesser : ere ave
been alocated to them they
do not join the anks of those who eioy
Plus and minus male positive status because they cary their
femaleness, their mins
maleness, with them. This is what Stunley has referred to as
Julia Stanley is among the feminists who have developed a theoretical SeTmatic space for no mater Depitv
what women do they are still branded s
framework for this phenomenon in language, and she has suggested that Women and therefore cannot develop positive meanings and
According to Stanley, semantic space does notdeimao
this difference which is manifested in the is the
language outcome of of themselves.
ens lt
diferentiating thehassexes in semantic terms on the and
basis of plus Women because it is
already occupied by the male 'When
mimus. Stanley good evidence for this hypothesis: one linguis, becomes a professional in one of the fields sex. a
womi
Geoffrey Lcech (1968), in developing a set of categories for English, say's Standey, 'she does not usually reserved for male
actually uses plus male and minus male to disinguish masculine from cOvered by the noun
move into the corresponding semandic spa
feminine. Sunley outlipes this semantic rule (1975:29): conventionally used as its label.' Instead, she muSst
signity that the norm, the positiye, does not apply and so she becomes
In the case of gender, [minus male) nust be the signibcant feature lady doctor, female
a
prestigious occupations, asurgeon, a woman lawyer, or ele, n
a

twaitress, stetwardess, 1 majorette. TheeB

 To Beleve or mot to Belrve
no space for a woman to be
positive. This problem is appreciated by
22 To Belueve or not to Beline
many women and tbe following transcript from a discussion based on the
wriers lustraies their recognition of the of women assumption that the normal human being was a male
difhculty:' In Esperanto all nouns end in "O', but "O' coe.
also signifies male. If the
Ir's uscless trying to say I'ma wriier name refers to a female then t must
and a good one. I ncarly be marked to show a
said "as good as a male" And that's from the porm (in thbe same way that sufiñxes like deviation
what I'm talking about.
deiniion you can't be a good female By deviation from tbe norm in English). So patro is ess, eue,and etc. signify

terms. And the more

writer, ir's a contradicuon of inchusion of "in'- tbe female marker becomes fatber, the with the
-

you try to establish yourself as a writer

the patrino mocher;
more you have to move
towards being "as good as a male" fratro is beocber and frasrino is sisee. The normal or 'full' category is a
Thar's exacdy what I want to male one, which with addinional iníormation
get away from. What happens if you signals that the norm does
are as good as a female? Dot and
apply that this is a lesser encity.
Ir's laughable isn't it. It
mimics "Excuse me, I want a job on your pisses meI'm off Of the creator of this anguage,
7amenbof, Susan Robbis states:
excellent female wriier. I have all the paper. an
Since Zamenhof was a dedicued umanist I can
abunaance. Jemale virtues anly conchude
I'm silly, irational, iresponsible etc., you know that the sexism in Esperanto was not apparent to
him; be, like
the rest. You just can't capitalize on many speakers of Lndo-European languages, simpBy assumed that
being female. That way no
good lies, you have to show hat you have male virtues, and tbe basic form of nouns of coursg indicates males since
males are
then,
of course, you're trapped. Because you are not a male! You'reea the paracdigm sor umanitry.
substirue male.X1)
Femaleness is a marked ai; in
Esperanto females are always in 'Deave scmamic space
For
(1978:9).
women who do not wish to be compared to men there is
nowhere to go' in the language. This is one way of cexpressing the There are many reasons for suggesing that the rules the
English. Tbe semantic derogation pf women is the result of females
are same in
concept af negative semanic space for women.
Julia Stanley's thesis fits comfortably with Muriel Schulz's analysis as being classifed as minus male and consigned anly negative semanitc
both recognize that regardiess of origin words which are marked for space.
females are marked negatively: and women- no matter what they The evidence which bas accumulaied in the area of negaive semanc
do, space and the
pejoration of female'terms cannot be ignored. Arguig
no matter whar names they coin to describe themselves or their
that there are currenthy some positive words for women does not refe
activities,, cannot step outside this classifcaion of hemselves as the
negative: Even where they venture into areas which have astensibly exisence of
the semantic nule; t is also debatabie whether sach
conferred high status upon males, females fnd themselves still labelled
words
areindeed
positive (Saunley (1977)
and see chapter s), far history
sggests thar they will not remain pçsitive. Some worcs in our language
negaive, as minus males, as 'not the real thing' There is only negative -
such as wards of endearment for women were presumably cained
-

semantic space for females in the English language.
Establishing that this classiication system of plus male/minus male is
at the root of divisions struciured by language is not often a task which
lends itself to empirical observation. It is dificult to observe' language
in the process of production. But there is one language where this is not
the case; and that is Esperanto. Esperanto was devised with the
antentiona aim o f constructing a new language which - ideally -
encompass the meanings and meet the needs of all human beings.
Susan Robbins (1978) has pointed out, however, that it was also an
artempt to reserve positive semantic space for males because it
The numbers in parendheses reler to the traascrips at the and of the book.
of portraying women positively but they to revea
with the intetion
that they have been consigned to negaive semanic space and bave been
systematically pejorated.
Words such as bidáy and tart have shited dramaicaly n meaming
since they were frst used positively is terms of endeamem. Tart meant
a smal pie or pastry and its first mejaphorical application was s a term
could
of atection and warmth. Nat surprisingly in a society where women are
cvalated as sexual objects, the meaning shifed to that of a young
woman who was sexualy desirable, and then-ofcourse- to a woman
was of careless morals. Finaly and curreptly it refers to women of the stret.
Whore once meant a lover of cither sex (and was not necgadve) and slu
 To Belseve or mot to Belteve 23
and slattern referred to 'a person who is negligent of his appearance'
(Schulz, 1975a:68-9). Harlot was 'a fellow of either sex' and in
Middle English the reference was more frequenly to males, and toench
was also 'a child of either sex' (pP; 70). Be they affectionate or even
neutral terms such as child - the crucial factor in determining whether
they represent positive or negative, values is sex.
The semantic rule which has béen responsible for the matnifestation
of sexism in the language can: be simply stated: there are two
fundamental categories, male and m1mus male. To be linked with male
is to be linked to a range of meanings which are positive and good: to be
linked to mimus male is to be linked to the absence of those qualities,
that is, to be decidedly negative and usually sexually debased (for
further discussion see chapter 5). The semantic structure of the English
language'reveals a great deal aboit what it means to be female in a
patriarchal order (note that female is not even an autonomous category
but a derivation of the male: it is mimus male) because by definition
males are assigned the positive atibutes.
Unless irony or insult is intended it is usually a violation of the
semantic rule to refer to males with terms that are marked for mimus
males. There is a jarring of images if and when people make such a
mistake. It is all right, for examplé, to call a mixed sex group 'guys or
men' but it is a mistake - and an insult - t oreser to a group which
contains even one male as 'gals' oi "women' You 'may call a woman a
bachelor without implying abuse, states but
Muriel Schulz, do the
opposite and 'call a man a spinsteror an old maid' and you are violating
the semantic rules perhaps deliberately if you intend abuse- for you
are saying that "he is a prim, oervous person who frers over
inconsequential details' (p. 65).
There are mumerous examples of the way in which there is no loss of
prestige when females are referred to in male but there is a los of
terms
prestige when males are referred to in female terms. In a society where
male primacy must be carefully culúvated, semantics makes a
substantial and signiicant contrnbution in structuring this supremacy.
The semantic derogation of women fulfis a dual funcion: it helps to
construct female inferiority and it also helps to confirm it. The process
not a simple, linear one, but a more complex, interactive and
daectical one. In a society where women are devalued the words wbich
refer to them not surprisingly - assume negative connotations. But
because the opions for desining women are conined to negative terms,
because their meanings re primarily those of minus male, women
24 To Belurre or not to Beleve
continue to be devalued. By such an interrelated process is the
subordination of women in part created and sustained. It is a semartic
contradiction to formulate representations of women's autonomy or
strength and so it remains unencoded and women are deprived of the
opportunity to formulate positive representations of themselves.
It is unlikely that women were instrumetal in achieving this end.
15,16
Themaleline C.e
Srudies of langage have reveaed that semantics is only one of the
forms through which seism operates (for the role played by sytaz, see
chaprer s). One of the other features of English langue pacios
which is inheremly sexist is the use of names. In our sociery 'only men
have real rames' in that their names are permanent and they have
accepted the permanency of their names as one of the rights of being
male' (Miller and 1976: 14). This has both pacial and
Swift,
psychological ramiñcations for the construction- and maintenance-of
male supremacy.
famly names no coxumt and
Practically it means that women's do
that there is one more device for making women invisible. Fathers pass
their names on to their sons and the existence of daughters cam be
denied when in the absence of a male heir it is said that a family
out One other direct result of this practice of only
"dies
taking cognizaoce of
the male name has been to facliate the developmem of history as the
story of the male line, because it becomes almost impossible to c e the
ancestryof women particularly if they do not come into the male-
defned categories of importance.
Very litde is known about women, says Virginia Woolf (1972), for
the history of England is the history of the male line' (p. 41); this poinm
was brought home to Jil Liddington and Jl Nocris (1973) when they
undertook to documem the story of women's suffrage in Lancashire fox
this vital conuribution had been largely egected by istorians' (p. 11)
They had dificulry with sources, and one dificulty was not one which
would be encountered in tracing men (1978: 17):
Sometimes we seemed to he forever chasing down lind alley
For
instance, one of the most active women, Heen Sicock,a
weavers' union leader from Wigan, ssemed to disappear ater
1902. We couldn't think why, util we came across a nodce o
 To Believe or not to Beluve
26 To Believe or not to Beleve
congratulations Miss Silcock on her marriage to Mr Fairhurst
to
has helped to create the representation of
in a litle known labour journal, ihe Women's Trade Union semales as sex objects; it has
Review i t was an object lesson for us in the dificulies also hclped to signal when a sex object is not
of available and is the
tracing women activists. property of another male. The patriarchal order has been maintained
such devices and when women consciously and by
It is also an exremely usehl device for them men have reason to fecl insecure; they do not
intentionally abolisb
and for making it exceedingly
éäminaing women from hisiory reason to protest.
however have
develop a uradition.
dificuli to perceive a continuum
and
There are also other by-products' of this process of
When females have no right to permiting the
'surnames, to family names of their permanency of names only to males. Miller and Swit (1976) ask
own, the concept of women as the propérty of men is whether it is because of the unendiiring nature of lemale
(and this is of course assisted by the titlé Mrs). Currendysub1ly reinforced that much more cmphasis is placed on thcir first names.
family ames
are changng their names and
many women Whatever the
instead of taking the name of either tbeir reason, it is clear that males are more frequently addressed by their
ather or their husband they are family name (and title) and women by their first name. Psychologically
coining new, autonomous ames for
themselves; for example, Cheris Kramer has become Cheris Kramarne, this canalso work to produce sexual asymmetry.
Julia Sunley has become Julia Penelope- there are almost countless The use of first names can be evidence of intimacy or
friendship but
examples of this change. A common pracüce has bccome that of in such circumstances the
practiçe, genernly speaking, bas to be
the first ame of a close female frniend or tuking
relative- such as mother- as reciprocal. When one party is reserred to by the irst name, and the
the new family name (for otber by the family name and itde, it is usually evidence that one
Wben asked why she had legally
example, Janet Robyn, Elizabeth Sarah). bas
more power than the other.
dropped her surname and retained her So, fox example, the employer may be Mr
first two gven names, Margaret Sandra stated Smith and the employees Bill and Mary. The
that a "surname' was practce of those "in
imended as an indication of the "sire' and was so power referring to those "out of power' by. tbeir first names- while sal
with the ownership of women that there was no
closely linkcd socially
surname' that sbe retaining the use of their own tile and family name-is
applies to both sexes in a hierarchical society. But widespread
found acceptable. and
there are sill
Although anempts have been made to urivialize these new instances where boh sexes occupy
comparable posidons bu where
aciviies among women, such activittes are serious and naming males are referred to by their
undermine patriarhal they do their árst names, indicating the
family names and women referred to by
pracices. At the very least they raise
This is frequemly illustrated inoperation
of yet another hierarchy.
consciousness about the role men's names have played in the
subordination of women, and at best they confound tradiional male and female contestants on
the media. Even wbere there are both
patriarchal classifcation schemes which have not operated in women's more likely to be addressed
some quiz' shows, the wonen are
by thejr first names. Interviewers re also
interest. I have been told that it makes it very dificult to more inclined to use women's
'pigcon-hole to make reserence to
frst names. News items are more likely
women, to "place tbem, if they persist with this neurotic practice of women by their first name (and of course their
gving themselves new names. One male stated qute sincerely that it colouring, for example, blonde
brunette, and their age and marital
or
was becoming "jolly dificult to work
out wbether women were mamied status) and the usually male
presenjer of "alk-back" shows indicates a
these days because of the decided disposiuon to
rndiculous practice of not taking their
husband's names' In order to operatè in the world,
discriminate: between the callers in this way.
But it is not conáned
however, it has to the media. I have never heard a male
never been
necessary to know from a name whether someone is married complain that a medical pracçitioner addressed him
or single, as women can patronizingly) by hisiirst (perhaps
testify. Men have not thought that not changing name at the frst consultation, yet this protest
their name upon marriage should is often made by
present dificulties to women and once which govem
women. It
would, however, break the social rules
more the bias of language
practices is revealed. subordination if women were to respond by addressing
But many males are
confused, and not without cause. The language medical practitioners by their first pames. This is precisely why I think
they should do so.
 To Beleve or mot to Beleve
28 To Beleve or not to Believe
Regardless of the reason for the development of this practice of
calling women by their first names in formal situations, it assists in more of themselves and their identity and to become not just Mrs Jane
making 'visible' the subordination of the female. Smith, but Mrs John Snith? (Casey Miler and Kate Swift point ou
The practice of labeling women as maried or single also serves that there would have been bewilderment if a letter had ever arrived

supremely sexist ends. It conveniently signals who is 'fair game' from addressed to Mrs George Washington.)
the male point of view. There is tension between the It is I think a mark of the identity optios open to women ina
representation of patrarchal order that so many women voluntarily and even
women as sex objects and the mále ownership rights over women and
this has been resolved by an èxplicit and most visible device of enthusiastically seek to be labelled as the propery of a male. The ide
Mrn and he abandonmem of their father's name (a name which
designating the married status of women. As women do not "own' men,
and as men have many dimensións apart from their sexrual ones in a required no effort on their part and coud not be construed as in
patriarchal order, it has not been necessary to make male marital status achievement) for their husband's name, appears to conírm their
visible. On the, contrary, it could hinder rather than help male identity. In a patriarchal society it is nor unrealistic to perceive th
security lies in marriage- even if this is eventualy revealed as a myth.
operations in the world so it has never appeared as a logical That so many women contioue tò choose to be Mrs Jack Smart and to
proposition.
Contrary to the belief of many people, the current usage of Miss and become 'invisible' is an indicationofthe
success of patriarchal
ideclogy.
Mrs is relatively recet, for until the beginning of the nineteenth This is why the refusal of some wormen to be designated Mrs is
century signiicant. To insist on the ditde Ms (if ides are unavoidable) does
the ile Miss was usually reserved for young females while Mrs
undermine some of the patriarchal practices. If the strength of the
designated mature women. Marital status played no role in the use of
these terms. How and why this usage changed is a matter of some resistance is proportionate to the danger posed by the stategy then n is
speculation,' but there is nothing speculative about the ends that it clear that some individuals are aware of the subversive inluence ofthe
use of Ms.
serves.
It labels women for the comvenience of men. It also labels those Numerous arguments other than the fundamental one have been
1dvanced to substantiate the undesirability of the term Ms, and they
do
whom men
not
recently passed was
want.
To be over thirry and Miss Jones in times but
an advertisement of failurè and an invitation for
share the common features of being iradequate and illogical- and even
absurd. For example, one reason that has been given is that the
ridicule.
promunciation of Ms cannot be determined by its spelling. This is a
The question arises as to why more women have not objected to this
offensive labelling in the past. Why was there not greater protest when
non-starter in English. If we were to find unacceptable all those words
which do not reveal their pronunciation from their
in the late nineteenth century women were required to surrender even spelling we would
have to dispense with a sizeable number ad we could
begin with Mr
Mider and Swit (t976) sueren thn he ue of Mar and Mn to desine mertal sanus s
and Mrs.
esponse to some of the pressures creted by the indusrial revolurtion, which disrupted the The (unstated) reason for the undesirability of Ms is that it is of no
familir panerms of smal communiies in which reledonships were readiy known. There no was assistance in the maintenance of the patriarchal order and it can even be
need for this uage prior to the industrial rrvoludon for a woman's maritnl starus was sredy
known in the communit in which she lived, but with the migrion of populadon that cecurred
problematic for males. Again, this is why I think it extremely important
that all women should make use
onset of the revohution end with women's enry into the workforce outside the home or
tlocalthecommunity, titles.
qfit as a tide-if
we are to persist with
asimple mem of dininguishing merrid from unmermed women ws needed lfor men) and mserved
doubk purpo it uppied at les modicun
of nfomation ebout women's exual
vauls bilny,
nd spobed not so ubrk pressure 1oward manmge by umpeng wngk women with the young ond
neperiencrd. Aneched to anyone over the sr of eigmeen, Mis cme m ine to uat he
unettracive or ocaly undesiabe qusirie aocined wah such labek as old mad snd spmtr o Language change and social change
ha dresdkl word berrn. So the needs of patriarchy were *rved whena women's milsbiiy for
he
pnmary rok helpar *nd servad periner wa made an inmer pern of ha dentiny- in enect, This has been but a brief review a
pan of her nae (p. 9)
on sexism in language (for
of partial area of the body of research
discussion of sexism in syntax, in
the use of
 To Beueve or not to Beluw 29
pronouns, for example, see chaper 5). It is however illusuraive of the
basic problems.
Traditionally, research on language is a system has been conhned to
the language itselí and so descriptive audies have
been in order, but
feminism needs more than descripive studies and documenuauon. No
more evidence is necessary to conviace feminists
thar the languuge is
sexist Wbar is needed now is an analysis of this sexism.
How and when did such sexism evolve? How does it work?
How
can it be taasformed ? These are the
questions which feminis1s need to
answee and to do so demands thar
they go beyond the uradiional
boundary lines that bave been imposed upon language research. The
dehiniioas of wh constinnes "ptoper' linguisic study ave
(conveniently?) acued as obstacles in puirsuing feminist based questions.
From this area of reserch bas come the proposal that all sexist words
ia the angage should be "eliminaied' and aluhough well intentioned it
is hardy feasible. As Muriel Schulz and Julia Stanley have
indicaed,
words which are assaciated with females occupy negauve semanic
space aad become pejoraed and are therefore sexist in that they do o t
ord parity. It would be necessary to eliminate most words which reler
o wemen-
of course, most words which label mea, because pariry
coud also be achieved if the ariscially enhanced images af the male
were to be abolisbed. War is clear is that it is necessary that we know
how serism in anguage operaies if we are to deal with iz, otherwise we
re ely to develop inesecaual stratezies.
Another faczor which we mus bear in mind is that womea Deed more
wards ad more positive worcds t less. The removal of seris
words woukd not leave a arge reperoire of words for women to draw
poa! Such zruezes s the eliminatica or addisioa of words are
basically shbort-sighted, for the problem ies not ia the words but ia tbe
senanic ruie which governs tbeir positive or Degadve connotations. We
ave seen that tbe same ward bas negauve connoadons when applied to
FCmea and positive connotadons when applied to men,
and any
satepes wich are predicated on the removal of sexist words
are
aabie to deal with this phenomenon. Words such as zreuie, for
stil remain,
etanpi, (2o being seea as essentally sexis) would
abough the meaning wben applied to wocmea is very
diferent froa the
wih the
appiata to men. And there are fundamental problems
because while they are also subjeced to the
CTeason af new wods
male is negdve,
eisig semantic rule that male is positive and mimus
bere is reason to beieve that when coasigned to negaive semantic
30 To Believe or not to Beluve
space they too will become pejorated and seist. It is the semantic rule
which needs to change, not the words themselves, yet this
su|zesion
bas rarely arisen in language/sex research.
The message is already there. Some atempts have been made to
modify sexist words and there are signs that this on its owa is
insufhcient to reduce sexism in language. Words such as police ofcer
and chairperson have been an arnempt to break away from the nezive
value which female words acquire by the creation of sex-neutralterms
But sex-Deutraliry is nota meaninghuli category in our society asd, wile
tbe world is obsessively ävided ino masculiné and feminise, peopie
bave a gemine need to know wbether the chairperson a the poice
oficer is a man or a woman: only then are they able to decide whether
the appropriate classihcaton is positive or negative. It s ide
uriosity wrich prompus them, but necessiy, in a pariarchal order, for
if we are to make sense of the ward we inbabit the discinction berween
masculine and feminine is a crucial ane.
It seems that, with the exceptoa of providing positve images for
females, the English language bs rich aad leibie resources faa
mecting people's needs and this is çlary ilhustrated in the need to make
senal discriminations. The United Sutes Departmerr of Labor bas
anemped o overcome the exchsioa od women from job caegories and
has revised the tiles of almost 3,5oo jobs so thar they are no longer
male-desigoated but semly neutl (Berper nd Kachui, I977. Bu
speakers af English have found ne d ingenious ays of mariing
uch jobs for sez We wil probably witoes the rise of sach usags
Jemale flighe atendant (since sewardstewardess bas been abolished),
tooman sales person (sDce salesmai/saleswoman has been outawed), as
well as lady police offeer and madam chairperson. They ay be
cumbersome usages buu they i l do the job: they wil alo the seris
semantic rule to coicue o fupction. The alocion of ncpive
semantic spece to woca will go únchieneced
The alternative proposal which has come from research is that sexisn
in the angage is a rcdicction af sczism in socicty and the anguage n
not change until sociery does. I do got think it realissic simply to sait fr
sociery's oceeds to change thit is, for the pacriarcbai arder to
-
'cvaporae' -in the hope that this yill produce changsin the laage.
I do not think society can be relied upon somehow to automascaly
change in a árecion which feminiss wouid ind accepuie.
Unfcrnunaely there bas been a division - often based an a fairly
simplistic analysis- among those wbo acvocate the demise ofserism in
 Be(ieve or mot to Beliete
language. Broadly speaking there are rwo camps those who think it
more important to change the language, and those who think it more
important to change society.
To me, both tasks appear to be equally important and neither will
lead to success on its own.
Words help to structure the world we ive in, and the words
we
help to structure a «rist workd in which women are
assigned
suborcdinate position (Chapter Five). As Schulz has stated: words
which are highly charged with emotion, taboo, or distaste, (as so many
words for women are) not only redect the cul'ure which uses them.
They teach and perpetuate the attirudes which created them
(1975a:73). Obviously the meaning of these words must be changed.
We cannox trust to luck that women will be able to formulate positive
defimitions of themselves (an objetive in the women's movemem) while
tbey are conhined to the presem semantic sources. But just as previously
and became
initially positive usages enjoyed only a short life-span
devalued because the object to which they referred was devalued, so will
present posidve coinages be pejorated (the women's libber ?) unless
wOmen are valued. Society must change if positive meanings which are
being coined are to be sustained.
Tbe process is a dialectical one. As more meanings are changed so
will society change and the serást semantic rule be weakened; as sociery
and the sexist semantic rule changes so will more meanings cbange
even withoutn deliberate itervention. To concemrate on either word
meanings or social organizations- to the exclusion of the other is to
-
invite failure.
Sadly, researchers into sexism in language have not always come to
appreciate the dimesions of this issue and too frequentdly, where it is
the
felt proper' to make suggestions for possible strategies, proposals
are in terms of whether there shoud/should not be intervetion in the
language or whether the focus should/should not be on changing
sociery. Efort has been expended on the futile debate on which comes
irst, the chicken or the egz.
The absence of an analysis of the patriarchal order is glaringly
obvious in this research area. Language is a cultural artifact which has
been invented by human beings; because males have primarily been
responsible for the production of culhural forms and images (Smith,
1978) it would be srprising if language were to be an exception. But
this line of inquiry- this thesis of English as a man's language has not
-
been pursued. Few researchers have asked who made up the language
32 To Believe or not to Believe
and how did these people see themselves and deáne
themselves? Few
have asked whether women have played any part in
eocoing the
meanings of society. Few have asked whether serism in language is a
result of women's exclusion from the producion of culrural forms.
have
It is a mark of the sexism of linguistics as a discipline that in all the
a
research which has been done on the history of the language the
question of the role played by women in its production and developmen
has received virtually no attention; indeed sucha
question has nor even
been asked !
When it can be seen that the image of coe sex is enhanced by the
language while that of the other is diminisbed it seems that it would be
necessary to explain this situation. The hypothesis that one sex migm
have greater linguistic rights would seem to be
course such questions would have moved
appropriate But o
research in very diieret
direcions-which while they may have been proútable for fermimsa
woud not necessarily be in the interests of the
It. is
patriarchal order.
ironical that of the rasons for not taking up such questions
one
is that, within the patriarchal framework
of discipline därision and
methodologY, it is not considered in order for linguists to move to
such suspect territory as the analysis of
patriarchy. Such n aalyss
would not ezclude the construcion of the resarch area itself and
such
an examination could
give rise to a disparaging criique.
Currendy, research or. sexism and language has not alwrys provided
the evidence which feminism 'needs: lists of sexist words pose irde
threat to the patriarchal order. Interesting, but not threatening, these
inventories can be abscrbed relatively easly without necesituting ay
modifcation in the semantic rule that women sre negative because th
are minus male. Patriarchal order rests on such 1 concept and it is this
concept which feminists must challenge, linguisticaly and socially, if the
patriarchal order is to be transsormed.
Sex diferences in language
One indictment of this research area is that so many the of hypothesired
differences that have been tested have not been found. This s ot
necessarily because research techniques are unsophisicated ind
inadequate and therefore incapable of locating sex diferences in
language use: it is primarily because research procedures have been so
embedded with sexist assumptions that invesigators have been lirded
 To Beleve or not to Believe
33
to
empirical realty. Sexist stereotypes of female and male ulk
permeated rescarch and often precluded the have 34 To Belicoe or no to Belie
studies which may have revealed sex dierences possibility of open-cnded society which
and similarnües in pracüses a sexual division of labour- and
language use. -

would not be surprising to índ that women of interests-

have a
English speakers believe- and linguists
that men's speech is appear to be no exception from men. Within a patrarcal order, bowever,diferem vocabulary
even this can
forceful, interpreted in the interests of male supremacy. be
effective, sparing and masterful;efñcient, blunt, authoriiaüve, serious, For example, Moore (1922) found that mea
weak, trivial, ineffcctual, tentative,they believe that women's speech isi far mare frequently than did wonen: be dãd
talked about their wor
hesitant,
and is often
marked by gossip and ibberishhyperpolite, cuphemistic not seem to be
that be had defined work implicily as pernrbed
exient and rigidiry of
people's (Kramer,
beliefs has not always been 1977). The,
"something
therefore had skewed his data in favour of males. which men do' and
index of accuracy in research accepted as an worked, so the vocabulary associated with their work was
In his terms, men
things througbout history
-

people have believed many surange serious:

but in sex diferences and women did not
research is not remarkable for the language, work, $o their vocabylary was trivial. He could not have
challenge it has made to belicf- and racbed thc conclusions that be
prejudice. Instead we have the focus workers for
did, if be had classised both sexes as
on small then there would have
spcech and the conviction thar if segments of female women would have both tulked
þeen no sex diierences: men and
hard enough- and in the
investigators look long enough and about their work and the vacabuiary d
'right' place they both would have been regarded as
hypochesized desiciencies in female speech. are bound to fhnd these serious.
constituted a blind spot since not Unfortunately this has Somerimes the
interpretauon placed on the data is a linle more
only have they frequently failed to fhnd suble. Hartman (1976), for
and claimed to have locatederampie,
what they were looking for studied the language of wacmen
(Kramer
found litle else either. Without
et al.,
1978), they have often some of iis euphemisic qualities. Sbe
looking at the society in which these sex described their language as
differences- real imaginedoriginate, there have been few insights
or
'lowery', 'teniaive' and "qualised' (p. 89)
and therefore a lesser or deficient
fora. But I would
presented.
spoke in exactly the same way as the women did in suggest that if men
their language would have been evaluaied pasitivelyHarman's sample
(the operation of
the sexist semantic rule) and
The lesser' value would no doubt bave been described as
of women's words polished, thoughtful and balanced. I am not
Hartman's evidence (though it is (necessarily) dispuning
One of the hrst places selected for research in the quest ogen to challenge) but I am sating
elements of female inferioriry for locating the unequivocally that the interpreadon imposed upon i is serist and
was the area of
vocabulary. Prior to the unacceptable. I reject
her
rapid expansion of research in
language/sex in the late this research area, on the conclusions- and many ocher conchusions in
were numerous
(untested) references in the literature to sex1960s
there 1 also rejea some
same
gounds.
of.the evidence which is based on
in word choice and i was differences
generally believed that "slang' was the what people believe to be sex determining
cxclusive propertry of males (Flexner,
1960), while females were sleight of hand presenting diferences inas anguage, and then by
disposed towards the choice of euphemisms' With uhe new interest in (1975) claims that everybody-these' beliefs facts'. Robin Lakof
sCx differences in
language, it is not surprising then that attentionshould shit is part of male vocabulary, including yaung children- knows
that
whife 'oh dear (in the same contex)is
focus on the female use of part of female vocabulary. While
deviant/trivial/euphemistic
But this is where the need for caution terms. /t is perfectly
English speakers believe that men u_e "shit' and possible that most
arises, for to accept some of the
egitimated indings in this area would be to become victüms of
this does not women use "od
consurute evidence that males and femaes use these dear
another (patríarchal) myth. Individuals yet All it proves is that terms.
words associated with their generally acquire and use more the speakers are
familiar with sexist stereorypes and
daily tasks- so a schoolteacher for example given their pervasive arure it
would probably use a diferent what vocabulary would be amazing if they did not know
repertoire from a truck-driver- and ina was appropriate? for a woman and what
appropriate' for a man. was
The case for women's use of lesser' words- be they dehcient, nivial
 To Belcve or not to Beleve 35
36 To Believe ot not to Beline
or ultra euphemistic cannot be proven. Lakoff inadvertently
undermines her own case when she says that women are likely to use conveniently, an itensiber seems to be defined as a form used by
more trivial words for colour (for example, mauve or beige) and that ila woonen and this helps to bias fndings in favour of males. Women are
man were o use such tems one would assume that he wa
being supposed to use hyperbole more often than men and Jespersen (1922)
isarcastic, that he was an interior decorator!
or
(Lakoff, 1975:8-9). stated that it is the use of imensihers which is responsible for the lack of
One might also conclude that precision in women's speech; he cites the female usage of vasly
for anyone engaged in tasks of colour
discrimination, mauve and beige might be useful terms. In our society completely untested of course as the example (p. 279). Cotemporary
in which women are more linguists have followed in his footsteps with Lakof claiming that women
frequently engaged in interior decorating- or
even in the choice of fabrics it would not be unlikely that they
-
use so more often (for example, "it was so nice of you to invite me") nd
acquired these discriminating terms. Even if women do use mauve and Mary Ritchie Key (1972) claimed that they use such more often (for
beige more frequently than men (and Lakoff offers no convincing sxample, 'it was such a nice party).
evidence that they do), it is but another indication of the sexual division But isn't there a double-standard at work here? When men use
of labour and interest, and it requires a patriarchal frame of values to hyperbole it is frequently classified as slang and designated as a male
interpret this as evidence of the triviality of women's vocabulary. realm. When women use it, it is an intensifer and it is therefore a lesser
My criticism of research procedures and findings would become Torm
repetitious ifI were to list the deficiencies of studies that have claimed to A female may say 'It's such nice
locate female desiciency. There has often been a double dose of sexism
a party' whle a male may say
Damned good party' (I am not that this is.the case, only
suggesting
for hypotheses have been framed in terms of female
deficiency (thereby that it might be) but whereas the female usage is taken as evidence of
increasing the possibility of fnding in favour of males) and the data
which has been gathered has then been interpreted so as to find in her imprecision, the male usage is taken as evidence of his forcefulnes.
So much for such 'objectivity' of linguistie research.
favour of males. Research has frequentdy been "rigged'
Take the case
of aualifiers, for example. As with tag questions there These studies, because of their inherem sexism, simpBy do o t
substantiate the hypothesis that the language of women is a lesser form.
is dificulry associated with defining
some a qualifer,
which generally Perhaps the only contribution they make is to provide evidence thet
speaking is a term which qualifies' and, presumably because female
wCnen and their language have been devatued though this has rnrely
speech was believed to be more tentative and hesitant- and qualiied- been the explicit conclusion outside feminist research! In may
it was hypothesized that females used more qualiiers. Hartman cases,
(1976) all that has been measured is the extent to which the patriareal order
stated that in her study females did use more qualisers, but she adds an imposes it values upon research. In the iterests of credibility i*is both
extra bit of information as well. She claims that men used more
desirable and necessary that this bias be transformed and that research
absolutes.I envy her such assurance and conidence for it seems to me be conducted on the premises that: (a) there is
nothing wrong with
that the use of same term
the could imerpreted
be as a qualifer if used women's language; and (b) that any sex differences in
language could-
by females and an absolute if used by males; for example: or even should- be
interpreted in favour of females at least 50 per cent
of the time. This would be a very äferent bias and would
Perhaps you have misimerpreted me.' give rise to
some very different resuts!
'Maybe you should do it again.
I think the determining factor is more often the sex of the speaker
Politeness and servility
rather than the speech, so that when females use perhaps or maybe it is
interpreted as qualifier: when males use the same terms the
interpretation is that they are using absolutes. That women are more politethan menis aindingwhich has freguently
The same criticism pplies to studies of itensifiers. Again, been put forward and which has not been refited.This finding is hardly
surpnsing for there is a sociat expectation that
more polite than their 'superiors'; the
'subordinates should be
onus is on the waiter, not on the
 To Beleve or not io Bele ve
31
customer to be polite, ii is on the employee and not thE
student and not the teacher. It is Employer, the To Beheve or not to Belure
should be more polite than ndthing
less than consistent that
women
People who have power
men! contaminaian- for men -

and, implicitly then,

is to be
upheld. Ts
politeness from their exxpect-andand
seems to me insuficient reason
often have the capaciry to exact for
varicties- assuming of course that theymaintairing diferenm linguisic
be more masked 'subordinates, though this
in the case of women ind men than it isoperation may the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
do exist and are nox
merely in
privates and generals, there is no reasoà to in the case of
that it is The explanation that women are more
intrinsically diferent. suspect in any way status
conscious than nE
it can be found that However, even given my readiness to believe that (Trudgill, 1975b:94) is noi withour is inadequacies
ether. Soce
women are more women are not rated by their
existing data in the area polite
some of he than men, I need more occupationS, decares Trucgll, 'other
if I am to accept this than signals of status, including speech ar correspondingly
It can be
substaniated. that females use so-called starusfinding. (19752:92). Perkaps it shoud be
more
importan
forns more often than males
and Barrie Thorne and linguisuc rated by their occupations (and pointed out that if women
are nox
(I975) have said that "women, Nancy Henley whose value is this anyway?) i is o
always because
class, age, and level of ecucaion,compared with men of the same ial
more often choose the form
they do not bave them. Tbat
women's work into account and doës not valueTrudgi
does nor uke
the prestige, or closer to it does not mean thar
"correct" way of women don't, or that
reservations abour acceping this.talking' (p. 1 7). But I have a few
First, I would challenge the
they are trying to compensate for their own
dehciency and invisiaility by using more prestigious
assumption of control for I cannot accept that it
forms of
Trudgill suggests that it is not just that the poor women chocseEngiish.
things equal between the sexes. I do not thinkis possible to 'make all
it possíble to prestigious forms but that the
to use

categorically of men and women of the same social class speak secure men choose jo
non-presigious use
forms. This is
further discussion) or with the same (sec p. 71 for signal of group, solidarity and pesOral identTy
a

uncriticaly accept the "leap which is requirededucaion. Also, I cannot 1975b:94) on tbe part of men and ance more we
coníront t
berween the use of supposed male linguistie variety as the norm while the íemale
prestige forms and politeness. They are not variery (which of course does not, serve to lizguisic"
Members af the upper class may use more necessarily the same thing.
of the prestige forms than deviation írom that norm. That fergales ave "bond females) is the
develop solidariry is an expianatiog which is noiidentiry and annox
no
anyone else but their usage is not always construed as
Peier Tudgil (i97sb) has undertaken research in this politeness. inconsisent with
area and patriarchal order;
it is an
"explhmtion' which I do
claims that women consistently produce linguistúc forms which he Itmight be possible that women da speak accept not

closely approach those of standard language or have higher more this better speech is a form "bener than ea, 2nd iha
of poijteness or
prestige
thanthose produced by men p. 89) and if this is the case then moment the available evidence is not convincing. subservience, but at the
indced interesting to speculate on the reasons for it. it is women's politeness bave not been refutedcould
That the findings of
However, many of be
the explanations which are offered are
unsatisfactory. pervasiveness of patriarchal assumptjons rather thananproof
indianor ce
Trudgill maintains that there is a íeminine and a masculine POMehess ot women's
varnicty, and says: Using a female lingistic_ variety is as much linguistic
case of
a
identifyingoneslf as a female, and of behaving 'as a woman should' as
S
wearing skirn. Whar would happen to a man in our sociery who
say, a Pitch: fact or fiction
wore a akirt?
(1975b: 94-5). The question may be rhetorical but the
answer would be obvious to any 'reasonable' Pitch has also been used
person in our society: if a as an
indez for the
man worea
skirt, or alked like a lady' he would be idenufyir himse anguage inferiority.. Women, as ij is wel measuremen of women's
known, ave very high
with all that is negative and undesirable in our sociery and would pitched voices which are aestheticaly
open to ridicule or abuse. To Trudgill, linguisüc vaniery helps to
be
whining, voices difñcult
are
unpieasing. Their shrill, often
to
jo listen for
long ime and they do, so i
a
is believed, make it dificult for women
Raintain the demarcation lines between the sexes, to prevent like so many other sex to be taken
seriously. However,
diserences in language, investigators have
it very diffhcult to locale foud
this unacceptable high pitch.
 To Belere or mot to Belirve
9
Ruth Brend (1975) camed out a study on sex differences in
pitch 40 To Belieee or not to Belve
and found evidence which can both support and contradict the
stereotype. First of all she suggests that women make greater use of linguistic 'skills- although skill is hardy an appropriate term - which
can then be used against them. She argues that women are
pitch (and this is very diferent from suggesting that women are cursed encouraged/
with high pitched voices) in that they use four
contrastive levels,
obliged to talk in a paricular way which is then easiy discredited.
whereas men for some "inexplicable' reason do not utilize their
-
Perhaps pitch is an example of this: it could be that for women to talk in
a socially acceptable
highest level of pitch but conhne themselves to three contrastive levels. way it is necessary for them to cultivate the use of
In some respects then Brend's high pitch, but having acquired high pitch they may then have their
fndings do support the stereoxype of voices conveniently -rejected as uacceptable. This could be one
women's language as high pitched in that women use high pitch more
means of constructing asymmetrical sex differences.
often than men; but her hndings also undermine the
stereotype because I am, however, wary of accepting this explanation for it is based
she says that this is not
to make use of
biologically determined but that women 'choose'
the asumprions that (a) there is something inheremly good about low
on

high pitch while men 'choose' not to.

It is not that men do not have the pitch and inherently bad about high pitch; and (b) that the judgmet is
capacity to engage in high pitched based on
utterances but that they refrain from linguistic features (in this case, pitch) and not on sex. Because
presenting such ineriminating so frequently the judgments made about sex
evidence: this casts a new light on the "narurally' deeper voices of men. diserences in angage
have based on the language t all I am more inclined to
It is not a mystery why men choose not to
speak in the high pitched not been
tones which are available to them in a
societry which links low pitch and question the validity of pitch variation. It could be that pitch-ike word
masculinity, and high pitch and femininity ; males who did procuce high choice-is irrelevam and that it is women who are being devalued while
pitched uterances would be venturing into that negative realm and the ostensible high pitch of their voices simply serves as an
"objective
violating the gender demarcation lines. They would be ridicued as -
excuse' for such devaluation.
many adolescents whose voices have been late in Despite some evidence I am not comviced that the voices of women
breaking could testify.
This introduces the quesion of the degree to which
pitch differences
are more highly pitched than men's (be it by nanure or murrure)) but I
am convinced that the
are learned.
Traditionally the asumption has been that these pitch belief that women's voices are high pitched and
diferences are 'narural'- why else were young boys castrated in order shrill is one way of disqualifying women from
public speaking. This is
to preserve their
high pitched voices? but recent evidece suggests
- certainly what Cheris Kramarae (Kramer, 1978) discovered when she
that pitch is not soiely the product of
physiology. After considerable investigated the reasons the BBC gave for inding the voices of women
research, Martingly (1969) concluded cautiously that sex differences in unacceptable- for talking about 'serious" topics to men
pitch though doubdess related to typical male and female vocal tract The high piteh of women's voices has not exchuded them
from the media, for their delivery was
completely
size is probably a linguistic convention' acceptable on women's
(p. 1219), while Jacqueline
Sachs et al. (1973) reached a similar conclusion and contended that programmes. Their defciencies- as outlined by various BBC
aatomical difference alone is insuiicient to account for have consisted of having inappropriate voices for oficials
pitch carying the 'serious'
dafferences between men and women (pp. 80-r1). topics which are addressed to men, namely television news
One must also "explain' why it is that some and (male) sporting programme_. It is programmes
congenitally deaf males- to this rule:
iteresting to note the excepion
that is, those who are born deaf and never hear sex during World War ]I for those men who were 'in monastic
differences in pitch
-

have voices which do not break at puberty

(Luchsinger and Arnold, conditions of service life' (Kramer, 1978:8) t was quite appropriate
1965). This raises interesting questions about the role of voice breaking and even desirable that women should have been the newsreaders for
-

in adolescent males and the "visible' (or audible) entry to men deprived of female
which it consirutes: it also raises questons about females "manhood There is no basis for company.
the exclusion of women from the
choosing to use high pitch.
or learning serious topics in the deivery of
media; the argument of
their unsuitable high pitch
Robin Lakoff has claimed that will not stand up to
women are required to leam speciic in women's
scrutiny. Like so many other presumed deficiencies
language, I would suggest that high pitch and its
undesirability is based on the sex of the speaker and not the speech

*
 To Beliete or not to Beleve
itself. I think it would be períec1ly possible for a woman to be speaking
in an electronically registered lower 42 To Believe or not
piich than male and for her to be
a
to Believe
classified as having a high-pitched, Whether the setting has been naturalisuc or
male's higher piich could be shrill and whining voice while the artihcial, men have done
classilíed as pleasing and more of the ulking. Swacker
acceptable. (1975) had her
However, research along these ines às not been (seventeen of each sex) talk into a tape recorder, thirty-four informants
require an assurmpion that there was nothing undertaken; it would they needed, and men talked much, much, longer taläng much time as
as
about male language particularly prestigious than
use.
usually until the tape was hnished! Argyle et al. (1968), women
al. (1957) and Wood (1966) also Strodtbeck et
Who does the designed studies to measure amount
talking? of talk and found that it was men who talked
more.
In an analysis of television
A firmly held conviction of our society is that women talk a lot. programmes,
found that males talked more often than
Jessie Bernard (1972)
Cheris Kramarae When females, and in her
(Kramer, 1977) invesügated what husband/wise conversations Phyllis Chesler (1971) found analysis of
were the characteristics of women's language she people thought often that it was
common responses were that women 'alk a lor about
found that the impossible for women to talk when males were
'rivial topics pesent
parúcularly if the males were their "husbands! Chesler states
-

and that they indulge in that

'gossip and gibberish' (p. 157). women wish to talk then they if
lalkative lendencies on the pat ofSupposedy,
is because of these it must talk to each other for there is
women that itrde or no opportunity for them to talk in the presence of usually
sociery requires a barrage of cichéd men. Very
woman talk. injunctions and wamings against rarely, states Chesler, "do men listen siently to a
There is
group of women
talking' (p. 179), wbereas the reverse- women listening
Scottish saying: "Nothing is so
a
silently
to a
unnarural as a
man or a
quiet woman' (Swacker, 1975:76) and because the talkative roup of nen tallkdng- is a common occurrence
in our culure.
of sociery are so members How explain this contrniction? On the one hand we have a
can we
convinced that, unless
much, advice to women on this matter has contained, women talk too society which believes that women are the talkaive sex
and on the other
Sophocles wrote in Ajax: "Silence gives he been freely iven. Even hand we have
overwbelming evidence that it is men wbo do tbe tallking.
CKaplan, 1976:28), while many proper grace to women How do we explain the continued
coniemporary books on etiquette existence of this belief? All of us,
which hand out advice to every member of our society, must have
young women on how to be consistently been in contexts
the belief that the best and most attractive woman is a popularone.
propagate where men talk more and yet our belief that
women are the talkaive sex
girls who can't quiet
'I hate has not been questioned or undermined.
stop talking' and I like girls who listen to
withour me I do not think these
interrupting and who pay attention' are the statements of
think there is a simple contradictions
are as 'rcal' as
The New Seventeen Book young men in they irst appear. I
of Etiquette and Young Living for the explanation for the way in which we have been
edihcation of young women. Any male is
" conned
information', states the editor sagely, for happy to be the source of
"Everybody loves to hear
The concept of women as the
alaive sex involves a
Praise, and boys in paricular' (Haupt, 1970: 101-2).
they must talk too much
against some sort of standard or comparison:
Under these circumstances it is not we have
erroneously assumcd yardsick and
sex diferences in surprising that investigators of talkers is in comparison to men. that the measurement of women as
language should bave begun by looking for the takativeness of women has beenBu
this appears nor to be
the case. The
excessive alkativeness of women.
any other research area,
However, here, perhaps in more than but with silence. gauged in
\Women have not been comparison no with menn
índings were in complete contradiction with whether hey talk more than judged on the grounds of
the stereoype of women's language. There has not been one men, þut of whether
which provides evidence that women talk more than study silent
women. When silence is the desird state they alk more than
for women (and I
have been qumerous and men, there suggest that it is in a patriarchal
studies which indicate that men talk then any talk in which a order, as do numerous other feminists)
Omen. more than
woman epgages can be too
advanuge for males in a patriarchal much. What an
In a male order!
supremacist society wbere women are devalued, their
language is devalued to such an extent
that they are required to be
 To Belteve or not to Belbeve 3
silent. Within this framework it becomes
"logical' to have one rule for
women's talk and another for men because it is the sex 44 To Believe or not
and not just
-
to Belive
the talk which is signihcant. Cheris Kramarae
has utilization of their
when she suggested: Perhaps a talkative woman is summed
this up and support for the
nurns
one who does talk developmem of their topics
(1975:125). They see this as another example
as much as a man'
(Kramer, 1975:47). It is possible to go even furher men exercise control over the talk of male domirance, as
of wounen. Just as
and to .suggest that when they have
women are supposed to be quiet, a talkative rights to the formulation of more
woman is one who talks at all. meaning in the knguage is a systen, xo i
seems that men have more
This area of research is rights when it comes to using that system.
extrémely significant; it is also signißcant Males have greater control of meaning and more
control over talk.
that, except by seminists, such research has not been
that research on sex pursued. Why is it Interruption is a mechanism by which (a) males can prevem females
differences in language has concentrated
upon from talking, and (6) they can
pin the loor for
finding the defciencies in women's words, therefore a mechanism by which they engineer femae themselves;
it is
with so litde success whereas in this area pronunciation
-
and pitch- sileoce. Wheres
of amount of it is normal practice for males to
promises to be so productive- has there been so linde effort talk,
which imerrupt females there are peralties if
expended ? females try to (dare to ?) interrupt males. There is a whole set of
The answer lies I think in the belaess
patriarchal order and the beliefs which are which reinforce this asymmetry and ordain that it is not
proper for a
necessary for the maintenance of that order. It is Woman to interrupt/contraíct a
substantiate women's linguistic deficiencies and it is importamt male, paricularly "in public?. This
to
necessary to contributes to the construction and mainterance of male
preserve some. of the myths upon which those deficiencies supreacy.
depend. Because both sexes have given their consenss to the
While the focus is on examiniig segments of women's promoton of male
language for primacy, there is a sense in which women have "aided and abetted' in
signs of inadequacy, research does not challenge those the provision of greater linguistic rights
myths, for for males. If women wee to
regarddess of outcome- the supposed deiciencies of women's language withdraw their consensus it would soon become clear just bow fngie
remains. That the dehciencies are some of those rights re.
not found can be explained by the
suggestion that researchers have been looking in the wrong place. A new Tesung what happes when women no longer support male
segment is chosen for attentiom but the assumption persists. This is not dominance at this micro-level can prove to be quite "etertiing.
the case with studies on amount of talk. The excessive
talkativeness of I have tried it out on 2 few occasions and the result is
women is readily exposed as a
myth with the result that many awkward aays the
same. When a man interrupts me on about fve occasions, when
questions dre raised.
there have been five times that he has
It is dificult to isolate interruptions from amount of talk for he who prevented e from
interrupts most (and I use he speciically) tends to do the most talking. finishing what I want to say, I think that's about enough. So then
I stop paying attention to him. He is
According to the stereotype of wonmen's language, females are supposed only interrupting me so he
can talk so make myself "unavailable" as his nudience. And
to
nag, chatter, talk too much and listen too litle, and are therefore the men don't like it.They think I am being nude. But they are being
prime suspects on any measures of interruption. But research fndings rude when they
reveal just the opposite. In mixed-sex conversations it is interrupt me in the frst place.2)
primarily
males who interrupt females. The findings of Pamela Fishman (1977) support this observation. It is
rHn their study,Don Zimmerman and Candace West (1975) found women, argues Fishman, who are supposed to be profciem at "the art
that 98 per cent of interruptions in mixed sex conversation were made of conversation'; this is consistent with the belief that they should no
by males. In no case did they find that semales thought this vas "out of talk too much, for it is not the conversation
of women that they are
order or suficient reason for protest; on the contrary, females tended supposed to be able to develop, but that of men. It is up to a woman to
to be silet after being interrupted by a male. Their conclusions are draw him out', and 'women who sit
interesting: "We are led to the conclusion that... men deny equal status flounders are seen as hostile
silently while a conversation
o women as conversational to introduce a umber of
and inepr (p. 1o11). Women are permitted
partners with respect to rights to full topiçs which cater to men's interests, and
when men take these up, they often do so
by interrupting and assuming
control (for further
discussion, see pp. 49). But the woman who
 To Believe or not to Beleve
45
doesn't provide enticing dishes to tempt a man's conversational appeuie
can be seen as rude and 46 To Belirve or not
ungradous: to Belierv
variety? Who ridicules a man whbo "talks like lady'
Try interrupung a man. Try talking about what whose voice has not broken?
a or mocks a youth
about and for as long as it takes you want to talk
you to say it. It's seen as a hostile The belief that men and women talk in
act. You are dominaüng and bitchy.(3) sex-specihc topics) is dependent in part
sex-specihc ways (and on
on the ability to enforce those
Men may engage in
divisions, and there is some evidence to suggest that this usk is
seems
interruption ôf women with impunity but it
that there are many
undertaken primarly by men.
penalües for women who interrupt men. In his work in a mining
community in
contends hat although both sexes may cross the Britain, and
Even being Klein (1971)
as
'neutral as
possible, offering neither support nor rebufi, divide, boch could
can be seen as an unínendly gesture by many
who in a pauriarchal
men be penalized, it was men who took the
order are accustomed conversational
to responsibiliry
sexual divisions in language. Certain topics -for
for reinforcing
having thcir topics aken up with interestdeference, who are used 1o
exampie, politics and
being given the floor and undivided by women, who are uscd to sport were deined by the men as their
certain syles of talling, and women wbo venturedparticular property, as were
attention. To
deprived of these 'rights' could conceivably cause themfhnd themselves rebuked ar ridiculed. Likewise, any man wbo
into their areas were
and it is perfecly consternatuon strayed inmo wbat the men
logical in such a contexi that they should considered was the woman's area was rebuked and ridiculed
women for their discomfort. "blame fellow men. Such behaviour can be by his
Some people have pointed out that quite severe punisbmeni aad írom
power is a determining factor in Klein's point of view it was alost
inueraction and that it is common for anyone to be invariably meted ouu by men.
presence of superiors, as ii is comman for
relatively quiet in the Although such research is by no means conclusive ii does point the
free to talk, and to interrupt anyone's superiors Lo feel way to possibilities for investiganon. It can be seen that both sezes share
case we may therefore
(Coser, 1960o; Goffman, 1972). In this the rules for talk, but the
enforçement of these rules and the pealties
just be observing the power differences berwecn for breaking them are
the sexes; as the imposed by one sex. In hypothesizing that maies
'superiors men are free to do the talking and the have more nghts than females wben it
comes to tallk, this is an area
internpting when interacting with women. which looks promising;
More research is needed in this area: little has been
done. It would
needless to say it is not an area that has been
be useful to know the exent to pursued.
which women paricipate in the It has been
construction of this aspect of male suggested that power difcrences are measured in the way
know what
superioricy; it would be useful to in which
conversational topic; are aised, developed, changed and
happens when
women cease to
cooperate, when dropped (Thorne and Henley, 1975:17) and the play of power can
withdraw is the interested audience to males, or even when they opt
to
they begin often be scen at work in
to interrupt men. I do not think at there are groups of enthusiastic which I taped, this point wasmixed-sex conversations. In one discussion
invesigators eagerly waiing to conduct such research. to and analysed the
brought home clearly when I later listened
tape.
Implicit in much research in language and sex is the concept of Present at the discussion,
sCxually defined "temitory and there are clear lines of demarcation educatuon in London, were
yhich was a workshop on sexisn and
berween the feminine and masculine variery of language; for cxample, thirty-two women and áve men. Apart írom
the fact that the tape revealed
Trudgill (19752, b) compared language and clothing and indicated that cent of the time, /t also
that the men had talked for over 50 per
there revealedthat what the men wanted to alk about
were as
penalties- for males- in crossing the sex-lines on
many -and the way in which they
language clothing. Many researchers accept that there ,are
as on wanted to
tak was gaven precedence.
penalies for men who talk like women', and for women who 'talk
Whereas many semales wante to discuss their own
experience of
like sexim, the men wanted to
men', whichraises the question of who decrecs these penalties, and who Women wanied to talk about
talilk in more general and
"abstract terms.
hands them out? ho eníorces sex demarcation lines wbat happened to them while,
generally
in language speaang, the men wanted to tk about sexism in the curriculum and
sexism "in the
system One of the most noticeable feanures of this
discussion which I wasn't aware of the time- was that it
-

at was men
 To Believe or mot to Belev
47
who determined what the topic would be.
They did the interrupting and 48
they insisted that the discussion get back to the To Belicoe or non to Belieoe
point: therr point.
There is no doubt in my mind that in this context at be willing discuss them, they bring with them
to
least (and I do
not think it was an
atypical one) it was the íve males and not the
thirty- conáning the discussion to their own terms (see alsothe possibility of
two females who were p. 84), with the
deining the parameters of the talk. I suspect that result that females can, once
again, be sienced on an issue which is
neither the women nor the men signiicant
overt hostility displayed
were conscious of this. There was no to them and which evolves from their
oa persoral
towards the females who "strayed from the experience.
point, but considerable pressure was exerted by the males and Diana Leonard (1979) has claimed that the
-

oppressed are in a
accepted without comment by the females- to coníne
the discussion to position to describe and express their oppression, but this factor aberter
n be
the male definition of the overlooked, even by sympathetic males who are accustomed to deiming
topic.i
Some of the comments which the men made were 'I don't think this what is worth taking about and what is not. At the
sort of discussion leads taped, the males who had oot shared he same discussion whichI
anywhere, and 'I think it would be better if we
devised .strategies for dealing
-

eperiences of
with sexism: we don't need to be oppression- did not question the legitimacy of their o n iterpretica
convinced that it exists.4) No màle gave any indication that he and definition, and neither dad the females. This hustrates the
thought way in
the female perspective was valid and I would which both sexes accept that it is the right of mas to decree
say that the males were reaiy and
made "uncomfortable by the women's wish to to monopolize talk.
talk abou their personal
experience of sexism in education. Male control of comversatioral topic s not directy rehted to
This introduces the problem which males supposedly have with expenditur e of efort, s Pameh Fishman (1977) as pointed o. Sde
claims that required
ta Iking about the personal-a problem which is accepted by some males women are to do al the chores in mixed-sex
KKorda, 1975). It is often believed that males have difsculty in conversation; they are required to perform al the invisbie but
expressing emotion and disclosing their personal seives parly as a pecessary tasks ifa coaversation is to be kept fanctioning. Becruse
paraiels with bousework, Fishman argues that women do the shitwart
of its
product of their conditdoning- and that they need some encouragement
in conversation.
and assistance to begin to talk about their feelings and therefore ta
She listene to fifty-two hours of taped conversation between mied
participate in the sort of discussion with which women are familiar.
However, if males do begin to talk about their personal experience, it
sex couples who had agreed to tape recorders in their apartments, and
her speciác aim was to determine who controlled the topic. Her
ems that they might well lose control of the conversation topic.
Conclusion was that women made the couversatiooal eiort bat mea
Dana Densmore (1971) claims that power often lies with those who
exercised control by taking up a topic (which wocmen "offered and
do otdisclose their vulnerabilities and that strategies such as denyirg which interested them) and by proceeding to do the nling. It w s
the valicity of a topic, refusing to tak on someone else's chosen topic, because they did very Etde that they were instrumental in what wouid be
abstaining from self-revelation and withholding personal information, talked about (p. 10o). The following is my ancipt froma socaa
allcontribute to the maintenance of power. Men who may wish to stay gathering, and I think it a good example of Fishman's thesis: it is "the
in control of conversation may quite accurately perceive that the of conversation' where male ak is being
art
disclosure of their emotions leads to a reduction in control, with the encouraged at the expense
of female; where she is making the efort, 'draving him out', untl he
resut
that they may not find the prospect of self-revelation an enricing chooses to take over and to "hold the loor.
one. The behaviour of remaining 'aloof while 'someone else discloses,
facilitates dominance' Jenkins and Kramer, 1978:80) and itis
therefore possible that it is the desire to be dominant (which is not quite
Female: Did he have the papers ready for you?
Male: Mmm.
the same as socialized behaviour) which leads
dificulty in dealing with the
to the supposed male Female: And were they all right was anything missing?
personal. Male: Not that I could see.
So while many males may be
sympathetic to the issues of sexdsm, and Female: Well that must have been a reief,
Female: I suppose everything went well afteramwaY
that?
 To Believ or not to Believe
49
Male: Almost. 50 To Belheve or not to Believe
Female: Oh. Was there somethidg else?
Male: It is not suficient that males should be seen to be in conrol:
Yes, acrually. females
are required to be seen willingly supporting that control.
Female: It wasn't X was it? He didn' kt you down To my knowledge there is no other research comparable with that of
again? Fishman's, despite the obvious potential that such an area has to ofãer.
Male: I'd say be did.
Her research serves to expose part of the mythical nature of the
Female: He really is iresponsible, you kaow, you should get stercoypes of female and male language and as such would appear to be
not in the interests of maintaining the patriarchal order. But her
Male: I'm going to do something about it.It was just abou indings, and those of some other feminisis, suggest that while there are
the last straw today. How many imes do you think sex differences in language, they are not the "typical" ones that many
that makes this week?
i.5) investigators have tried to isolate. They are not female dehciencies - as

has so frequendy been supposed.

By my reckoning the woman makes eight conversadonal gambits to
which the man gives a perfunctory response. But he is tempted by the
ninth, and he interrupts, and proceeds. The verdigk
Females are
consuantly engaged in the suruggle to get respoase to
thic, own remarks, argues Fishman. They do the support work. They
a

This has not been a "balanced' apprais%,Lnguage/sex research for I

Testrict their own opportunities for expression by concentrating on the have given almost the same space to the discussion of sexist research as
development of male Lopics. \Women, says Fishman, are required to be I have to feminist research and it would be a mistake to assume that this
linguistically available' to men; their own talk is not important. They reflects thepriorities of the rescarch area as a whole. My diviion does
are obliged to be the audience, the good listener, and to keep the not relect the quantity of the work which has been undertaken for there
conversation lowing (1977:101): are many studies I would classify as sexist ànd there are few that are
feminist. When it comes to quality however it is a differem maner.
There is division of labor in conversation. Though the women
a The work which I consider sexist has been devoted primarily to
generally do more work, the men usually control the pursuing the source of supposed semale deiciency or else it has
conversations that couples have. Since the men's remarks develop interpreted research findines in favour of males: someimes it bas done
into conversadón more often than the women's, men end up both. My objection to such research is not simply because it is senist,
but because it is poor research. :Ofien poorly designed, based on
deining what will be talked about and which aspects of reality are
the most important. untested assumptions, utiizing siuspect methodologies, and based on the
premise that the male way is the rnght way, it has added very litue to our
Males, in the patriarchal order, are accorded 'superioricy' by virtue understanding about language and has more than once led us up "blind
conhrmed in Feminist research, on the pther hand, has invariably been the
of their sex; they have this "superiority' consistently alleys
males by restricing source of many new insighis and has opened up new and challenging
interaction with females who abdicate in favour of
to male interests areas for funure research.
their own opportunities for expression, by deferring
on supporting male cfforts.
This To do this, feminists have found it necessary to slip ouside the
and deinitions, and by concentrating is not
behaviour has not just naturally"
uníolded in women. There are traditidnal inguistic boundaries. Of course, feminist research
between
the lesson, for as Fishman says: unbiased. The choice of what to bejieve or not to believe is not takes
penalies for those who do not learn control interactions are biased' and "objective' rescarch: /he issue is which set of biases
Women who consistently and successfully
the evidence into This is not to suggest that feminist
account
criticized by men' and are likely to be called biuchy', "domineering' or more of an area in which
research has the answers, only thay it has opened up
aggressive (p. 101). useful, might be found. Operating with
more, and more answers

53
DJJ
 To Beleve or mot to Belheve
diferent set of assumptions and values - particularly about women-

feminism is constructing different knowledge.

Within this feminist framework soine of the traditional divisions
between sexism and language, and sex diferences in language, begin to
fal away. It is the silence of women, in language and in the use of
language, that has emerged when women are considered in the
patriarchal order. Silence provides an integrative base sor the rwo
previously separated research areas: it indicates that they have more in
common than they have to divide them.
ramin questons sience of women leads to. an
in terms of the
eaminauon of the language which exclüdes and denigrates them, and it
also leads to an examination of their accèss to discourse. When the only
language women have debases us and when we are also required to
silent.
support male talk, it is not unlikely thàt we shall be relatively
When the only language men have affords them the opportunity to
encode meanings and to control discouirse, when they have made the
language and decreed many of the cònditions for its use, it is not
unlikely that they will use it more and that they wil use it more in their
own interest; thus they assist in the maintenance of women's silence.
The primary focus oflanguage/sex résearch should be broader- and
braver than it has been in the past. Research should begin concern
to
is a
itsel with the relaüve silence of over half the populadon. Language
powerful buman tool and we must begin to ask what role it plays in
maintaining and perpetuating existing social strucrures, what
and
contribution it makes to our hierarchically ordered classist, acist
to questions of
sexist world view. When we begin to address ourselves
and
this kind, it will be possible to shift towards loçating inadequacies
human
deiciencies within the social structure and not within indivicual
beings. of women- or the
A priorn I do accept the deßciency
not

concomitant supremacy of males: this is my

bias. I fnd nothing in
which leads me to modify that.
existing research on language and sex
bias.