0

Ana Cleusia Timana Cossa

Oblasio Juvêncio Navassa
Nota Eduardo Mussa

Language and Gender

English degree with Portuguese skills

Instituto Superior de Recursos Naturais e Ambiente

Universidade Rovuma
Montepuez 2025
 1

Ana Cleusia Timana Cossa

Oblasio Juvêncio Navassa

Nota Eduardo Mussa

Language and Gender

English degree with Portuguese skills

Trabalho de Sociolinguistic apresentado

à faculdade de ciências e letras para fins
avaliativos sub-recomendação de

Mr. Selemane Mitilage

Instituto Superior de Recursos Naturais e Ambiente

Universidade Rovuma

Montepuez 2025
 2

Content

Introduction...................................................................................................... 3

1. Language and Gender................................................................................... 4

[Link] of Language and Gender........................................................................4

2. Jennifer Coates’s Approaches............................................................................. 4

[Link]-Based Differences in Communicative Competence.............................5

4. Gendered Language Acquisition...............................................................5

[Link] Role of Gender in Language Change...................................................5

6. Social Consequences of Gendered Language...........................................6

Conclusion..................................................................................................... 7

References........................................................................................................ 8
 3

Introduction

Language is both a product and a producer of social reality. Among the most significant
social dimensions reflected in linguistic behavior is gender. While earlier research often
approached gender differences in language as biological or essentialist, contemporary
studies emphasize the performative and socially constructed nature of gender, shaped
through discourse and interaction. Scholars from sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and
gender studies have demonstrated that gendered language practices are not fixed but
context-dependent, historically situated, and ideologically loaded.
This paper analyzes four essential aspects of the language-gender interface: (1) sex-based
differences in communicative competence, (2) the differentiated language acquisition
process according to gender, (3) the influence of gender on language change, and (4) the
social consequences of linguistic gender differences. Each section draws on influential
theories and empirical studies to uncover the linguistic mechanisms through which
gender is constructed, reinforced, and potentially subverted.
 4

1. Language and Gender

Language and gender is an area of study within sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and related
fields that investigates the varieties of speech associated with a particular gender, as well as the
social norms that govern gendered language use. A variety of speech (or sociolect) associated
with a particular gender is sometimes referred to as a genderlect.

[Link] of Language and Gender

In 1975, Robin Lakoff identified a linguistic style she termed a "women's register," which she
argued contributed to maintaining women’s subordinate role in society. According to Lakoff,
women tend to use linguistic forms that reflect and reinforce their lower social status. These
include:

 Tag questions (e.g., “It’s nice out, isn’t it?”)

 Rising intonation in declarative sentences

 Weak or indirect directives

Lakoff's work laid the foundation for what would later be called the deficit approach.

2. Jennifer Coates’s Approaches

In her book Women, Men and Language, Jennifer Coates outlines four major approaches to the
study of gendered language use:

a) Deficit Approach
Introduced by Lakoff (1975), this approach suggests that women’s language is deficient when
compared to men’s language. It created a dichotomy between male and female speech, with the
male style seen as the standard or norm.

Criticism: This perspective implies that there is something inherently wrong with
women’s language because it deviates from the male norm.

b) Dominance Approach
This approach views linguistic differences as a reflection of male dominance and female
subordination. It argues that power relations in society affect how men and women communicate.

 Result: A male-centered model of language use.

 Key scholars: Dale Spender, Don Zimmerman, and Candace West.
 5

c) Difference Approach
The difference approach suggests that men and women belong to different sub-cultures and are
socialized differently from childhood, which results in distinct communicative styles.

Advocate: Deborah Tannen

Comparison: Gendered communication is likened to intercultural communication.

Key point:

 Men typically use a "report style" (focused on facts and status).

 Women often use a "rapport style" (focused on relationships and empathy).

d) Dynamic or Social Constructionist Approach

This is the most contemporary perspective, as described by Coates. It sees gendered language not
as fixed but as fluid, shaped by context, social norms, and interactional dynamics.

 Key concept: "Doing gender", introduced by West and Zimmerman (1987)

 Viewpoint: Gender is not something one has, but something one performs through speech
and interaction.
 Implication: Linguistic features associated with one gender can be used by any speaker,
depending on context and intent.

[Link]-Based Differences in Communicative Competence

The concept of communicative competence, coined by Hymes (1972), expands

Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence to include sociocultural appropriateness. In
this framework, gendered variation in speech styles has been widely studied. One
influential approach is Tannen’s (1990) “difference” model, which argues that men and
women develop distinct communicative norms: men favor directness and information
exchange (“report talk”), while women emphasize emotional connection and cooperation
(“rapport talk”).

Tannen’s ideas have been critiqued for reinforcing stereotypes. Cameron (2007), for
example, challenges the essentialist narrative, asserting that differences in male and
female communication styles are often socially constructed and ideologically
exaggerated. Research shows that men interrupt more often in mixed-gender
 6

conversations (Zimmerman & West, 1975), while women use more hedges, tag
questions, and politeness strategies (Lakoff, 1975). These patterns are shaped by gender
ideologies and expectations, not biology.

4. Gendered Language Acquisition

Language acquisition is a social process influenced by interaction with caregivers, peers,

and cultural representations. Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) noted that adults often
communicate differently with boys and girls, promoting different speech patterns and
behaviors. Similarly, Maltz and Borker (1982) argued that boys and girls develop
different communicative styles through same-sex peer interactions in early childhood.

Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of gender performativity further suggests that gender is
constructed through repeated acts, including speech. Thus, children not only acquire
grammar and vocabulary, but also internalize gender norms through linguistic
performance, reinforcing culturally appropriate gender roles.

[Link] Role of Gender in Language Change

Women have frequently been identified as leaders in linguistic change. Labov (1972)
found that women are more likely to adopt prestige forms and initiate language changes.
This led to the "gender paradox," where women conform to standard norms in stable
contexts but are innovators during change.

Trudgill (1974) attributed this to women’s greater sensitivity to social status, while
Milroy and Milroy (1985) emphasized the role of women’s social networks in spreading
innovation. However, men also lead language changes, particularly in vernacular speech,
where nonstandard forms carry covert prestige.

6. Social Consequences of Gendered Language

Gendered language has real social consequences. Lakoff (1975) argued that women’s
speech patterns reflect and reinforce social subordination. In professional contexts,
 7

women who adopt assertive speech styles are often penalized, while men are rewarded
(Holmes & Stubbe, 2003).

Cameron (2007) and Bourdieu (1991) suggest that language reproduces symbolic power,
legitimizing dominant norms. This creates communicative double binds, especially for
non-binary and gender-nonconforming individuals who may not align with dominant
speech norms, leading to marginalization.
 8

Conclusion
This work discussed the relationship between language and gender, showing
how men and women may use language differently. It explored important
studies and the ideas of Jennifer Coates, who explained different approaches
to gendered communication. We also saw how communicative competence,
language learning, and language change can be influenced by gender.
Finally, we looked at how gendered language can have social consequences,
such as reinforcing stereotypes or affecting participation. Understanding
these topics helps us reflect on how language and society are connected.
 9

References

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak
different languages? Oxford University Press.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A
sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. Pearson Education.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female

miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196–216).
Cambridge University Press.

Milroy, L., & Milroy, J. (1985). Linguistic change, social network, and speaker
innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–384.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization. In R. A.

Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp.
276–320). Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William
Morrow.

Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge

University Press.
 10

Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in
conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and
dominance (pp. 105–129). Newbury House.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond
& M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.