Language and Gender - Opinion Article

NEWSFLASH: WOMEN'S EXISTENCE CRITICISED (AGAIN?)

Now, let me introduce to you the problem with gendered language. At first, women, do you really appreciate being labelled with the terms 'chick', 'sugar', or even 'tart'? A few of these terms can be seen as very endearing to a woman from the perspective of a man. But when it comes to certain nicknames for men such as being called 'sweetheart', it can be taken as very patronising as it somehow questions their masculinity, as linquist Janet Holmes also argues. For centuries, the English language has discriminated against women, and many theorists have contributed to this oppression. Just for a minute, could men stop using their advantage to portray women as the weaker sex? Please? Also, how has semantic derogation always been acceptable in society over time? I support Dale Spender's belief in his Dominance Approach that language is inherently antrocentric. Meaning that although women have progressively made their turn in language throughout time, the power and control men have always seemed to have over each other and especially women, unfortunately proven through emotional abuse and domestic violence, has always been there. Always will. Although this does not mean I agree with a 'man made language' in the slightest! I believe that both genders should have an equal say in their language, and there is pages full of evidence to prove that this is a widespread opinion for many.

There are several theorists who published reports in the late 20th century to prove the evidence that women are deficient, therefore state all the continuous biases women experience over time.  One of which is Deborah Tannen, who created the idea of the 'difference approach' which, as the title indicates, the theory is about how males and females truly differ, and how men and women belong to different subcultures and preferences. She expresses this in her book 'You Just Don't Understand' where she claims she identified six main differences between the ways men and women use language. However, this approach avoids 'blaming' men for being dominant, and avoids suggesting women's speech is inferior. It can therefore be criticised for not only perpetuating stereotypes and missing concrete evidence, but it also separating men and women into binary groups and excluding transgender and non binary people. Theorist Jennifer Coates then looks at all female conversation and builds on Deborah Tannen's ideas as she argues all female talk is cooperative and that speakers negotiate discussions and support each other's rights as speakers, but these patterns are not found in mixed sex talk.

However, on a not so positive note, there are also theorists who unequivocally criticise women for pretty much everything they do. Would it be possible for individuals to tone down on making women feel inferior just this once? Let's take Robin Lakoff and his 'Deficit Approach' for example. Lakoff says that women use less assertive language such as the common use of tag questions to seek validation from men, and take longer to get to the point solely because of this. But maybe we just take longer getting to the point through natural instinct? I personally don't see how a male's influence could contribute to this, and neither does a criticiser of this approach, Pamela Fishman, who argues against the fact women use tag questions to seek validation and instead accepts this is primarily down to male dominance, as they are reluctant to conversation starting as they label it as 'shitwork' so instead use tag questions to start dialogue. Furthermore, O'Barr and Atkins support this as not only did they study the language of the courtroom and found that female lawyers to be assertive and interrupt, but also found that witnesses of both sexes would use Lakoff's weak 'female language' and concluded these 'weak' language traits are actually a 'powerless language' rather than a 'female language'. Deficient? Dominated? DONE. This is laughable now really.
For the record, I'm female. Though just because I'm female, doesn't mean I hate men. It also does not make me insensitive. Yes, I agree men's authority can be taking over the rights of women's language, and the prejudice women receive from this is happening on a frequent basis. Too often. And certain linguists are certainly not helping. But just because this is happening doesn't mean we're going to hold ourselves against the opposite sex forever, right? We have a choice, to be critical and react to this issue in an nonsensical way or to be a part of the solution. Isn't equality what we want?

Language and Gender Article Summary

'Is Your Communication Style Dictated By Your Gender?' https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2016/03/31/is-your-communication-style-dictated-by-your-gender/#dbcc3d5eb9d3

This article was written by Carol Kinsey Goman who opens her piece with a reference to the research she conducted. She conducted research in different countries such as the United States, Europe and Canada to see how gender differences in communication were displayed in the workplace. An advantage of this research is that it shows cultural validity, as the research was not only conducted in one country but another two others. The variation of this will give a clearer indication of how gender differences truly differ and if they differ in some countries more than others. Although the fact she firstly found the same sets of strengths and weaknesses identified in both men and women in themselves and each other may prove otherwise. Although the fact that these results were taken from a workplace, they may be bias in comparison to how men and women communicate in every day life as men are seen to be more authoritative at work as they feel they have more power and dominance over women as they're the original 'business owners' and want to stick to their status. Whereas women, as stated in their top three weaknesses by the writer, may be 'overly emotional' as they have a lot more on their plate such as domestic duties, 'meandering', they won't get to the point as women tend to commonly go off topic in their speech about other things or they're interrupted by the man and 'not authoritative' as that is portrayed as the male's role only. However despite what Goman's research suggests in this article, and that being all very accurate describing men and women's different ways of communicating, it has changed immensely overtime where women have gained more freedom of speech.

Data Analysis

Task 2:

•  On average, men had more turns per meeting than women.
• Men interrupted more times than women per meeting.
• On average, men interrupted more than they were interrupted.
• On average men spoke for longer.
• Men interrupted each other more than women interrupted men.
• More men were present at the meeting.

Task 3:

• O'Barr and Atkins - Found men and women interrupt more or less the same, but the data shows that men interrupt more than women.
• Geoffrey Beattie - One disproportionately loud man can throw the result, interrupts don't have to come from dominance.
• Zimmerman and West - The data supports this theorist as it shows men interrupt more than women which is what they also concluded. 
• Pamela Fishman - Concluded that because women are asking more questions, men have to spend longer speaking which is proven through the higher average no. of seconds men have per turn.
• Robin Lakoff - Women use less assertive language and spend longer getting to the point so men interrupt them more, proven so in the data.
• Dale Spender - Language embodies male power, this allows men to be more dominant in conversation than women, and the data proves this as men speak for longer than women.

Task 4:

Most relevant 3 theorists:

1. Zimmerman and West: Their theory supports the data that men interrupt more than women.
2. Robin Lakoff: Theory supports data as men interrupt women more due to to women using less assertive language and spend longer getting to the point.
3. Dale Spender: States that language is structured to give men an advantage.

Challenge Task:

Example:

"When looking at the data in Table 1, it is clear to see that there are some differences between the men and women at the meeting in terms of how many and how long their turns are. This would certainly fit with Lakoffs ideas about difference between the sexes. However, there are also interesting figures that suggest that it’s not as simple as saying that all men get more and longer turns than women. For example, Woman D gets 20.5 average turns per meeting which is more than two of the men. Also, while Woman D is clearly interrupted most in the data, Men F,G and H are interrupted frequently too, suggesting that it might not just be gender that is a factor here. The Dominance theory focuses more on men’s speech rather than women’s and how they are different. The dominance model found that men interrupted and dominated conversations more than women and this is a sign of dominance over women. However looking at the results in the table, the figures may prove otherwise. Given that the men did the most interrupting helps to support the dominance theory, but when we see that the men were also most interrupted on average then it seems as though the men are just interrupting each other rather than interrupting the women and showing dominance over them."

Analysis paragraph:

In the table, the data it provides seem to support the dominance theory that men maintain more dominance than women in conversation due to the differences the data portrays, for example in the average turns in speaking, how long for, and the interruptions. Men seem to hold a higher score in all these aspects because of their attempt to overrule woman because of the dominance men are known to have, whereas women score weaker as they are known to use less assertive language in conversation and spend a longer amount of time getting to the point, suggested by Robin Lakoff. This theorist supports the data as it is shown that there are difference in both gender's speech, as men interrupt women more. For example, this is proven 

as although woman can be seen to be more interruptive, as Woman D has a 20.5 average turns per meeting which is more than 2 of the men, Man E and I, the data shows that men are still frequently more interruptive than women as they have longer to speak; Zimmerman and West's theory of this therefore supports the data provided. This also helps to support the dominance theory, especially as men spoke for longer periods of time, although men were seen to interrupt each other more than they interrupted women. 

A

Deborah Cameron - The Pronoun Is Political Summary

In Deborah Cameron's post about Anne Liston, a gender-nonconforming entrepreneur, she discusses the importance of pronouns role they play society, more specifically in the contemporary politics of gender identity. In the article, the writer expresses that transgender and genderqueer activists are not the only people to make pronouns a political issue, she uses past evidence from the 18th century for example to establish other individual's perspective on this topic, feminists for example. The post also includes quotes from several linguist's, Robin Lakoff for example, who argued that feminists should focus on other targets as their focus on pronouns was misguided. The range of different views and opinions on pronouns, 'open' word classes; such as nouns, adjectives and verbs that contain a large number of items and have the possibility to add new ones and 'closed' word classes, which are pronouns like articles and prepositions that contain a finite set of items which alternate in predictable ways, show how language can be controversial as many different individuals, linguists in particular and as proven throughout history, have varied meanings and representations for pronouns and how they have changed society throughout time.

The Independent - HSBC Trans-neutral Titles Summary

The independent article demonstrates how pronouns shouldn't be used as a 'closed set' of words as individuals such as transgender people, who are trying to change their identity, may not want to be called certain derogatory terms that apply to specific genders. Therefore, this article implements more freedom of gender as the HSBC bank, one of the biggest UK banks, now offer trans customers a choice of 10 new gender neutral titles. These are titles such as 'ind', which stands for individual and meaning free of gender and 'Mre', an abbreviation for mystery. The bank also published a video of a transgender individual themselves, named Stuart Barette, who is their project manager to not only share their own personal experience of changing gender and the feelings and challenges they faced in the process, but to also explain the significance of offering the opportunity for customers to choose from a range of gender neutral titles. This is important because they think that discovering your identity is a big step in contribution to your journey as an individual, and having others to support this makes the process a whole lot easier. The independent article also includes other facts and statistics such as other banks, including Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays, allowing people to have gender neutral titles which reinforces a sense of freedom, community and progress.

Shower Gel Analysis

In the text, the writer immediately makes it personal to the reader through the introductory sentence; 'the blooming man in your life'. The personal pronoun 'your' immediately assumes that the user has a partner and as a reader, you get a clear sense of the demographic they're going for; women in long term relationships who are typically married. The writer uses the intensifier 'blooming' to describe the man to intensify and add emphasis to his role, this is in order to live up to the generalized stereotype that men are useless when it comes to being organised and keeping the house clean as that is typically always going to be the woman's role. The adverb is also used as a replacement for a curse word, therefore conveys emotion, so the specific lexis has been used to make it appropriate and appeal to it's demographic which are middle aged women. It has been been used repeatedly throughout the entirety of the text to reinforce the intensifier's negative connotations, as it continuously slates the male for carrying out simple, everyday tasks that could easily be mistaken by either gender. This creates the impression that the text was written from a female's perspective because of the misandristic connotations it portrays.

The writer again uses repetition when using interrogatives 'oh, and aren't those his blooming pants behind the door? why can't he just put them in the blooming laundry basket?'. This is also an example of synthetic personalisation as the writer is trying to create scenarios that are relatable to their intended audience, as leaving things lying around is a result of all the hard housework a woman do therefore use it as an excuse to complain about the actions of a man. Additionally, the final statement at the end of the text 'we only want you for your body' emphasises the unhealthy dynamics of a typical relationship as the shower gel is using it's product's platform to practically ask for the same thing men are expected to only want from a woman, their body. This shows how women are objectified in all aspects of society and despite there being gender equality progress in comparison to previous years, this shows that prejudice against women is still a regular occurrence in modern day.

Text A & B Immigration Articles Comparison

Compare and contrast how Text A and Text B use language to create meanings and representations.

In articles 'The Guardian' and the 'Daily Mail', both texts discuss in depth the subject of immigration, talk about politics and the media's involvement in this controversial topic through the use of multiple facts, statistics and quotes and take into account their target audience, British residents, when trying to change or counteract the public's mood and opinions. Similarly, both text A and text B are opinion articles therefore each have an informal register because the writers are expressing their views, through several uses of personal pronouns, whilst trying to influence their readers, but at the same time inform them about the representation of migrants.

In text A, the article aims to 'alarm, not inform, the public and propagate an agenda that says: migrants = bad (and then to blame the European Union)'. The noun 'alarm' suggests that the guardian take the exploitation against the contentious term 'migrant' and the stigma that surrounds it much more seriously than the Daily Mail's article does, as their main concern is how the left wing, which could be aimed at The Guardian, that has a reputation for a liberal and left wing editorial, seems to 'browbeat' the British people into accepting 'yet more' migrants. The transitive verb 'browbeat' in the heading immediately denotes a sense of competition, and the fact that this is repeated in the ending sentence of the article; 'British people are sure of their own minds, and can't be crudely browbeaten into changing their beliefs' emphasises that text B cares more about public opinion and criticising the left rather than using their platform to discuss immigration, but instead slate it and the media consistently and complain about 'yet more' entering the country. This is shown through the adverb 'crudely' which suggests they don't agree with the British residents having the topic forced down their throats, but in reality how else are people going to get the message across that the discrimination against 'migrants' is becoming an 'international crisis'? Therefore, each of the articles intentions seem to be different as this is in comparison to Text A which recognises the prejudice migrants receive from the media and some politicians yet stop themselves from slamming them for it and instead focus on the bigger problem, which is the 'sorry saga' that we are losing sight of the fact these 'migrants' are people and the lacking humanity that these vulnerable individuals have to face. The adjective 'vulnerable' used to describe the migrants indicates a sense of helplessness and makes the reader feel sympathy and concern towards the situation.

Additionally, The Guardian article uses unknown quotes at the start of their opinion piece which are suppositionally more personal and appealing to the reader but also they encourage people to agree with their views. A quote from a Prof, Alexander Betts, again makes the text seem more reliable because of the use of expert opinion. This is in comparison to Text B which instead of using quotes to 'encourage' their audience, they seem to overuse statistics continuously throughout the text which makes it seem unnatural and in a way, forced as they attempt to make it more complex. Admittidly, both texts begin with the use of interrogatives. Text A's being their heading 'We deride them as 'migrants'. Why not call them people?' which immediately exposes the article's understanding on the bias, compared to Text B which uses a not so hopeful interrogative as their opening sentence; 'Have most British people suddenly set aside their reservations about immigration, and are they now strongly in favour of accepting tens of thousands of Syrian and other refugees?'. The possible hyperbole 'tens of thousands' reinforces the idea that immigration is a great problem to these people and they are already complaining about the excessive number of 'migrants' entering Britain, instantly implying a negative tone.

Overall, despite their shared subjects, Text A and B are separated as they seem to hold completely different viewpoints on the subject of immigration. This is proven also through their grammatical structures, where Text A seems to use a wider range of shorter sentences such as 'this is a story about humanity.', in juxtaposition to Text B which tends to include a larger number of longer sentences which could help suggest that the text is less reliable than The Guardian article as the constant rambling and criticisms could only been used to strengthen their debate, regardless of the multiple examples of polls and evidence they have included in attempt to balance their argument out.

Text B: Daily Mail Immigration Article Analysis

Analyse how Text B uses language to create meanings and representations.

Text B is an opinion article taken from the Daily Mail, a British daily tabloid newspaper which argues against the left wing influencing their audience, British residents, in accepting more migrants into the country. This is first made clear through the bold heading 'Sorry, but the Left can't browbeat the British people into accepting yet more migrants'. The mitigating device 'Sorry' at the beginning of this sentence is being used as a cloaked imperative and creates an immediate informal tone to the reader. The writer then uses a transitive verb 'browbeat' to not only introduce a feeling of intimidation, but to suggest that the left wing does not abide by British values. The 'yet more' in this sentence also conveys that the newspaper has a problem with migrants, as they say it as if the increasing number of them is a reoccurring issue. An affordance of this text is firstly that the article begins with a rhetorical question, which again makes it personal to the majority of British people, their intended audience, and grabs the readers attention by making them think. But a constraint could definitely be the constant prejudice the article portrays against the left wing, as it uses broadcasters such as the BBC to support their argument, as they are highlighted to also have an apparent left wing bias. Although some mentions of the newspaper being against them in certain aspects could make their story unreliable, despite the consistent use of facts and statistics the text uses to back up their argument.

Additionally, the newspaper's target audience is further exposed to be British adult's specifically as it doesn't mind mentioning graphic evidence such as 'the photograph of the dead three-year-old Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi on a Turkish beach' and the noun 'hysteria' which evokes negative and extreme connotations. Although the repetitive mention of the 'public opinion' or 'public mood' that hasn't been counteracted or changed shows the extent to which the newspaper cares about their audience's opinion, and maybe by discussing this issue deeper and using humorous language such as the comedic word 'hullabaloo', it will appeal to the reader more. Another use of a rhetorical question 'was I wrong?' pressures the audience to think, and strengthens the relationship writer to reader despite it being a text taken from one of the biggest British newspapers.

Furthermore, text A uses stats a significant amount throughout the text such as 'tens of thousands of migrants' which is an example of hyperbolic language. Hyperbolic language is used to not only create humour, but it also gets the point across in a more relatable way. Although this quote makes the problem seem bigger and much more of a widespread issue than it actually could be, but the media like to twist their stories to gain recognition. More statistics used also refer to polls, for example 'some 57 per cent either think there should be fewer refugees or that the new figure of 20,000 over five years is about right'. An advantage of this is that they're most likely to be from a truthful source, but also shows the public opinion is unclear.

The writer continues to add to the negative tone portrayed throughout the entirety of the article through the pessimistic language they use. The adjectives 'harrowing' and 'disturbing' used to describe the pictures and footage of immigrants broadcasted on the news show the narrowmindedness of the newspaper as they blame the BBC for it's 'ubiquity' and 'manipulative reports', yet they're only broadcasting the terror of what is actually occuring in the world right now which people like the daily mail are choosing to ignore as they don't agree with migrants. They are yet to understand these are people too and the issue is only going to continue to grow if change doesn't take place.

Finally, the ending statement of the article 'British people are sure of their own minds, and can't be crudely browbeaten into changing their beliefs' creates an overall representation that people need to face the facts and face the reality that despite the power influenced on individuals from the media, such as from the authority from the prime minister 'Mr Cameron' and the BBC, public opinion will be difficult to shift as people living in Britain come from all different types of ethnicities and cultures, therefore people are going to have to accept that not everyone will hold the same values and beliefs, and that is okay.