Should gender-biased language be outlawed?

Should gender-biased language be outlawed?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2013/jul/05/gender-biased-language-law-poll

The state of Washington in America has taken gender language bias to an extreme level. In an attempt to get rid of gender bias in language, 40'000 words have been changed in order to neutralize it. And they're not alone.. Washington is the 4th state to make these progressive changes and a bill has even be signed to implement the changes. Such words that have been changed include..

• Fisherman - Fisher
• Penmanship - handwriting
• Freshman - First-year student
• Clergyman - Clergy
• Journeyman Plumber - Journey-level Plumber
• His - His and Hers

Some words such as 'Manwhole cover' cannot be changed as they don't have an easy replacement. "Words matter," Liz Watson, a National Women's Law Center senior adviser said "This is important in changing hearts and minds." 

And it's not just America. France has recently banned the term "mademoiselle" from documents as the Gallic term means 'miss' and French officials thought it made women acknowledge their marital status.

These few laws and orders highlight the importance language and gender has on the influence of the public's behaviour. The fact that it has been taken to this extreme means that it is currently an important topic and even interpreted as an issue by some. 

AS Language - Gender

Gender..

* not sex - gender

sex = biological

gender = learned behaviour

                 masculine/feminine

Can be spoken or written texts..

Bachelor

Connotation - lad, cool, good looking, successful, young, happy

Spinster

Connotation - old, lonely, frail

Language is androcentric i.e. favoring male or male dominated. Women are supposedly emotionally unstable. The origin of the word 'Hysterical' is Husterikos - 'the womb' 

Theories..

Robin Lakoff 1975 - The Deficitt Model

Published an influential account of women's language. This was the book 'Language and Women's place'

In a related article women's language, she published a set of basic assumptions about..

• Hedge: using phrases like 'sort of', 'kind of', 'it seems like'
• Use (super) polite forms: 'would you mind'
• Tag questions: 'you're going to dinner, aren't you?'
• International emphasis: underlining words: 'so' 'very'
• Use empty adjectives: 'divine' 'loyalty' 'adorable'
• Use hypercorrect grammar and pronunciation: english prestige grammar and clear enunciation
• Special lexicon: women use more words for things like colours, men for sports
• Use 'wh' imperatives: 'why don't you open the door' - negative face
• Speak less frequently
• Overuse qualifies: 'i think that..'
• Apologise more: 'i'm sorry but i think that'
• Use modal constructions: 'would, should, could, ought..'
• Use indirect commands and requests: 'my, isn't it cold in here?' - really a request to turn the heat on or close a window
• Use more intensifiers: especially so and very
• Lack of sense of humour

Deborah Tannen - Difference theory

- Series of 6 contrasts

Men vs. Women

Status vs. Support

- men grow up in an environment in which conversation is competitive - they seek to achieve the upper hand

- for women talking is often a way to gain conformation and support for their ideas

-women see the world as 'a network for connections' seeking support and consensus

Independence vs. Intimacy

- women often think in terms of closeness and support, and struggle to preserve intimacy

- men are concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence

- these traits can lead men and women to starkly different views for the same situation

Advice vs. Understanding

Deborah Tannen claims that to many men a complaint is a challenge to find a solution.

Information vs. Feelings

- men only give necessary information

- a young woman makes a phone call - can last half an hour or more

Orders vs. Proposals

- women often suggest that people do things in indirect ways 'let's' 'why don't we'

- men use and prefer to hear a direct imperative

Conflict vs. Compromise

- "in trying to prevent fights" writes Professor Tannen "some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly"

but sometimes it's far more effective for a women to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict

Dominance Theory

This approach argues that women's conversational behaviour reflects their subordinate position in society - because women are used to their position in society they allow men to dominate mixed-sex conversations

Zimmerman and West 1975

- men interrupt more in conversations

How men end up talking more - 

Looked at interruptions and overlaps which is a sign that conversation is not running smoothly

In single-sex conversations there are less interruptions

In mixed-sex conversations men are likely to talk more

98% of the interruptions and ALL of overlap - done by MEN

Men rarely interrupt or overlap other men's speech but did things a great deal to infringe upon a women's right to speek

Peter Trudgill

'H' dropping

Men are more likely to drop the 'h' in words like 'house' and drop the 'g' in words like 'going'

Women are more likely to use the standard forms..

Men are suppose to use more standard forms.

Over prestige - women

Desire to fit into society using standard language forms

Covert prestige - men

Using non-standard forms to 'rebel' against society

AS Language - Power

AS Language Frameworks..

1. Gender
2. Power
3. Technology

Power..

There are 3 types of power in language:

1. Political - power held by politicians on those in the courts
2. Personal - people who have power because of their occupation or role e.g. policeman
3. Social Group - those who have power because of social variables e.g. class, wealth, gender..

And then..

1. Instrumental power - power used to tempt to maintain authority (and enforce authority) EXAMPLE - policeman, captains, lieutenants, firemen, managers
2. Influential power - power used to attempt to persuade or influence others EXAMPLE - shop workers, politicians, advertisement, speech makers

Power in written texts include: ads, court, legal notices, small print on products, school reports etc. Powerful texts will be written mainly in imperatives and declaratives. Powerful texts should also make extensive use of modal auxiliary verbs such as should, must, will etc. 

Power in spoken texts:

• Power asymmetry - marked power difference in the status of the participant in a conversation
• Unequal encounter - difference in power is reflected in the speech
• Powerful participant - where a person with the higher power status imposes their power in the conversation
• Less powerful participants - where a person with the lower power status is susceptible to the linguistic constraints placed upon them by the powerful participants
• Linguistic constraints - linguistic techniques used by the powerful participant to exert control in the conversation. Examples include interrupting or controlling topics

Theorists for Power..

Conversation theory - H.P. Grice

Grice's maxims of conversation

- communication is a co-operation activity

Speakers behave in certain predictable ways, listeners assume they're being cooperative.

1. Quality - when someone speaks to us, we assume they are telling the truth
2. Quantity - when someone speaks to us, we assume that they give us all of the information we need
3. Manner - we are going to be told the information as clearly as possible
4. Relevance - what they are saying is relative

Not following these maxims will..

• 'violate' a maxim and be intentionally misleading
• 'opt out' of a maxim and refuse to co-operate
• deal with a 'clash' of maxims for example between saying enough and saying all that we know to be true
• 'flout' a maxim and be intentionally ironic

Politeness - Goffman

- if we want co-operation we also need to be polite

Goffman saw that without politness conversation didn't work and that the need for politeness was rooted in 'saving face'

Negative Face

All the things we say to avoid imposing our demands on others e.g. 

'I'm sorry to bother you but..'

'Could I please borrow'

The underlined words are called 'mitigating devices'

Positive Face

Everything we might say to show that we agree with, respect and like someone.

Face Threatening Act

Conversational turns that risk a 'loss of face'

Language Frameworks

Language Frameworks

Lexis/Semantics..

Lexis.. Lexis is the term that linguisitics use to describe the vocabulary of a language. The number of words available to text producers is huge, and words are generally chosen carefull to help gernerate meaning. 
AQA English Language B Marcello Giovanelli and Dr Alan Pearce

Linked to language change..
Lexis in language change is constantly adapting, to the point in the 21st Century where new words or phrases are created through the media such as texting, social media sites and now, celebrities. 

One celebrity known for her contribution to the lexical word is Miley Cyrus who through her actions on a music video and performance has created the world wide verb 'twerk'. In turn this new verb has spread, being used in young people's language daily. Its even been made into a continuous verb with the ending 'ing' and, with the past tense suffix 'ed',  a past particple. 
http://uk.eonline.com/news/453117/twerking-added-to-oxford-dictionary-should-we-thank-miley-cyrus

Semantics.. Semantics refers to the study of meaning and how meaning is created within texts. Semantics is also concerned with the relationships between lexical itesm and how these create textual cohestion. 
AQA English Language B Marcello Giovanelli and Dr Alan Pearce

Linked to language change..
Language change occurs in semancitcs through the adaption of lexis into new contexts or the joining of two words to create a new meaning. Due to contexts such as modernisation and the spread of technology, semantics are constantly changing. 

 http://dictionaryblog.cambridge.org/2013/12/30/new-words-30-december-2013/
One example of combinations of lexis is the new phrase 'floordrobe', added to the dictionary at the end of 2013. Here two nouns are connected to make one new noun where both their semantics are linked.

Grammar..

Grammar.. Grammar refers to the way sentences of a language are constructed, for example syntax. It looks at the study of words and their component parts combined in language. 

Linked to language change.. 
Due to grammatical change taking longer to spread than lexical, some old grammatical forms may still be present in certain areas of Britain today. 

For example, the second person pronouns 'thou, thee, thy, thine' may sound old fashioned to most of us, however they're still present in Northern England, although even there they are becoming increasingly associated with older speakers. 

http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/changing-voices/grammatical-change/
This website includes more audio examples of grammatical changes in Britain. 

• if you wanted to go to college or you wanted to go to university you couldn’t if you hadn’t the money
• I mean the dress sense in this lot is whacky down here and I’m so not used to it
• and, uh, when we gets to the camp — it was a beautiful - historical present

Discourse..

Discourse.. Discourse refers to the written or spoken communication in language. 

Linked to language change..

Graphology..

Graphology.. Graphology is the study of written and printed symbols in text, for example the use of pictures and text in a visual manner. It can cover anything from the use of capital letters and punctuation to colour. 

Linked to language change..

Language Investigation - English Coursework

How does children’s language progress through the primary school years?

 Introduction..

My Language Investigation will be focused on the subject of primary school children and their language skills with their fellow pupils and teachers. I will look at the development children’s language takes as they progress through primary school, looking at children from Year 2, ages 6 and 7, and children from Year 6, ages 9 and 10. I have chosen to look at this subject as my future plans are to become a primary school teacher and I feel doing this extra work will increase my understanding of child development. It will help me look deeper into the ways children’s language and communication skills develop through school and also point out key aspects of the different age groups’ language. The Teacher Training course I have applied for looks for extra research made into this area and I believe this will benefit my application process. I will analyse the primary features of child directed speech in spontaneous conversation and look at the nature vs. nurture debates held by theorists like B.F. Skinner and Chomsky. As education boards are always changing, I believe any research into language development will be beneficial to the way children are taught.
My hypothesis is that I expect to find a clear advance through the developmental stages in the language of the Year 6s compared to the Year2s because over time they are exposed to the influence of other classmates and their linguistic patterns more frequently than the younger years, thus supporting the social interactionist’s view. Examples of this will be a more complex use of vocabulary from various semantic fields and syntax structures resulting in a more in-depth conversation and a clear understanding of turn taking. I also expect to gender differences in both lexis and grammar in each year group. Due to Year 6 stereotypically being more mature, I believe their language will involve fewer interruptions in gender contrast adjacency pairs whereas competition may be more common in the younger year as they are still learning conversation techniques and how to interact with the opposite sex. I expect conversation to have a specific semantic field as the context of lessons is focused on one learning adjective and therefore the language used will portray this. I aim to show my hypotheses through my research and also learn new aspects of language that children may develop as they age.   

Methodology..



My data was collected from my old primary school, involving staff and the students of two classes, Year 2 and Year 6. To ensure consent, I emailed the Head Teacher of my primary school to see whether I could come in and transcribe the children. I chose these age groups as I wanted to show progression in language through the primary school ages and felt the extremes of the scale would show this best.
The two groups consisted of:

Year 2 –

·        3 girls

·        3 boys

·        No Teaching Assistant present

·        Ages 6 and 7

Year 6 –

·        2 girls

·        4 boys

·        Teaching Assistant present

·        Ages 9 and 10

I was fortunate enough to have a fairly equal balance of genders in both transcript groups so any findings from the gender differences can be seen as fair. I was also notified before that the children, in particular the Year 2 class, were of the more able ability. The teacher of Year 2 also let me sit and work with a boy that struggled the most which highlighted the inter-year difference in development.  I recorded 5 minutes of each session and chose to transcribe all of it to get a wider range of data. Both groups were explained whilst I was present the context of my visit so they were aware of my intentions however this seemed to not affect demand characteristics whilst being recorded. In both classes I recorded the conversations between them over a task they had been set, in Year 6 on historical artefacts and in Year 2 a work sheet on their senses. This task gave me the most data as the questions including: ‘What is your favourite taste?’ and ‘What is your least favourite noise?’ gave them an opportunity to talk about themselves. I later transcribed extracts from these recordings. There were particular behavioural traits I expected to find; the Year 2 girls showed warmth towards me which suggests they saw the need to impress me. Politeness strategies were only present when the children spoke to me whereas they frequently overlapped and shouted at each other. My role in each year group also differed, in the Year 2 class I was left on my own so I became an active participant whereas in Year 6 I was a passive observer. This may have biased my results as I was able to construct the conversation with Year 2 and may have unconsciously driven it towards getting data for my investigation. 

Lexis..

From my transcripts, it appears that both year groups have progressed far into the post-telegraphic stage, in the Year 6’s case developing further. This can be seen by the use of negatives. The Year 2 class show their semantic awareness as they correctly use negative phrases and adverbial superlatives such as ‘haven’t done’ and ‘least favourite’ in various contexts. However, ‘least favourite’ could have been formulated from the repeated questions I asked including this phrase. This prediction can be supported by Jerome Bruner’s LASS theory that states that care givers can influence the child’s linguistic development by encouraging the child to respond, in this transcript, by using recasting of questions and downward converging to place emphasis on key words. Examples of this prompt include ‘your faaavourite food’ and ‘what food don’t you like’. Correct determiners were also used including the demonstrative determiner ‘that’s’ and possessive ‘my’. Although there is a virtuous error in the example ‘it my bedroom’ where the incorrect determiner ‘it’ is used, the child understands their mistake and corrects with ‘my’. The child may also have become confused between the verb ‘it is’ and possessive pronoun ‘it’s’. The same child also uses the prepositional phrase ‘is the second by the wall’ which also shows their ability to communicate details and directions.

The Year 6 transcript includes examples of questions that support their further advancement. One boy creates the question ‘would he be like making bread’. The auxiliary verb ‘would’ is used in this question as the boy is unsure of his answer therefore he has developed the ability to differ away from standardised ‘is it’ questions to express uncertainty. In doing so, this child demonstrates one area of difference from the Year 2s, where they have the semantic awareness before the phonological ability, this Year 6 exemplifies that he’s acquired both skills.

Idiolect from the Bristolian vocabulary also shows its influence in their language as both transcripts show examples of the common informal interjection ‘like’; a similarity between them. This shows that children’s language is greatly influenced by their surroundings and environment. This is supported by Deb Roy (2008) whose nurture theory says language is nurtured through a child’s surroundings from a young age. ‘In like seven pm’, also including an example of a virtuous error made in the incorrect preposition used, and ‘some like big heavy’ are examples of this idiolect from both transcripts. Another example where the children influence each other’s language is clearly shown in the Year 2 transcript as many of their answers to the questions copy the child’s before. For example: ‘That’s the same as me’, including a determiner ‘same’ and demonstrative pronoun ‘that’s’, is used by two children one after another.                                       

The use of interruptions can also distinguish the genders apart in linguistic terms. As shown visually in the graph below, both year groups found girls will interrupt/overlay another child’s speech; to greater extent in Year 2. It’s also worthy of noting that the Year6 boys do not interrupt at all however this could be due to the influence of a teacher. This rejects Zimmerman and West (1975) who found in a study that men interrupt 98% of the time in conversation. Due to the context of the transcript with Year 2 I expected my results as the work sheet given gave them the opportunity to talk about themselves more; a theory proved by Vygotsky (1978), therefore promoting competition between the adjacency pairs. The abundance of personal pronouns can also be explained because of this. The children show clear understanding of the difference between 1^st and 2^nd person pronouns as shown in an adjacency pairs conversation between two girls. ‘I’m not three’, ‘I was on about her’ and ‘you weren’t listening’ show the various pronouns used.

I also found that my language downwardly converged to the stage of the students in Year 2, I noticed this not so much in the teaching assistant with Year 6. My lexical choices simplified with an abundance of concrete nouns from the semantic field created by the lesson topic such as ‘go on then write mushrooms’. I also exchanged 1^st person pronouns for 3^rd person ‘we’ on many occasions like in the example ‘When we’re all done’. This example of downward convergence may have been used as I was aware I didn’t have equal status or as much influential power as a teacher. This contrasted with the approach the teaching assistant in Year 6 took as I found she did not adapt her language, instead her turn taking was longer and used examples of low frequency lexis such as ‘infer’. In the quotation ‘when mummy gives it to you’ I unconsciously converge to the little girl’s language using lexis that is typical of age 5/6. This may have been used to help the child understand better by using her linguistic choices. 

 Grammar..

The main syntactical functions found in these transcripts are mainly interrogatives and declaratives as, for the context of a lesson; questions are needed to prompt conversations and answers throughout. An abundance of interrogatives are used by the powerful participant, i.e me/teaching assistant, to conduct the lesson accordingly, for example prompts such as ‘Right what’s our next question then’. This is represented in the graph below. Repeated syntax structures are often shown by the children and linked to the question sheet they were given. This basic repetition forms the simple structured syntax repeated throughout the Year 2 transcript such as ‘my favourite sound is’ or ‘My favourite thing’. According to Tomasello (2000), children’s variation of performance when constructing syntax is down to their ability to make statistical generalisations over previously stored exemplars of sentences initially heard, despite not having system-wide syntactic schemes. This theory supports the abundance of repetition of syntactical phrases that the Year 2s create as they may use the phrases on the sheets as exemplars to form their syntactical performance around.

Year 6 show their advanced semantic awareness by creating an abundance of complex syntax to give the conversation more depth. Their structure of sentences varies between complex, compound and simple where appropriate, showing they understand Grice’s maxim ‘to be clear’ when expressing only the relevant information. This fulfils Halliday’s function of representational language as they use language to exchange already possessed knowledge between the group. The range of syntax types can also be exemplified in the quotation ‘That’s the same as me’. In this utterance the child uses the basic conjunction ‘but’ to transform a previous simple syntax into a compound.  This can support the Year 2’s progression through the post-telegraphic stage as certain students can transition their language between the types.

Although the students show a clear understanding of syntax structures there are examples of virtuous errors made where modification or incomplete sentences are present. In the quote ‘So it says your favourite favourite fravrite fravrite..’ a repeated intensifier is used for emphasis on the adjective, described by ‘an informal, expressive feature attaches to multiple intensification’ Cacchiani (2003). Rising intonation can also account for intensified language where specific tensifiers are not used. Here her pronunciation wains as she picks up speed, this may be due to her wanting to show off her phonological ability. Often the children use short incomplete utterances instead of completed syntax for example ‘(6) actually muuushroooms [laughs]’. Here Child 2 joins the conversation at a side sequence expecting to be understood. This can be supported by Piaget’s prepositional phase theory where children are egocentric in seeing things from only their view.

The structure of syntax also varied between the teaching assistant and I. The TA’s turns appear to be significantly longer, although this will have been down to the technique of a teacher, and it appears her syntax can get complicated. An abundance of compound sentences are used in the opening line where she connects them with fillers such as ‘um’ and the connective ‘and’ which makes her speech seem uncertain. Contextually this may have been because she was aware to start she was being recorded and so demand characteristics occurred. Despite this, her syntax often jumps from subject to filler which may contribute to why a lot of the responses from the students are simple in structure and uncertain from the abundance of fillers present. 

Two features of grammar that both Year 2 and 6 also possess is the ability to use variations of tenses and time phrases to express experiences related to the semantic field. In Year 2, one child exemplifies this technique in the quotations ‘you’re three now’ and ‘I thought you said’. By using the temporal noun ‘now’ as a time phrase and past participle ‘thought’ she is actively controlling her use of tenses to show she understands further than the concept ‘the moment’. In Year 6, the act of using a past participle to relate to an experience is also used in the quote ‘I’ve seen som-um’. By reflecting on the past, he also shows he can use experience to contribute to the conversation’s subject, thus increasing the depth of the conversation. 

Conclusion..

From my transcripts I believe I have a shown a clear progression in language acquisition through the primary ages. As both years showed specific post-telegraphic traits there was no extreme language barrier between the two however, they do show difference in the ability of the skills they possess.
Their lexical ability was found to be similar; they both showed that their lexical awareness outstripped their phonological ability in cases. The year 2’s varied use of negative phrases and determiners also suggests that they are advanced for their age. However, their ability to ask questions may have also been formulated from the abundance of interrogatives I was asking as the powerful participant. My results show the need for both nature and nurture in child language acquisition however, these varied in quantities. The younger children’s language shows to be more effected by the innate processes we activate during the critical acquisition period than the older children whose language is more nurtured through imitation and experience of others.

As I expected, grammatical choices also mirrored those in lexis. As the children grew up a wider range of syntax structures were used, in the Year 6 group there was an abundance of complex declaratives compared to the Year 2 group which focused more on simple or compound. Repetition was key to the formulation of some utterances, constantly rehearsing the sentence and its meaning may have benefited the student for future use. Declaratives and interrogatives structured the utterances they made, due to the context of a lesson this was expected.

Key levels of speaking and listening set by the government suggest that there is also a difference in the level each year is in. Year 2’s language traits show they are mixed between Level 1 and 2, however considering they are ‘more able’ children, this may be why they are boarder line Level 2. Year 6 however appear to be at Level 4, their language is adapted well to the purpose and show examples where they can respond to each other.

Evaluation..

I think my investigation went well as I was able to organise getting primary data from a primary school where children’s language is most natural. This first-hand practice at transcribing my own data showed me where I could have improved. I feel my Year 2 transcript had more qualitative data than that of my Year 6 therefore, if I could do it again, I would ask to not be with a member of staff and get the children to interact more to show natural language patterns. I may also reduce the group sizes down to 4 so that I could analyse the language in more detail and of fewer pupils.