Of course, these are now known to be unfounded.
However, many more modern studies have come up with results which initially did little for feminist movements.
In this graph, taking from Trudgill’s Norwich study, we see the use of a non-standard variant, h-dropping (‘ome instead of home, for instance) across classes.
It is also split into gender.
It’s easy to see from the graph that men use a much higher percentage of non-standard variants across every class.
This did little to prove that women and men are equal when the study was first conducted.
From the same study, here is a graph of what we call style shifting.
Style shifting is when people use more non-standard forms in casual speech – down the pub with their mates – and fewer in formal speech – like in a job interview.We all do it, and pretty much to the same extent.
To do a style shifting study, speakers are interviewed in a casual style, a formal style, and asked to read a passage. Sometimes a word list is added, which adds an even more formal style.
Here we can see that women, as well as using fewer non-standard variants, also style shift more than men.
Initially, these results were controversial. It seemed as though they were directly contradicting ideas equality champions had been trying to promote.
The first point here I must dispute. I think that it is not that women are more sensitive then men to the way language reflects their social status, but rather that it means different things to them.
Socially, men are expected to be “manly”. This means being rough and tough. They can show their “manly-ness” by using non-standard forms, which are attributed to the working class and show someone’s toughness.
Conversely, women are expected, socially, to be polite and proper, and in order to prove this they use fewer non-standard forms.
Notice that I said “socially” regularly in the above paragraphs.
The reason I think this view of the results does nothing to impede the view of feminists is because these differences are only socially influenced; they are not innate nor are they uniform over any section of society. They are simply a broad overview of how social influences change the way we speak.
The second point, however, is dead on.
Men have a head start in life. Even in today’s modern world of equality, men have more head starts and better chances than women.
While men have always found it relatively easy to find a job and rise within the ranks of a company, women have a lot to contend with. This was even more true in the past.
And so women, more so than men, use their language as an indicator of their intelligence, their social class, their education and their background. They need to, if they want to get ahead in life.
Maybe this isn’t quite so relevant today. but young girls learn to speak by copying their parents, and are incredibly receptive to gender differences and will follow them They go to school with their friends who have also picked up on these differences, which only emphasises them. They grow up using fewer non-standard forms than their male class-mates and so the cycle continues.
Again, this doesn’t disprove any feminist ideologies, but actually reinforces the position of women in society and the need for this to change.
Interesting thoughts. I will have to think about them a bit. What is really making me think is whether it is better to use standard or non-standard forms of words. Is it what gives us our individuality?
we try and use the word “non-standard” because it’s biased. It doesn’t say non-prestige or grammatically incorrect. Prestige accents have less regional variation and fewer non-standard forms – going back to R.P. again, and trying not to give away where you’re from. I personally prefer some non-standard forms, but can see that some make people seem uneducated.
I love this article. I find the relationship between gender and language really interesting and I love what you said.
There are other things I could have said but it was already quite long… something to look forward to!
I do hope that you continue to write about this!
I wonder if the USA has concepts like received pronunciation(RP)? Is that something unique to the UK? There’s a whole new field of study…and so many people seem to avoid it now, including some Prime Ministers like “Peepull’ Blair.
I’m unsure, as it has a standardised accent, but the same goes for using fewer non-standard forms, and so on.
Yes, David Cameron and Boris Johnson have started deliberately glottal stopping in order for them to seem more in touch with the general population.
I think Tony B started it!
ps. ‘Peepull’ doesn’t quite capture his unique enunciation of this key word for a politician!
Reblogged this on Musings of a Demented Little Boy.