Laikipia University
Dept of Literary and Communication Studies
COMM 222: Gender Issues in Communication
Prof Felicia Yieke
INTRODUCTION TO GENDER, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION
Short History on Gender and Language
Language and gender research has been consistently innovative since its inception, drawing on
theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches from diverse disciplines, and productively
integrating them to produce insightful analysis.
Jespersen (1922) was one of the first linguists to take account of women’s speech when he observed
that women had less extensive vocabulary, used simple sentence structures, and had a greater
tendency to speak before they thought (sic), resulting in sentences that were often incomplete. Later,
the influential work of Lakoff (1975) marked the beginning of language and gender as a field of
study. Based on her observations, Lakoff stated that women were denied the means of expressing
themselves strongly, and this resulted in their identities being submerged. However, the fact that her
remarks were based on informal observations makes it difficult to evaluate their validity, and more
recent studies have contradicted some of the claims. However, the fact still remains that it is through
Lakoff’s study that more studies and research started to focus into this field of enquiry.
Initially, Sociolinguistic studies of gender and speech tended to focus on ‘markers’ or isolated
linguistic or phonological items that were assumed to be characteristic of men and women’s speech,
and their correlation with gender. On the basis of such evidence, women were thus reported to use
‘correct’ forms or prestigious forms more frequently than men, in order to make up for their lower
social status. Gender was thus seen as a linguistic variable in the same way as age, ethnicity and
social class. It was suggested that social markers in speech are directly influenced by inequalities in
social structure. West and Zimmerman however stated that studies based on isolated variables tended
to exaggerate gender differences (West & Zimmerman 1985; 107-108).
In contrast to studies that identify male and female speech markers, Zimmerman and West (1975)
therefore attempted to demonstrate that male dominance in the social structure is exercised in
everyday interaction. Since then, a large number of studies have been conducted in a similar way
(Aries 1982, Beattie 1981, Eakin & Eakin 1978, Edelsky 1981, Fishman 1978, 1983, Leet-Pellegrini
1980, Woods 1988). These studies just mentioned have investigated male dominance by examining
the distribution of different interactional features between men and women during recorded
conversations.
In the last two decades, language and gender research has moved from essentialist approaches
which treat male and female as discrete social categories to social constructionist and performative
approaches (Butler 1990) which emphasise the diverse, flexible, and context-responsive ways in
which people ‘do gender’ (among other identities) in different situations, and even from moment to
moment within a situation (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003; Mills 2003). Gender is
conceptualised as a dynamic performance; ‘gendering’ is a process, the product of social practice:
gender doesn’t just exist, but is continually produced, reproduced, and indeed changed through
people’s performance of gendered acts, as they project their own claimed gendered identities, ratify
Gender Issues in Communication Prof Felicia Yieke Page 1
, or challenge others’ identities, and in various ways support or challenge systems of gender relations
and privilege.
This process of gendering or gender performance takes place within specific communities of
practice, such as the family or the workplace, and within particular speech events, such as a dinner
party or a meeting. It involves particular speech activities, such as singing to a child, telling a joke to
friends, and negotiating a decision in a meeting. In different social contexts, and even at different
points within the same interaction, participants emphasise specific facets of their social identities and
different dimensions of social meaning, including their gender identity and gendered meanings.
Researchers have documented, for instance, a wide range of contexts in which women as well as
men draw on the discourse of power and authority in constructing their social and professional
identities and, where they judge it important, adopt discourse styles and strategies which have been
normatively associated with masculinity or femininity.
In a range of contexts, then, people draw on their knowledge of norms and stereotypes to enact their
social identities, including their gender identities. In doing so they operate with an awareness of the
wider social and political sphere, and of institutional pressures and societal expectations. In enacting
parenting, for instance, or leadership, people draw on gendered discursive resources which are to
some extent shaped by wider societal constraints and expectations. Butler (1990: 36) described these
constraints as “a highly rigid regulatory frame”.
These wider societal constraints include “the gender order”, the repressive ideology which ensures
that deviation from gender norms (by women or men) entails penalties. Power is obviously a very
relevant consideration in this context, requiring careful analysis as a dynamic and systemic aspect of
interaction, though not always a very overt one. Both power and gender relations may be constructed
unobtrusively, through taken-for-granted, ‘naturalised’ conversational strategies, and reinforced in
everyday, unremarkable, interaction. The effects of the gender order are especially apparent, for
example, in many institutions and organisations where lip-service is paid to equality of opportunity,
while the reality is that women are grossly under-represented at senior levels.
Language plays an important part in constructing the gender order. Feminist linguists have the
knowledge and skills not only to identify, describe and critique discourses of femininity and
masculinity, but also to highlight discursive behaviours which penalise women in many social
contexts, and to document active discursive resistance to sexist behaviours.
Gender and Communication
Gender and communication is a relatively new specialization of the Communication field that
focuses on the ways females and males of the human species communicate in different contexts. For
example, research in this area could reveal the differences and similarities between the ways a
female talk-show host and a male-talk show host interact with their guests. We make a distinction
between sex and gender before providing an overview of this specialization’s areas of research, main
theories and theorists, and highlights from research findings about feminine and masculine
communication styles. While we are taking a communication lens to the study of gender, we need to
acknowledge the contributions made by other academic disciplines such as women’s studies,
linguistics, and psychology.
Gender Issues in Communication Prof Felicia Yieke Page 2
Dept of Literary and Communication Studies
COMM 222: Gender Issues in Communication
Prof Felicia Yieke
INTRODUCTION TO GENDER, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION
Short History on Gender and Language
Language and gender research has been consistently innovative since its inception, drawing on
theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches from diverse disciplines, and productively
integrating them to produce insightful analysis.
Jespersen (1922) was one of the first linguists to take account of women’s speech when he observed
that women had less extensive vocabulary, used simple sentence structures, and had a greater
tendency to speak before they thought (sic), resulting in sentences that were often incomplete. Later,
the influential work of Lakoff (1975) marked the beginning of language and gender as a field of
study. Based on her observations, Lakoff stated that women were denied the means of expressing
themselves strongly, and this resulted in their identities being submerged. However, the fact that her
remarks were based on informal observations makes it difficult to evaluate their validity, and more
recent studies have contradicted some of the claims. However, the fact still remains that it is through
Lakoff’s study that more studies and research started to focus into this field of enquiry.
Initially, Sociolinguistic studies of gender and speech tended to focus on ‘markers’ or isolated
linguistic or phonological items that were assumed to be characteristic of men and women’s speech,
and their correlation with gender. On the basis of such evidence, women were thus reported to use
‘correct’ forms or prestigious forms more frequently than men, in order to make up for their lower
social status. Gender was thus seen as a linguistic variable in the same way as age, ethnicity and
social class. It was suggested that social markers in speech are directly influenced by inequalities in
social structure. West and Zimmerman however stated that studies based on isolated variables tended
to exaggerate gender differences (West & Zimmerman 1985; 107-108).
In contrast to studies that identify male and female speech markers, Zimmerman and West (1975)
therefore attempted to demonstrate that male dominance in the social structure is exercised in
everyday interaction. Since then, a large number of studies have been conducted in a similar way
(Aries 1982, Beattie 1981, Eakin & Eakin 1978, Edelsky 1981, Fishman 1978, 1983, Leet-Pellegrini
1980, Woods 1988). These studies just mentioned have investigated male dominance by examining
the distribution of different interactional features between men and women during recorded
conversations.
In the last two decades, language and gender research has moved from essentialist approaches
which treat male and female as discrete social categories to social constructionist and performative
approaches (Butler 1990) which emphasise the diverse, flexible, and context-responsive ways in
which people ‘do gender’ (among other identities) in different situations, and even from moment to
moment within a situation (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003; Mills 2003). Gender is
conceptualised as a dynamic performance; ‘gendering’ is a process, the product of social practice:
gender doesn’t just exist, but is continually produced, reproduced, and indeed changed through
people’s performance of gendered acts, as they project their own claimed gendered identities, ratify
Gender Issues in Communication Prof Felicia Yieke Page 1
, or challenge others’ identities, and in various ways support or challenge systems of gender relations
and privilege.
This process of gendering or gender performance takes place within specific communities of
practice, such as the family or the workplace, and within particular speech events, such as a dinner
party or a meeting. It involves particular speech activities, such as singing to a child, telling a joke to
friends, and negotiating a decision in a meeting. In different social contexts, and even at different
points within the same interaction, participants emphasise specific facets of their social identities and
different dimensions of social meaning, including their gender identity and gendered meanings.
Researchers have documented, for instance, a wide range of contexts in which women as well as
men draw on the discourse of power and authority in constructing their social and professional
identities and, where they judge it important, adopt discourse styles and strategies which have been
normatively associated with masculinity or femininity.
In a range of contexts, then, people draw on their knowledge of norms and stereotypes to enact their
social identities, including their gender identities. In doing so they operate with an awareness of the
wider social and political sphere, and of institutional pressures and societal expectations. In enacting
parenting, for instance, or leadership, people draw on gendered discursive resources which are to
some extent shaped by wider societal constraints and expectations. Butler (1990: 36) described these
constraints as “a highly rigid regulatory frame”.
These wider societal constraints include “the gender order”, the repressive ideology which ensures
that deviation from gender norms (by women or men) entails penalties. Power is obviously a very
relevant consideration in this context, requiring careful analysis as a dynamic and systemic aspect of
interaction, though not always a very overt one. Both power and gender relations may be constructed
unobtrusively, through taken-for-granted, ‘naturalised’ conversational strategies, and reinforced in
everyday, unremarkable, interaction. The effects of the gender order are especially apparent, for
example, in many institutions and organisations where lip-service is paid to equality of opportunity,
while the reality is that women are grossly under-represented at senior levels.
Language plays an important part in constructing the gender order. Feminist linguists have the
knowledge and skills not only to identify, describe and critique discourses of femininity and
masculinity, but also to highlight discursive behaviours which penalise women in many social
contexts, and to document active discursive resistance to sexist behaviours.
Gender and Communication
Gender and communication is a relatively new specialization of the Communication field that
focuses on the ways females and males of the human species communicate in different contexts. For
example, research in this area could reveal the differences and similarities between the ways a
female talk-show host and a male-talk show host interact with their guests. We make a distinction
between sex and gender before providing an overview of this specialization’s areas of research, main
theories and theorists, and highlights from research findings about feminine and masculine
communication styles. While we are taking a communication lens to the study of gender, we need to
acknowledge the contributions made by other academic disciplines such as women’s studies,
linguistics, and psychology.
Gender Issues in Communication Prof Felicia Yieke Page 2
