Introduction
The essay examines language and gender by exploring the definition of ‘gender’ and contrasting it with ‘sex.’ People only possess a limited amount of control over language. Lippi-Green (1997) emphasize that they may choose to be respectful or obtuse, to use forms of communication that flatter or offend, utilize gender-neutral or provocative language. Nevertheless, many aspects of language are not under conscious or direct control (Lippi-Green, 1997). It is critical to address concerns of gender inequality in language. As an example of inequality, the research investigates the use of the generic ‘he’ and other lexical elements that portray women less favorably than males and concludes that a language can be considered sexist.
Language and Gender
Through gender and language exploration, it is feasible to discover that inequality is a significant component behind linguistic patterns. For instance, there is a strong connection between language and gender (Mooney & Evans, 2015; Coates, 2015). Analyzing behavior in terms of socially constructed gender rather than sex is essential for comprehending how people perform their identities and how they are perceived. Coates (2015) claims that sex refers to a biological divide, whereas gender refers to socially defined classifications based on sex. Significantly, sex and gender are not the same since sex, as a biological category, has no impact on gender; it is not true that all females and males behave the same way as the other members of their biological sex group (Mooney & Evans, 2015). Therefore, gender is something a person achieves by their behavior, appearance, habits, and speech rather than something they have.
Gender has only relatively recently been the focus of sociolinguists’ concern. Coates (2015) proposes three reasons: the first two originate from sociolinguistics’ predecessors in dialectology and linguistics, while the third is related to changes in women’s positions in modern society. Traditionally, informants in dialectology were often non-mobile, elderly, rural, and male. While many studies included informants of both sexes, investigations exclusive to male speakers were still conducted. Only in the late 1980s, the research focused on female speakers (Coates, 2015). The second reason is that as sociolinguistics gained traction as a subject, opposition to mainstream linguistics led to a change in greater emphasis from standard to non-standard varieties. All minority groups were scrutinized, particularly working-class groups, ethnic minority groups, and adolescents (Coates, 2015). Women, on the other hand, were not seen as a minority group. Until recently, men were generally perceived as being at the center of society, while women were considered peripheral or even unnoticeable.
Linguists have explored language and gender from several viewpoints. These are known as the “deficit approach,” “dominance approach,” “difference approach,” and “dynamic or social constructionist approach” (Coates, 2015, p. 5). Firstly, the deficit paradigm was prevalent in early studies in the field. Coates (2015) states that the most well-known work is Lakoff’s Language and Woman’s Place, which purports to build a ‘women’s language’ (WL). It was distinguished by grammatical patterns such as hedges, “empty” adjectives such as “attractive, divine, and nice,” and “talking in italics,” which means exaggerated intonation contours (Coates, 2015, p. 6). In comparison to the norm of masculine language, WL appeared implicitly inadequate.
Secondly, the dominance approach perceives females as an oppressed group and analyses linguistic distinctions between men’s and women’s speech regarding men’s supremacy and women’s subordination. Thirdly, the difference method emphasizes the assumption that men and women belong to distinct subcultures. Coates (2015) adds that in the 1980s, the ‘discovery’ of distinct male and female subcultures appears to have been a direct outcome of women’s rising reluctance to be considered a subordinate category. Because of the concentration on dynamic interaction characteristics, the fourth and most contemporary method is frequently referred to as the dynamic approach (Coates, 2015). Researchers who employ this method use a social constructionist approach. Moreover, gender identity is regarded as a social construct rather than a ‘provided’ social category (Coates, 2015). Thus, what has transformed is linguists’ perception that gender is not a static, add-on trait of speakers but rather something that is achieved in conversation every time people speak.
Nonetheless, the existing gender imbalance is still visible in the performance and perception of gender identity. Mooney and Evans (2015) acknowledge that whereas most nations have formally recognized men’s and women’s equality, there are still prevalent forms of everyday sexism that may be seen in language. For instance, while on official business in Malaysia in 2013, London Mayor Boris Johnson stated that women attend university to find spouses (Mooney & Evans, 2015). Another British politician observed gender disparities, suggesting that women are better at locating “mustard in the pantry” while males are better at parking automobiles (Money & Evans, 2015, p. 109). He also characterized feminism as a fleeting phenomenon manufactured by dissatisfied middle-class women of a particular physical kind.
The Examples of Sexism in Language
How men and women are spoken to and about may encode and perpetuate men’s dominance and women’s relative lack of power. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2016) address this argument by analyzing conventional disparities in how men and women are referred to in American culture. For instance, one of the most frequently cited examples of gender bias in English is the usage of the pronoun he and its related forms, his or him, to refer to a sex-indefinite antecedent. The grammarian John Kirby incorporated the rule that the male gender was more comprehensive than the female gender in his Eighty-Eight Grammatical Rules in 1746 (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). Additionally, even politicians spoke up against generic they and other alternatives to generic he.
Nevertheless, the recent use of they as a generic does not imply that sexism in language has been eliminated. Mooney and Evans (2015) argue that even the sequence of words might reveal gender inequity. According to Motschenbacher’s research finding of 2013, the male form comes before the female (Mooney & Evans, 2015). In cases when this does not happen, it is in fields considered feminine, notably parenting and children. This research conveys that some fields ‘belong’ to females only.
Another practice that has been given to indicate how female-male power disparities are embedded in the language is the custom of family names. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2016) argue that the traditional use of the husband’s family name by women may indicate that women’s family names do not matter and that this is another strategy for keeping women invisible. Females have traditionally been required to use titles that reflect their marital status, such as Mrs. or Miss, whereas both married and unmarried males are known simply as Mr. (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). As a result, problems arise when individuals evaluate the linguistic resources available for discussing nontraditional families outside the usually prevailing gender order.
There are a few distinctions between the terms relating to males and the related terms for women. Mooney and Evans (2015) consider the distinction between the words ‘bachelor’ and ‘spinster,’ which both mean ‘unmarried adult’ and describe different categories of unmarried individuals. When the authors study how these phrases are employed, we can see that bachelor is favorable while spinster is negative. For instance, ‘eligible bachelor’ or ‘bachelor pad’ are popular collocations for bachelors. These collocations express a positive image of single life for males; their lifestyle is attractive and desired (Mooney & Evans, 2015). ‘Spinster,’ on the other hand, is more likely associated with loneliness or old age and connotes a picture of an older, unattractive lady.
Semantic derogation provides further evidence of sexism, particularly gender inequity. According to Mooney and Evans (2015), the process through which a term acquires negative connotations over time is referred to as semantic derogation. Once connected with women, animal terms, such as pig, dog, and cow, develop negative meanings (Mooney & Evans, 2015). Hence, in the domain of animals, there are cases of semantic derogation directed against women.
Non-Sexist Practices
The linguistic expressions of female inequity and stereotyping are unquestionable. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2016) acknowledge that the dilemma is whether altering the language will change men’s and women’s unbalanced social positions or whether gaining social equality should come before greater linguistic equality. One possible explanation is that language mimics sociocultural patterns (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). For instance, if society treats women unequally, language will merely serve as a symbolic device for showing society’s fundamental discriminatory basis. Coates (2015) states that gender is not a question of two distinct and homogenous social categories, one connected with being a woman and the other with being a man: male and female speakers distinguish in many ways, but there is also considerable overlap. The destruction of the concept of singular masculinity or femininity has contributed to the collapse of binary thinking (Coates, 2015). Gender, instead, should be viewed as a plural notion, and there is a growing focus on the need to be aware of the similarities and distinctions between male and female speakers.
Hence, asserting the diversity of masculinities and femininities is equally crucial. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2016) claim that people who employ non-sexist language do so because they are conscious of gender prejudice in language and are seeking to change. There is an explicit dependency between language as a depiction of social distinctions and a socializing tool.
Language usage patterns may change in tandem with social situations. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2016) suggest that language reform may work as a catalyst for social transformation. The Linguistic Society of America, the most powerful organization in the United States for language researchers, has issued a firm policy statement on non-sexist language usage (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). For instance, it is recommended to utilize plurals (people, they) and other equivalent alternatives wherever possible. It is essential to avoid using general phrases that incorrectly refer to only one sex (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). Furthermore, it is advised that individuals adopt language that discourages sexual stereotyping. Gender-neutral phrases such as server, professor, and nurse can be considered adequate (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 2016). On the other hand, marked terms like a male nurse, waitress, or lady professor cannot. Thus, individuals may take a solid and unifying stance supporting non-discriminatory language use.
Conclusion
A language might be deemed sexist because inequality is a fundamental component of linguistic patterns. Men’s dominance and women’s relative lack of authority may be perpetuated through how people talk. The pronoun he, titles, collocations, the custom of family names, and semantic degradation are all examples of gender prejudice in English. Unquestionably, verbal representations of discrimination and stereotyping exist. Gender should be understood as a plural concept, and there is an increasing emphasis on recognizing the range of masculinities and femininities.
References
Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mooney, A., & Evans, B. (2015). Language, society and power: An introduction (4th ed.). Routledge.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2016). American English: Dialects and variation (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.