Vol. 14 No.

2 – October 2014

Language and Gender:

toward a Critical Feminist Linguistics

A.B. Sri Mulyani

[email protected]
Department of English Letters, Sanata Dharma University

Abstract

This article attempts to map out the development of language and gender research and studies
from its early stage to recent trend. The early language and gender research is inclined to
essentialist view; and it subsequently changes its direction into a more non-essentialist perspective.
Both essentialist and non-essentialist perspectives on language and gender research are not
necessarily affiliated with feminist linguistics. Their research findings mostly conclude that women’s
language is inferior and women are not capable users of language. In a response to such “sexist”
findings, various feminist scholars across the disciplines venture to rethink and redefine gender and
language. Among many different approaches that they employ are two notable views, namely, the
“dominance” and “difference” perspectives. One views man-woman differences in language use as a
reflection of their power relation: the dominant and the subordinate. Meanwhile, the other sees this
different linguistic use as a result of the different ‘sub-cultures’ of their social environment (Coates,
2000: 413 and also Litosseliti, 2006:27). This shift toward a critical feminist linguistics is in fact
informed by the current theories in critical thinking and feminist perspectives.

Keywords: language, gender, feminist perspective

Language and Gender Jespersen reveals that men and women use
language differently, for example, in terms of
Current theories in critical thinking and phonetics, grammar, diction, vocabulary, and
feminist perspectives have informed recent adverbs. Women are seen as less capable
research and studies on language and gender, language users than men: “In language we see
shifting from an essentialist perspective to a this very clearly: the highest linguistic genius
non-essentialist perspective that enables and the lowest degree of linguistic imbecility
critical feminist linguistics to include are rarely found among women” (quoted in
heterogeneity, non-fixity, specificity, and Cameron, 1998: 240).
reflexivity in its perspectives. Research and
studies on language and gender are not Women’s language is also considered to
necessarily affiliated with feminist linguistics be inferior to men’s language, and is
such as seen in Otto Jespersen’s research on appropriately fit enough for their gender
language and gender. Jespersen’s “The domestic roles. Jespersen views language
Woman,” the most frequently quoted and from an essentialist perspective; that is,
anthologized article from his book Language: seeing men-women language difference as
Its Nature, Development and Origin (1922) is the result of sex and gender differences. Thus,
considered to be one of the early and ‘classic’ from this perspective, people use language in
texts in language and gender. In his study, particular ways because of who they are.
Jespersen’s essentialist view of language and

105
A.B. Sri Mulyani

sexist judgment on women’s language have stereotypes when studying the language-
been challenged by many feminist scholars, gender relation.
inviting various different scholars, both male
and female, across the disciplines to redefine Lakoff has re-released her book,
and rethink language and gender. annotating it and responding to past and
current issues and debates on language and
Feminist Perspectives on Language gender, and sharing her ideas with other
and Gender researchers in this book (Litosseliti, 2006:
31). Lakoff’s study on gendered language is
There are many different responses usually categorized into the dominance
among feminist scholars in their attempts to perspective. Fishman with a similar
challenge Jespersen’s sexist commentaries on perspective in “Conversational Insecurity”
women’s language; and these different (1983) has re-examined Lakoff’s research
feminist responses are grouped into two finding, arguing that women’s language is not
major approaches/perspectives: the deficient and that women are competent
“dominance” and “difference” frameworks. language users and the women-men linguistic
The “dominance perspective” sees the man- difference is not only gender-related but also
woman differences in language use as a a matter of hierarchy. Employing the same
reflection of their power relation, the dominant perspective as Lakoff and Fishman,
dominant and the subordinate. Meanwhile, Spender in her seminal work, Man-Made
the “difference perspective,” on the contrary, Language (1980), criticized Lakoff for using
sees this different linguistic usage as the men’s language as the norm for evaluating
result of the different “sub-cultures” of their women’s language, arguing that patriarchy
social environment (Coates, 2000: 413 and privileges men to dominate and to define
also Litosseliti, 2006:27). meaning. Thus, the problem is not the
“deficient” language of women but rather the
Two famous responses among feminist deficiency of the social order (Spender, 1980
scholars are the works of Lakoff and in Litosseliti, 2006: 32). The works of Lakoff,
Fishman; and along with Jespersen’s work, Fishman, and Spender are prominent
their works are also “classic” texts in examples of the “dominance perspective/
language and gender studies. Lakoff’s approach” in language and gender studies.
Language and Woman’s Place (1975) is
considered to be the first work of feminist Meanwhile, the “difference perspective/
linguistics (Cameron, 1998: 216). Lakoff’s approach” can be found in the works of
study shows a similar result to Jespersen’s Tannen, Maltz and Borker, and Gumperz,
conclusion that women’s language was attempting to see that women’s language is
indeed “inferior/deficient” compared to not only different but also positive in its
men’s language; but they have different respect. Such a view follows the theoretical
interpretations of their similar findings. assumption that ‘differences’ are the product
Jespersen sees the difference as essentially of participation and socialization of “different
sprung from biological determinant; on the male and female “sub-cultures.” (Litosseliti,
other hand, Lakoff sees women’s linguistic 2006: 37). Both the “dominance” and
deficiency as the result of the power-gender “difference” perspectives/approaches have
relation assigned to men and women in been criticized for their simple
society in which men frequently dominate conceptualization of gender; however, both
and are more privileged such as in the field of perspectives have a great contribution to
education. Despite her negative result on make and a significant role to play in the
women’s language in her study, Lakoff has an development of critical feminist linguistics.
explicitly positive and sympathetic attitude
toward women. Nonetheless, Lakoff’s study Women’s Movement and Critical
has been widely criticized as lacking Feminist Linguistics
empirical data because she based her
research on her intuition, on casual and The different perspectives/approaches,
personal observations, and on cultural choice of topic and focus in language and

106
 Vol. 14 No. 2 – October 2014

gender studies show that there is no singular theory of “difference”, and Foucault’s theory
perspective among feminists in spite of the of discourse and power (Weedon, 1987).
patriarchal oppression that they experience Weedon encourages feminist scholars to
in society. As a result, language and gender is employ a pragmatic and eclectic approach to
indeed a widely varied field of study. The appropriate these widely varied post-
visible similarity that these different feminist structural theories to serve feminist needs
perspectives/approaches have in common is and interests, facilitating heterogeneity, non-
that all of those perspectives are informed fixity, specificity, and reflexivity. Meanwhile,
and influenced by the development of critical according to Talbot “Feminist linguistics is
theories in linguistics and feminism as well. interested in identifying, demystifying, and
This fact also reflects the inseparable resisting the ways in which language is used,
connection between the historical together with other social practices, to reflect,
development of feminism and the create and sustain gender divisions and
development of feminist linguistics although inequalities in society” (Talbot, 1998 in
feminist linguistics emerged from within the Litosseliti, 2006: 23).
linguistics discipline itself.
Following the perspectives of feminist
Mills has mapped three chronological post-structuralism outlined by Cameron
waves in the history of feminism. The “first- (1992, 1997), Luke and Gore (1992a),
wave feminism” is generally related to the Weedon (1987), and Pennycook’s Critical
suffragette movement in the 19th and 20th Inquiry in Applied Linguistics (2001),
centuries. The “second-wave” feminism is Pavlenko defines feminist post-structuralism
linked to the women’s movement in the
1960s, resisting sex discrimination and as approaches to language study that
struggling for equal opportunity and the strive (a) to understand the relationship
emancipation of women. This second-wave between power and knowledge; (b) to
feminist influence can also be seen in theorize the role of language in
language and gender studies and research production and reproduction of power,
that have more focus on sexist language, difference, and symbolic domination; and
issues of dominance and difference in (c) to deconstruct master narratives that
interaction, and a positive re-evaluation of oppress certain groups –be it immigrants,
women’s language. Finally, “third-wave” women, or minority members – and
feminism moves toward “more critical, devalue their linguistic practices (in
constructivist, and poststructuralist Norton & Toohey, 2004: 53).
theoretical paradigms” (Litosseliti, 2006: 23).
Critical feminist linguistics also moves In essence, feminist post-structural
towards this “third-wave” feminist influence, linguistics/critical feminist linguistics
taking a more interdisciplinary approach, attempts to investigate how women and men
shifting from the concern of how women and are constructed from a wider perspective
men use language differently to the concern through language, and sees gender not as a
of how language constructs both men and unitary category but as heterogeneous:
women in their social interaction. diverse and multiple, shifting/not-fixed, and
sometimes conflicting. Thus, gender as a
The connection of feminist linguistics and category should be examined from a wider
the post-structural approach can be seen perspective in its specific relationship with
through Weedon’s main argument on other categories such as race, ethnicity, class,
feminist post-structural concepts in her book age, and sexual orientation (Weedon, 1987).
Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory
(1987) and Talbot’s concept of feminist In accordance with the “third-wave”
linguistics (1998). Weedon maps different feminist influence on critical feminist
strands of poststructuralist frameworks from linguistics, the writer of this paper attempts
different theories of various scholars such as to show that currently, critical feminist
the structural linguistics of Saussure, linguistics with its critical and constructivist,
Althusser’s theory of ideology, the post-structural approach that facilitates
psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacan, Derrida’s heterogeneity, non-fixity, specificity, and

107
A.B. Sri Mulyani

reflexivity in language and gender studies has also multiple, changing, and shifting/not-
also penetrated EFL and ESL studies and fixed as a woman, immigrant, mother, wife,
research as seen in the works of Daly (2000), worker, and other identities attached to this
Micciche (2001), Peirce (1995), Pavlenko, immigrant woman that influence her second
Aneta (2004), Sunderland (1992 and 2004), language acquisition. Peirce also extends the
and Lin (2004). concept of motivation to “investment” that
includes larger socio-cultural-historical
The feminist post-structural take on relationship involving the learners. Peirce’s
heterogeneity, non-fixity, specificity can be study is a critical examination of the interplay
clearly seen in Peirce’s “Social Identity, of gender, ethnicity, age, class, capital, and
Investment, and Language Learning” that language in SLA.
attempts to show that second language
acquisition (SLA) is closely related to the Meanwhile, Lin’s “Introducing a Critical
motivation, gender and ethnic identity of Pedagogical Curriculum: A feminist Reflexive
learners in a particular/specific social-power Account” (2004) displays the feminist post-
relation. The poststructuralist feminist structural attempt to be more critical and
linguistic agenda (as identified/defined by involved by continuously self-questioning
Pavlenko) is clearly seen in Peirce’s choice of and self-examining feminist practice. Lin re-
subjects/topic/focus: immigrant women in examines and re-evaluates her teaching
Canada in their attempt to learn English and strategies and interaction with her students
to fit to their new social environment. to better understand the problems, needs,
Peirce’s focus on immigrant women also and interests of both teacher and students
reveals her attempt to challenge the view of and to negotiate those concerns so as to come
gender as a universal category. up with a more ‘successful learning teaching
experience.
The major theorization of women is
undoubtedly centered on white middle class Self-reflexivity in terms of learning
heterosexual women; and is generally strategy, interaction, and teaching materials
deemed to be universal and applicable to all are also be main concerns in Pavlenko’s
women. Peirce rejects such universality in “Gender and Sexuality in Foreign and Second
gender categories and her work shows that Language Education: Critical and Feminist
specificity is crucial in doing gender studies. Approaches” (2004). Pavlenko’s article
Her work displays how women of different discusses the relation of gender and second
ethnicity and class are constructed differently (L2) and foreign language (FL) learning
in society through language. The specificity of inside and outside the classroom, particularly
women’s class and ethnic identity also needs by using a feminist poststructuralist
to be properly situated in their specific social approach. Pavlenko emphasizes the various
setting. The immigrant women in Peirce’s different perspectives on and responses to
study may experience different gender-power language and gender within feminism itself.
relationships in their attempt to master Her decision to select a feminist
English if they are situated in different places poststructuralist critical linguistic
other than Canada. The point here is that perspective in her study is because this
specific location or locality does matter. The feminist poststructuralist theoretical
concept of the “community of practice” by framework not only pays attention to gender
Lave and Wenger and also the ideas of Eckert difference but also includes other differences
and McConnell-Ginet, stated that it is not only such as gender in relation to race, ethnicity,
a matter of location and people that is class, and other differences. This perspective
important but also day to day linguistic, views subject as a full individual with her/his
social, and cultural interactions of the people multiple social cultural identities.
within the community.
Pavlenko critically examines FL/L2
Peirce’s work also reveals the feminist education where gender plays a key role in
poststructuralist concept of heterogeneity, language learning and teaching; and by
showing that one immigrant woman does not applying feminist post-structuralism in this
only have ethnic and gender identities but research, she analyzes (a) gendered

108
 Vol. 14 No. 2 – October 2014

inequalities in access to material and conclusion, Daly invites readers to examine

symbolic resources, (b) the gendered nature and rethink current gender issues more
of linguistic interaction, and (c) sexual critically, and to “understand them within a
harassment as a discursive and social history of male privilege in educational
practice. To capture this multiplicity and discourse, which is always politically and
plurality of identities and differences in economically determined.” In its essence, this
language and gender research and studies, article does indeed offer a critical perspective
Pavlenko also suggests the use of postcolonial on the interplay of political, economical
theories. Similar to Micceche’s study, concerns, the media, education, and gender.
Pavlenko’s article is an interdisciplinary
study on gender and language Meanwhile, Micciche’s “Contrastive
Rhetoric and the Possibility of Feminism”
The attempt not to isolate gender in (2001) invites us to examine teacher-student
education from a larger social perspective is interactions in the classroom in relation to
seen in Daly’s “Gender Differences in gender and race. Micciche offers feminist
Achievement in English: a Sign of the Times?” principles and perspectives as a theoretical
(2000). Daly’s article critically examines the model to elaborate and expand research on
intervention of political and economic the contrastive rhetoric theory (CRT).
interests, and media reports in appropriating Contrastive rhetoric (CR) has its roots in the
and contextualizing gender differences. It United States as a response to traditional
points to the British government’s campaign composition teachers who tended to have the
in the 1990s to improve literacy “standards” assumption that their students are
by focusing on gender, particularly based on monolingual and monocultural (Kaplan,
the different performance between male and 1966). CR comes into being to help learners
female students in English classrooms as keep up with the discourse structure of
deeply rooted in the political and economic Standard American Schooled English (SASE).
discourse to maintain “male dominance Thus, in its original intention, CR addressed
within educational success.” “the need of individuals for whom English
was not a first language—specifically, foreign
Daly also reveals the key role of the students in U.S. tertiary institutions,” not only
media in reporting the different performance in terms of language difference in
in English classrooms in terms of the binary phonological, morphological, and
opposition of gender performance in which grammatical features but also in discourse
girls perform better than boys. This media and rhetorical features such as seen in
articulation polarizes a further interpretation writing and reading classes. CRT focus on
of gender differences and gender culture and cultural difference and has also
performance and invites governmental and influenced the recent politicization of second-
national initiatives to help male students language teaching. According to Micciche CRT
achieve better literacy than female students. is significant for L1 and L2 classrooms,
The article further reports that the national however, it has frequently been applied in the
intervention and initiatives to improve male L2 classroom contexts only, and focusing on
students’ educational success have been done students’ linguistic and cultural differences.
through the “revision” of teaching materials
and strategies, and of the curriculum as well Micciche offers feminist perspectives to
as by testing and evaluation. Those efforts extend CRT to facilitate the concept of
have also been challenged and criticized teaching as “a cultural phenomenon affected
because of the overtly intended programs to by social identifications and representations”;
benefit only male students which will thus, teaching is also “a politics of
disadvantage female students. representation and scholarship as a form of
cultural work.” The combination of feminist
Some research and recent studies have perspectives and CRT will enable researcher
debunked the misperception that “girls have to see how students perceive their teachers
a greater natural aptitude for English” and as a “racial/gendered subject” and how
reveal that “there is no essential difference in teachers conduct learning/teaching strategies
ability. The difference is in attitude.” In her as well because in this view pedagogy is not

109
A.B. Sri Mulyani

only concerned with the interaction of Conclusion

students and teachers in the classrooms but
also with “the process of socialization that In conclusion, the shift of the view of
instruct teachers on how to position language from essentialist to non-essentialist
themselves in the classrooms” (Micciche, perspectives has become the current trend
2001:82). This article is a challenging and issue in language and gender studies and
invitation to undertake research on the research. Poststructuralist frameworks that
dynamics of student/teacher linguistic and emphasize heterogeneity, non-fixity,
cultural backgrounds and on their gender and specificity, and reflexivity have also been
social identities. adopted and appropriated b the critical
feminist linguistics in redefining and
Similar to the studies conducted by rethinking gender and language. This
Micciche and Pavlenko, Sunderland’s “Gender perspective of poststructuralist critical
in the EFL Classroom” (1992) also examines feminist linguistics has also entered into EFL
gender and gender construction in a and ESL studies and research in terms of
prominent and salient setting: the EFL learning teaching strategies, interactions,
classroom. Sunderland focuses particularly motivation, teaching materials, and other
on, the English language itself; on materials aspects as seen in the works of Peirce,
that include grammars, textbooks, Pavlenko, Sunderland, Daly, Lin, and
dictionaries, and teacher’s guides; and finally Micciche. It is evident that language and
on processes such as learning styles and gender studies and research have moved
strategies, and teacher-learner and learner- towards a critical feminist linguistic
learner interaction. In addition Sunderland perspective that includes heterogeneity, non-
attempts to unveil “some implications of fixity, specificity, and reflexivity in the search
gender in materials and classroom for a better understanding of gender and
interaction for language acquisition.” language interplay.
Sunderland’s findings are in line with Daly’s
result in the attempt to show the myth and
misinterpretation that females perform
better in language achievement. On the
contrary, both Sunderland and Daly’s studies Reference
reveal the disadvantaged position of female
students in the classroom process, in
Coates, J. (ed.). Language and Gender: A
materials, and within the English language
Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
itself, not to mention their further
2000. Print.
disadvantages in the social world at large
outside the classrooms. Both researchers see
Cameron, D. (ed.). The Feminist Critique of
that the assessment of language learning in
Language: A Reader. London: Routledge,
terms of gender differences
1998. Print.
(superiority/inferiority) is indeed not
productive at all. Instead, they urge people to
Daly, C. “Gender Differences in Achievement
examine this gender difference in a wider and
in English: a Sign of the Times?” in J.
more complex perspective; for Daly, it should
Davidson and J. Moss (eds) Issues in
be seen in political and economical contexts,
English Teaching, London: Routledge,
and for Sunderland, this complex context
224-242, 2000. Print.
must also include the influence of the
environment, attitudes, expectations, social
Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. “Think
values and norms, and career opportunities
Practically and Look Locally: Language
as suggested by scholars such as Loulidi
And Gender as Community-Based
(1990). Sunderland’s applied study of gender
Practice” in C. Roman, S Juhasz, C,
and language is critical for scholars, teachers,
Miller (eds.) The Women and Language
and students who are interested in the
Debate: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick,
subject of gender and language.
N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 432-460,
1994. Print.

110