LANGUAGE and Womans Place ROBIN LAKOFF ¢ ‘ HARPER TORCH BOOKS, Harper @ Row, Publishers, New York Grand Rapids, Philadelphia, St Lovis, San Francisco London, Singapore. Sydney, Tokyo‘cl nenladgment is hry made to Cais Unie Pr perm Stato repint “Lanne snd Noma’ Phe” by Robi ak om Langage and ‘Seu meaner ano woman ack. Copyright © 175 by Rob Lak AB ies ‘arcade id Stas Aenea. No pat sto my ewe ‘epoca in any maar won rien emis exp ine ee of il ‘Sorin bodes rial res ad ea Fe iafrmaton aos Harper ‘Tne Patan ne 0 cath Sr, New Yor, MDD Pole sina ‘Stcmiy Canta by Pteny & Whee ited Teron Ft ane roncomoons ion pb 988. ae 5183885 anon si FOR ANDY. whose generation will, I hope have transcended these issues, by the time it can read this book.Contents Prefce 1 Part I; LANGUAGE AND WOMAN'S PLACE 1. Inwroduction 3 2. Talking Like a Lady 8 3. Talking about Women 19 4. Conclusion 43, Par I: WHY WOMEN ARE LADIES 1. Introduction 31 2 Forms of Politeness 64 3, Women and Politeness 73, 4. Conclusion — 83, Bibliography 85Preface ‘One can look at woman's postion in ou society from any numberof points of view and gain enlightenment from each. In this book Lave ‘wid 10 see what we ea lear about the way women view themselves snd everyone's assumptions about the nature and roe of women fom ‘the use of language in our culture, that sto say, the language used ‘byand about women. While my reasons fr taking this particular tack are based on my taining in linguistics, I feel that such study is quite Justifable in ts own terms. Language is moce amenable to precise reproduction on paper and unambiguous analysis than are other forms of human behavior; i we tell someone he has done something sexist, we often don’t know how to describe exactly what he's dane so that we can argue meaningfully about the truth ofthat assertion the evidence vanishes before it can be studied. But if we say to some- ‘one, "You said.., which s insulting to women,” provided he agrees that he as made the statement, it is availble and open to elose analysis. Often, as psychoanalysis has shown in soch detail, we say things without knowing their significance, but the fact that we have said them shows that there is more going on in our minds than we ‘consciously take cet fr. By looking a the way we customarily talk if we a ‘women, otal about women whoever we are, we can gai insight into the way we feel—about ourselves, about women— trough close analysis of what we say and how we say it tin the ‘end we can ask and perhaps even answer the question: Why did sy it? 1 my hope, then, to look at some of these linguistic asues and sce wat they tell us. ‘The ideas that are discussed in the book are the result of many2/ Language and Woman's Pace hours of mind-tetching and insightful discussion and argument with ‘many people, mention of whose names heres scarcely a just reward forwhat each has contributed to my thinking. Fist of alin both time and importance, George Lakoff has been my teacher, adviser, and friend, linguistically and otherwise for many years; most of what T know about language can be traced to him. I have also learned by having to argue him out of malechauvinst ways and assumptions many times over the years; probably { would never have started thinking about the questions posed here had he not forced me to defend myself in arguments aboot linguistic sexism, ‘Many of my colleagues and fiends have also been helpful let me single out «few for mention, though many others have been helpful swell, Charlote Bake, Wallace Chafe, Herb and Eve Clark, Louise Cherry, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Diebold, James Fox, David Green, Georgia Green, John and Jenny Gumperz, Dell Hymes, Mary Ritchie Key, John and Sally Lawler, Susan Matisof, James D. MeCatey, Michelle Rosado John R. Ross, Louis Sass, Sula Stan- ley, Emily Stoper, Elizabeth Travgost, Monica Wilson, and Philip Zimbardo. T should also ike to thank the Center for Advanced Study forthe Behavioral Sciences, where [was a Fellow in 1971-72 and where 1 id most ofthe research and writing underlying the ist part ofthis book; nd the National Science Foundation, which has supported the research for thee studies under grant GS-38476, PART 1 Language and Womans Place 1/ Introduction Language uses us as much a8 we use language. As much as our choice ‘of forms of expression is guided by the thoughts we want to express, to the same exten the way we fel about the things i the eal wold governs the way we express ourselves about these thing. Two words «can be synonymous in their dencatve sense, but one wil be used in case a speaker fel favorably toward the abject the word denotes, the ther if he is unfavorably disposed. Similar situations are legion, involving unexpectedness, interest, and other enctional reactions on the part of th speaker to what he is talking about. Tha, while two speakers may be talking about the same thing or real-world situation, ‘ther descriptions may end up sounding tteey unelated, The follow: ing wellknown paradigm willbe istrative. (DG) Lam strong- minded. () You are obstinate (6) He is pigheaded, If itis indeed trve that our fesings about the world color our ‘expression of our thoughts, then we can use our linguistic behavior4 Language and Woman's Place ts diagnostic of oar hidden fesings about things. For often—as ‘anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with modem psycho- Analyt writing knows too well—we can interpret our overt actions, ions, in accordance with our dsites, distorting them as wwe se fit, But the linguistic data ace thers, in black and white, or on tape, unambiguous and unavoidable. Hence, while inthe ideal world ‘other kinds of evidence for sociological phenomena would be desirable along wit, or in addition to, linguistic evidence, sometimes atleast ‘the latter i all we can get with certainty, This is especially likely in ‘emotionally charged areas like that of sexism and other forms of discriminatory behavior. This book, then, i an attempt to provide diagnostic evidence from language use for one type of ineuity that ‘nas been claimed to exist in our sacle: that between the oes of men and women Iwill attempt to discover what language use can tll us bout thenature and extent of any inequity; an finaly to ask whether ‘anything can be doe, fom the linguistic end of the problem: does one correct Socal inequity by changing linguistic disparities? We wll find, I think, that women experience linguistic discrimination in two ways: in the way they are taught to wie language, and in the way ‘general language use teats ther. Both tend, a we shal ee, to rele- [le women to certain subservient functions: that of sex object, or servant; and therfore certain lexical tems mean one thing applid to men, another to women, a diference that cannot be predicted except With ceference tothe diferent roles the sexes pla in society The data on which I am basing my clims have been gathered mainly by introspection: Ihave examined my own speech and that of| ry acquaintances, and have used my own intuitions in analyzing it have also made use of the media: in some ways, te speech heard, for example, n commercials or situation comedies on television mit- tors the speech ofthe tlevison-watching community if it did not (not necessarily a8 an exact replica, but perhaps as a election of how ‘the audience ses itself or wishes it were), it would not sueced. The sociologist, anthropologist or ethnomethodologist familar with what ‘seem to him more eror-poof datagathering techniques, uch a the recording of random conversation, may abject that these introspective methods may produce dubious results But fist, it should be noted Language and Woman's Place / that any procedures at some point introspective: che gatherer mus analyz his data, ster all. Then, one necessarily selects a subgroup of the population to work with i the educated, white, middle-class ‘group that the writer ofthe bok identifies with less worthy of study than any other? And finaly, there is the purely pragmatic issue random conversation must g0 on for quite some time, and the re- corder must be excedingly lucky anyway, in order to produce ev ence of any particular hypothesis, for example, that there i sexism in language, that there isnt sexism in language If we are to have & 00d sample of data to analyze, his wll have tobe elicited arifcially from someone; I submit Iam as good an artificial source of data as anyone. ‘These defenses are not meant to suggest that ether the methodol- ny othe results are nal, or perfect. I mean to suggest one possible approach tothe problem, one st of facts. I do fee thatthe majority ofthe claims T make will hold forthe majority of speakers of English {hat infact, moch may, mutatis mandi, be universal. But granting that this study docs in itself represent the specch of only a small subpart of the community, iis til of use in indicating directions for further research in this area: in providing a basis for comparison, 8 taking-of point for farther studies, a means of discovering what is universal in the data and what isnot, and why. Thats tosay,Ipresent what follows esas the final word on the subject f sexism in language anything but tha!—than as » goad to further research, a lite git “talks rough” ikea boy, she will normally be ost ized, scolded, or made fun of In this way society, in the form of & chil’ parents and friends, keeps her inline, in her place Tis social izing process, in most ofits aspects, harmles ané often necessary, but in this particular instance—the teaching of special linguistic uses tolitlegrt—it raises serious problems, though the teachers may well be unaware of this. IF the lite gir leans her lesson well, she isnot ‘rewarded with unquestioned acceptance onthe part of society athe, the acquisition of this special style of speech will ater be an excuse others use 1 keep her in a demeaning positon, 1o refuse to take her seriously a8 human being. Because ofthe way she speaks, the litle slow growa to womanhood —will be accused of being unable to6 / Language and Woman's Place speak precisely of to express herself forcefully Tam sure that the preceding paragraph contains an oversimplified eseription of the language learning proces in American society. [Rather than saying that ith boys and litle il, from the very star, Tear two diferent ways of speaking I think, from observation and reports by others, thatthe process is more complicated. Since the ‘mother and other women are the dominant influences inthe lives of ‘most children under the age of fe, probably both boys. and gil frst learn “women's language” as their fist language. (Iam told that in Japanese, chiklen ofboth sexes use the particles proper for women ‘nil the age of five oso; then the itl Bay stats to be ediculed if the ues them, and 0 soon learns to desist) As they grow older, boys capcilly go through astage of rough alk, as described by Spock and ‘others; this is probably cisouraged in ite gis more strongly than in litle boys, in whom parents may often in it more amusing than shocking By thetime children are tenors, and split up into same-sex peer groups, the two languages are already present, according to my recollections and observations. Bu it seems that what has happened is tha the boys have unlearned thee orginal form of expression, and doped new forms of expresion, while the gir retain their old ways (of speech. (One wonders whether this is related in any way to the ‘often-neticed fact that litle boys innovate, in their play, much more ‘than litle gies) The ultimate result isthe same, ofcourse, whatever the interpretation. ‘Soa gis darned if she does, dammed ifshe doesn. she refuses to talk like lady, she is ridiculed and subjected to rics 25, tunfeminine; i she docs learn, she is ridiculed as unable to think ‘leary, unable to take part in serious discussion: n some sense, a8 tes than full human, These two choices which a woman has—to be less than & woman or Jes than a person—ae highly painful, ‘An objection may be raised here that [am overstating the case against women’s language since mot women who gts far as college lear to switch from women's to netral language under appropriate situations Gin class, talking to professors, a job interviews, and such). ‘But I think this objection overlooks @ numberof problems. Fis, i girl must learn two dileets, she becomes in effect a bilingual. Like Language and Womans Place / 7 many bilinguals she may never relly be master of ether language, uh Hier command of both is adequate enough for most purposes, she may never feel really comfortable using either, and never be ‘certain that she i using the right one in the ight place to the right person. Shifting from one language to another requires special aware- ness tothe nuances of socal situations, special leriness to possible disapproval. It may be tht the extra energy that must be (sabcon- sciously or otherwise) expended inthis game is energy sapped from ‘more creative work, and hinders women frem expressing themselves a wel, as fly ora freely as they might otheewise. Thus, ia git, knows that a professor will be receptive to commen that sound scholarly, objective, unemotional, she wll f course be tempted to use ‘neutral language in class or in conference. But if she knows that, 2s ‘Aman, he wll espond more approvingly to her at other levels if she ‘uses women’s language, and sounds filly and fesinin, woa't she be confuse as wells sorely tempted in two direction at once? Iis often noticed that women participate les in class discussion than men— ‘perhaps this linguistic indecisiveness one reason why. (Incidentally, don't find this tre in my classes) twill be found that the overall fet of “women’s language” ‘meaning both language restricted in use to women and language descriptive of women alone—isthititsubmerges a woman's personal idemity, by denying her the means of expressing hese strongly, on the one hand, and encouraging expressions that suggest trivility in subject matter and uncertainty about it; and, when Woman is being discussed, by treating her as an objct—sexual or otherwise—but never serious person with individual views. OF cours, other forms of behavior inthis society have the same purpose; but the phenomena seem especialy clear linguistically ‘The ultimate eet of these discrepancies i that women are sys tematicaly denied acess to power, onthe grounds tha they are not capable of holding it as demonsteated by their linguistic behavior along with other aspects oftheir behavior; and the irony hee is thet women are made 1 fee! thatthe deserve such treatment, because of {inadequacies in their own intelligence and/or education. But infact, itis precisely because women have leaned their lescns so well tht8 / Language ond Woman's Place they later slfer such dsriminatin. (This situation i of course true to some extent forall disadvantaged groups: white mals of Anglo- Suwon descent set the standards and seem to expect other groups to be respectfl of them but not to adope them—they are to “keep in their pce") T should ike now to talk at length about some specie examples of Tings phenomena Ihave described in general terms shove. I want to talk first about the ways in which women's speech dirs from men's speech; nd then, to discuss 2 number ofcassin which it seems eae that women are discriminated against (osully unconsciously) bythe language everyone uses. thinkit wil become evident fom this discussion that both types of phenomena refet a deep bias onthe part ‘of our eultare (and, indeed, of every culture I have ever heard off ‘against women being accorded full tatus as rational creatures and individuals in ther own right; and ially, 1 would keto tlk briety| shout what might be done, and perhags what should not be done, to remedy things. 2/ Talking Like a Lady "Womens language” shows up in all levels of the grammar of English, We find differences in the choice and frequeney of lexical items; in the situations in which certain syntactic rules are performed; in intonatonal and other supesegmental pttrns. As an example of lexical dliferenes, imagine & man and a woman both looking at the same wall, painted pinkish shade of purple. The woman may sty (2) (2) The wall is mauve, with no one consequently forming any special impression of her asa result of the words alone; but i the man should say 2), one might well conclude he was imitating woman sarcastically or was a homo- sexual or an interior decorator. Women, then, make far more precise