Deficit Approach

The Deficit Approach in Language and Gender studies can be traced at least as far back as the
early 1920s, when the renowned linguist Otto Jesperson devoted a chapter of his book
Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin (1922). The very presence of this chapter, added
in all apparent seriousness in his scholarly book on language, seems to suggest that the
language women use deviates from the real thing. There is not of course, any chapter or part
purporting to focus on ‘The man’.

According to his claims made in said chapter, women have a smaller vocabulary and what
vocabulary do they have is not always used properly. For example, women using intensifying
adverbs ‘with disregard of their proper meaning, as in German riesig klein [gigantically small],
English awfully pretty, terribly nice… Danish radsomt morsom [awfully funny]’ (Jesperson,1922:
247). Women also suffer, he says, from an inability to complete a sentence, and while there is
more volume of talk from women, there is less substance in it.

Limitations in Jesperson’s work

None of these claims were based on evidence. They were pure on conjecture on Jesperson’s
part. It may very well have been true that the women in Jesperson’s experience had smaller
vocabularies than their male counterparts; as women were denied the level of education
permitted for men, one would expect them to have fewer words at their disposal.

Jesperson’s ideas remained unchallenged within the field of linguistics for nearly half a century,
even though his claims are clearly grounded in the prevailing gender ideologies of his day and
most of the evidence for his claims comes from his examination of portrayal of women in art
and literature (which often effect prevailing ideologies as well) rather than from observations of
real world behavior.

Robin T. Lakoff’s work

The modern study of Language and Gender began with the publication of Robin Lakoff’s
ground-breaking article, “Language and Women’s Place” (1973, expanded into book form in
1975).

Lakoff identifies quantifiable differences in language use between men and women. According
to her these features demonstrate that women’s talk is confined to frivolous, non-serious
matters that relate to their specific interests which express approval of the trivial and which
convey a personal and emotional reaction to their subject matter. According to her
speculations and personal observations, women use more tag questions as compared to men.
They use sentences with more rising intonations then men. These both features, as she
believes, shows that speaker lacks confidence in the truth of that claim and thus require
confirmation from others(Speer, ).

Then she adds that women use more ‘hedges’ such as well, y’know. In doing so they avoid
making forthright statements. Hence women’s use of hedges is evidence for hesitancy, making
them appear less assertive then men.

They talk in italics i.e. they give double force to certain words in order to convey the importance
of what they are saying. Italics convey doubts about self expression and one’s fears ‘that their
words are apt to have no effect’ (1975:59)

Limitations and Criticism

Although highly influential, Lakoff’s work has been subjected to criticism on a number of

grounds. Like Jesperson, Lakoff viewed women’s speech as weak in comparison with men’s.

Finch (2003:137):

The overall picture which emerges from Lakoff’s study is that women’s speech is generally

inferior to men’s and reflects their sense of personal and social inferiority.

Lakoff relied on literary text, casual observations, and reflections on her own linguistic usages
rather than large bodies of empirical evidence in forming her generalizations. Scholars criticized
Lakoff for her overgeneralisations, as well as her lack of empirical evidences. Lakoff, herself
later realized that not all women used all features of women’s language in all situations.

Another limitation of Lakoff’s work is that it is grounded in the notion that certain language
features necessarily connote weakness. Researchers increasingly have come to realize that
social meanings attached to language forms are highly dependant on the social context
surrounding the forms and on the interpretation conversational participants choose to give the
forms. Thus, one can readily reinterpret so-called “weak” directives as “polite” directives which
indicate that those who use them are more attuned to the linguistic and social needs of fellow
conversationalists than those who use more direct directives. In addition, while “weak”
directives may indeed be indicative of uncertainty in some situations, they may indicate mere
politeness in other settings and even hostility and distance in others. For example, a speaker
may suddenly start using ultra-polite language forms during a conversation with an intimate
friend in order to show anger.
Another concern regarding Lakoff’s 1973 article has to do with broader sociopolitical
implications of her perspective. Scholars in the field of Language and gender have pointed out
that if women consider their language to be weak and inferior, then they will feel pressure to
alter their language so it is more like men’s language which is considered to be “strong” or at
least free of weakness. Further, Lakoff’s views may place pressure on women to decipher or
interpret men’s language, with no corresponding pressure on men to learn to correctly
women’s use of langauge.

Influence of Lakoff’s Work on coming Researchers

Lakoff’s discussion of women’s speech features was highly influential and prompted an entire
generation of researchers to conduct empirical work on women’s language, both in attempts to
find support for Lakoff’s views and in attempts to prove her wrong. For example, some studies
supported Lakoff’s hypothesis that women indeed use more tag questions than men in certain
contexts (Siegler and Siegler, 1976, Crosby and Nyquist, 1977).

Dubois and Crouch (1975) used as their data the discussion sessions following various formal
papers given at a day conference. They listed all the examples of formal tag questions as well as
informal tags (‘Right’ in ‘That’s not easy, right?). A total of thirty three tag questions were
recorded and these were all produced by men.

Deficit/Powerless
William O’Barr and Bowman Atkins (1980) studied langauge variation in American courtrooms.
Using the linguistic features highlighted by Lakoff, they analysed the speech of a range of
witnesses, both male and female. They found some females (of low social status) using the
features in accordance with Lakoff’s categories while others (of hight status) did not. Male
witnesses varied in the same way. These findings led the researchers to claim that what Lakoff
described as ‘women’s langauge’ would be better termed as ‘powerless language’ since these
features are associated with speakers of low status irrespective of gender.

Limitations:
1. An uncritical use of Lakoff’s set of features which Lakoff arrived at through introspection
and personal observation and not through empirical research.
2. Its assumption that any linguistic form such as hedge or tag question, can be matched,
one-to-one, with a specific function.

This view has been challenged by Holmes (1984) , Coats(1987), Cameron (1989).
Holmes analysed tag questions according to whether they express primarily modal or affective
meaning (Tag with primary modal meaning signal the speaker’s degree of certainty about the
proposition expressed and tags whose primary function is affective express speaker’s attitude
to the addressee). Findings showed that women and men did not differ greatly in total usage.
However, the important point to notice is that 59 percent of the tags used by women are
facilitative while 65 % of the tags used by men are modal, expressing uncertainty.

Cameron McAlinden and O’Leary’s (1989) study of tag question supported Holmes findings. The
striking finding was that powerless participant never used affective tags. It seems that affective
tags are associated with powerful speakers, a finding which challenges Lakoff’s assumption that
tags are intrinsically weak.

In short, Deficit Approach has been criticized because it treats men’s linguistic practices as the
norm, renders women’s linguistic practices as problematic, and treats women as an
undifferentiated group. It has lost relevance for researchers but surprisingly in some cultures it
still has ground in public.