LANGUAGE AND GENDER: THE ESSENTIALISTS VIEW

                                       

Language and gender encompasses discussions of both the ways in which language is used by men and women and the ways language is used about men and women. There are two main theoretical approaches to language and gender: the Essentialist and the Constructionist Approaches.

The Essentialists approaches drew on the idea of gender developed from the view of the individual’s biological sex. Sex was considered a vital biological category and gender was usually mapped onto sex, making gender too an essential category. This approaches focus on ‘binary oppositions’-male and female, and the categories of behaviours ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ were given to males and females as such. The Essentialists approaches include the deficit, dominance and difference approaches.

These approaches are similar in certain ways. They all focus on ‘gender differences’ and on language reflecting gender for instance how men/boys talk differently from how girls/women talk. In the deficit approach, ‘women language’ was seen as deficient and inferior to that of males. Women are claimed to have smaller vocabulary, an inferior command of syntax, use hyperbole, form incoherent sentences and are non-creative users of language. It can be seen that men’s and women’s languages have specific features across times and spaces and leaves no chance for diversity as well as inter and intra-group similarities.

It is also argued that women speech most often focuses on minor issues and their use of hedges, such as ‘em’, ‘’sort of’ among others suggest uncertainty  and seen as  “ an apology for making assertion at all” (Lakoff 1975: 54) and portrays a lack of confidence. Women are also said to have used more hyper-correct forms, suggesting an effort to perhaps raise the level of their ‘deficient language’. This again leave no chance for diversity as well as inter and intra-group similarities.

The dominance approach holds the view that, in mid-sex talk, women are dominated in interaction by men. Conversation was perceived as a site of male dominance and the suppression of women. Traditionally, women must not assert themselves in interactions. If a woman does, then she must hedge to suppress the effect and respect for the laid down societal norms. Men dominate women by being more verbose, initiating topics, more successfully, interrupt women in mid-sex talk. This is a way of ‘doing power’ in face-to-face conversations, indicating that ‘women’s language’ is weak and powerless.

These approaches differ in some ways. The dominance approach sees ‘women’s language’ as a portrayal of women’s powerlessness and the deficit approach sees it as week and deficient but the difference approach sees it as different from men’s but valued positively.  It perceives gender differences as resulting from ‘cultural differences.’ Men and women are socialized into different sub-cultures. There are varied interactions of and by both men and women.

In conclusion, the Essentialist approaches to language and gender consider ‘women’s language’ as inferior to that of men, a product of weakness and a portrayal of their diverse socio-cultural orientations. Gender identity is seen a innate and predictive of use of language. They overlook of take no cognizance of agency. They give rise to gender stereotypes and cannot account for complex contextual use of language, however, the difference approach sees ‘women’s languages’ as different due to the socio-cultural orientation rather than inherent gender identity.