ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (07/22/83)
#N:ucbesvax:10300014:000:3790 ucbesvax!turner Jul 12 00:06:00 1983 Language and Woman's Place Robin Lakoff, Harper & Row, New York 1975 (83 pages) Robin Lakoff is a professor at U.C. Berkeley in the department of Linguistics. Her style of research is not "empirical"--she is, in fact, somewhat disdainful of what she sees as abuses of the scientific method in social science and psychology. She draws freely from fiction, film, and even television, when it suits her purposes. In her words, I have examined my own speech and that of my acquaintances, and have used my own intuitions . . . . I have also made use of the media: in some ways, the speech heard, for example, in commercials or situation comedies . . . mirrors the speech of the television-watching community: if it did not (not necessarily as an exact replica, but perhaps as a reflection of how the audience sees itself or wishes it were) it would not succeed. Her methodological justifications are more exact than this, but her main point is clear: any source of data will be biased by the observer or analyst, in the process of highly motivated scrutiny. And unavoidably so, when studying human behavior. The thesis of her essay is, roughly, that women are taught modes of speaking that either compromise their credibility as full, legitimate adults, or compromise their socially-designated femininity. It is a double bind: to be feminine is to be "a lady", and to speak like one, and to have the speech of men conditioned by the presence of "a lady". But it is also to refrain from bluntness, categorical reasoning, jibes and jokes of certain kinds, profanity, loose articulation, etc., lest one be seen to be too serious or aggressive. Of course, women are given their own style of speech, which ("real") men avoid for fear of sounding effeminate. One of her examples: neutral women only ------- ---------- great adorable terrific charming cool sweet neat lovely divine The word "lady" itself (as opposed to "woman") comes under some scrutiny. While having a connotation of gentility, "lady" also implies frivolity, or low station. The more demeaning the job, the more the person holding it (if female, of course) is likely to be described as a \lady/. Thus \cleaning lady/ is at least as common as \cleaning woman/, \saleslady/ as \saleswoman/. But one says, normally, \woman doctor/. To say \lady doctor/ is to be very condescending: it constitutes an insult. For men, there is no such dichotomy. \Garbageman/ or \sales- man/ is the only possibility, never \garbage gentleman/. And of course, since in the professions the male is unmarked, we naver have \man (male) doctor/. (p. 23) The list goes on: master vs. mistress, bachelor vs. spinster, widower vs. widow, all words whose parallelism extends only as far as the physical. Socially, they involve a world of difference. There is much more, but I urge you to find this book and read it. Lakoff regards the he/she controversy as a waste of time, in view of all the less obvious and more invidious gender distinctions that permeate our language. As good as she is in dissecting the semantics of individual words and titles, she is far more subtle in dealing with grammar and forms of expression. While occasionally pedantic (or at any rate, excessively dry in her humor), the essay moves briskly, with much for any sociologist, or sociolinguist, without leaving adrift the more casual students of language. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner P.S. Robin Lakoff is also co-author of the forth-coming "The Politics of Beauty". P.P.S. Robin Lakoff is not to be confused with the Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff, although she readily admits to having been confused *by* him, when they were married. (p. 2)