One of the earliest lessons that we learn in life is how to manage language according to the context in which we are speaking. The structure and content of those lessons, though, will vary depending on the cultural background of the person speaking, as well as the person’s gender, in many cases, as well as their goals for a particular conversation. A man applying for a teaching position at an elite boarding school might well, in an interview, face a question about his views on professional integrity. This man has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in his teaching field, and is Japanese, from the third generation in his family to have been born in the United States. An African-American woman, interviewing at the same school for a secretarial position, holding a high school diploma and an associate’s degree, might well hear the same question. However, the different ways in which they might answer that question would have a lot to do with their paradigms for managing language. There are many studies in place that talk about the different ways that we manage the language that we use, for the very reason that the language that we use comes through all of the various filters that shape our experience of, and interaction with, the world at large.
If we are to think on a practical level about the various filters that affect the ways we process our experience into language, part of this processing includes factors that have to do with cultural categories and power relations, as such terms as “gender” and “ethnicity” move from being ideas into actions. Specific cultural values, characteristics and traditions apply their particular flavor to the people who grow up in their milieu, and those serve to mark people who have grown up within a particular community. And so the same practices and habits that traditionally differentiate men from women also differentiate members of different socioeconomic classes, and even people from different ethnic backgrounds.
When considering the ways in which language interacts with these differences, it is necessary to take a close analysis of the ways in which language interacts with various differences within a community’s normal practices. The idea of a speech community refers to a collection of speakers who follow a common set of norms for that language (Gumperz, p. 42). This definition is important, because it suggests that it is action that separates linguistic groups from one another, rather than inherent traits such as gender and background. Because the practice of speech has the most influence on outcomes, it makes sense to look at results rather than theoretical speculation. This makes Lave & Wenger’s definition of the “community of practice” the most helpful to use here (pp. 69 and 116). In short, their definition refers to a group of people who have become cohesive through shared ownership in a particular endeavor. This sort of community differs slightly from the normative notion of the community, because traditional communities generally do not have a shared action is a criterion for membership. In a community of practice, though, it is not just shared traits that form the community, but shared traits as well as common actions. This does not necessarily mean that everyone in the community of practice has consciously chosen membership in that group; however, it does mean that they have come to share a common set of characteristics as speakers. Indeed, it is not uncommon for people to belong to multiple communities of practice; consider the example of the man in the introduction. His various communities of practice (being a male, being Asian, having advanced degrees, and being associated with an institution of higher learning) all overlap around his personality, but he can certainly be said to taking part in all of those. However, those parts of his individual speech composite that come from being Asian (such as, perhaps, taking classes in his family’s native language outside the elementary school day) are different from those associated with being male, for example.
Considering gender, for example, when it comes to different methods of language management, there have historically been two different areas of interest: gender differences that appear in the different male and female subcultures. In this area, the various choices that go into speech come from the different values and interactional instincts that are associated with those two subgroups. The only reason that language is worthy of study, according to this area of pursuit, is because it represents communicative interaction, but the more important area of study is sociocultural in nature.
The other area of interest turns the analysis inside out and instead of looking at language as one minor component in a holistic picture of a subculture, sets the subculture aside and looks at language itself, focusing primarily on intratextual phenomena. While gender is viewed as one of many attributes that determine an individual’s role in a community, causing by itself a definite relationship between one’s gender and one’s speech, this area views it as simply one reference point among many.
However, there are enough phenomena that appear on their own as a result of such singular factors as gender to make them a worthy topic of discussion. If one considers gender, such seemingly minor items as the pronunciation of vowels, the various dynamics that define conversation, and even in the formulation of syntax come from male power, according to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet. (p. 466). However, there are some differences in the speech patterns of men and women that cannot be adequately explained by the gender difference, which means that there may be other cultural factors involved. For example, many examples identified by Gumperz (p. 43) have shown problems in communication, including social tension, and these problems may have gender as part of their composition, but some of the confusion also comes through unknown differences. Based on the research of Maltz & Borker, who suggested that single-sex peer groups are where people learn the basic rules of interacting with one another in peer relationships (p. 70). These rules for conversation are strikingly similar across different cultural backgrounds, in terms of the differences between the male and female groups. Even more interestingly, when adult men and women talk to one another, each group unknowingly carries in different ideas to the conversations, based on the assumption that the other person is going against proper norms. This means that significant misinterpretations can take place, as the male in the conversation may interpret the female’s words on the basis of his own conversational matrix of interpretation, and so he will misunderstand what she is saying. Of course, the same misunderstanding can happen in the opposite conversational direction as well.
There are several theories in place as to why these misunderstandings take place. The Maltz-Borker paradigm, for example, goes beyond the simple consideration of male and female in this sort of encounter, instead adding other cultural factors to the situation (Tannen, p. 105). The cultural factors that are commonly associated with female conventions of speech include attempting to establish connections through conversation, staying away from explicit confrontation and outright disagreement, wanting empathy instead of advice, providing intimacy, providing suggestions rather than instructions, and choosing individual conversations as opposed to group discussions. Males, on the other hands, tend to carry some of their more juvenile trends of boyish assertion of self into their adult lives, entering into competition with one another to achieve status within a particular hierarchy, giving out advice instead of providing sympathy, placing their own assertions out there for feedback (and being prepared to defend them), looking for larger audiences as opposed to individual conversations, and avoiding situations where they can appear vulnerable (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, p. 466). As a result of these differences, there are significant gaps in which misinterpretation can take place. This does not mean, though, that either gender is necessarily at fault, because they are both proceeding under the same sets of assumptions with which they have been wired since birth. Where the notion of male power enters the situation is the point where male behavior is assumed to be the norm, or neutral, and female behavior is assumed to be different. This assumption can be harmful and discriminatory to women, by making their speech patterns seem like the ones that are somehow “wrong” or in need of correction. It is necessary to move forward from this point, because by viewing both gender structures for conversation as norms, it gives women the freedom to propose arguments in their own way, instead of having to match their speaking style to that which matches what men do. It is not enough, though, to identify the clichéd differences in male and female speech and then walk away from the discussion. After all, not every man enters discourse with the set of structures in place that are listed above; nor does every woman. Many women enter conversations looking for advice, and there are many men who in fact prefer individual conversations over speaking to large groups. This means that there are many more possibilities when it comes to interaction, as the people who enter into conversations have choices about the way they conduct themselves.
When it comes to factors beyond simple gender difference, there are many elements in a conversation, including exposure to conversational mores as well as ethnic and cultural considerations. For example, when two businessmen come together to negotiate a deal, if one is from Japan and the other is from the United States, if the American businessman does not know that negotiating deals in Japan only happens after some time has been taken getting to know one another, and that the full completion of the deal will require a much longer time than most Americans want. In the United States, the preference is for direct communication that gets right at the business at hand. To do business in Japan, American businessmen have had to learn to adjust their communicative style when needed. A similar example might occur between a teacher and a young student. The teacher might ask the student, “Would you like to erase the whiteboard?” If the class is full of kindergarteners, and the particular kindergartener that she asks just does not feel like doing any extra work, he might say, “Not really, Mrs. Smith,” without meaning any disrespect. The child has interpreted the teacher’s statement literally, taking it as a question of preference, rather than as an implied directive, and has followed that literal interpretation. This means that, if the teacher really wants the child to erase the board, she will have to show her authority overtly. The cue that the student will then receive is that, in the future, if a grownup asks an indirect question about some sort of chore, it is possible that the statement is really a concealed directive.
Differences in conversational style can take on a far more menacing turn, of course. Returning to the example of gender, it is possible for a man to gain a sense of license from a woman, even when she responds to his request with a “No.” Because men have found, over time, that women will try to avoid confrontation if possible, sometimes they will try to push through a “No” to reach a “Yes,” whether the goal is an assent to a date, an agreement to a request at work, or even a sexual advance. Sometimes this pushing will take the form of gentle persuasion, but depending on the ability of the man involved to follow social convention (and to pay attention to the woman’s actual emotional state). Men who have not learned (or have chosen to ignore) social convention may seek to take advantage of a situation in which they have more power than the woman with whom they are talking, whether that power is in the form of physical strength, financial resources, or some other form of leverage.
In a time period when more and more conversation is taking place without the benefit of nonverbal language – instant messaging, texting and Facebooking are frequently taking the place of in-person or even telephonic conversations – the words that are used become even more important. In a world that is rapidly decreasing in size, because of the communicative abilities that make it possible to communicate around the globe, paying attention to the dynamics of interpersonal communication are even more important. The many variables that already appear in communication, including the nexus of stimuli that have created each of our individual sets of interlocutory habits, already mean that the possibility of significant misunderstandings take place. Adding in the variables of gender and culture simply means that the task is more complicated than ever. Only through analyzing and understanding the differences in cultural sets of expectations for conversation, and for making allowances for the fact that no one culture (and no one gender) sets the absolute norm for conversational mores, can society continue to communicate in a productive way. If modern society does not find a way to get around the many differences that exist in our world, what has started as the promise of enhanced communication through technology will ultimately fail to bring cultures together.
Works Cited
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2009). Think practically and look locally: Language and
gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 461-490.
Gumperz, J.J., ed. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
Morrow.
