Maket 2013:Layout 1.qxd


Gender from Sociocultural Perspective

Gohar Harutyunyan, Margarit Hovhannisyan
Yerevan State University

A
s a social factor having a great impact on the choice of linguistic items, gender

has always been a subject of thought in the sociolinguistic tradition. A special

area within sociolinguistics, called language and gender or gender studies, is devoted to
the investigation of language varieties in relation to gender. The theory of gender has

formed and developed as a separate field in sociolinguistics since 1970s, and Robin

Lakoff’s famous book “Language and Woman’s Place”, published in 1975, was a real
turning point in the area of gender studies which gave rise to various works on the topic.

Some of these works developed the ideas proposed by Lakoff; others challenged them,

suggesting new explanations and approaches to gender differences. Lakoff’s arguments

on gender are known as “deficit approach”, since she represents diversities of male and

female speeches, portraying women as a subordinate, deficient group in society.

According to this approach, male speech is the norm against which female speech can be

viewed and judged. This kind of attitude towards gender differences could not be accept-

ed implicitly by subsequent scholars. Starting from 1990s a new approach became dom-

inant in sociolinguistic theory. Deborah Tannen was one of the major proponents of this

new position, known as “difference approach”. Tannen states that men and women, being

brought up and socialized in different sub-cultures, differ also in their speeches. This

assumption is explained in terms of cultural diversities, which in their turn give birth to

male and female conversational styles.  The belief that there is a fundamental difference

between men and women in all the aspects of life goes still deeper in later years. In 1992

John Gray published his bestseller “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”,

where he states that males and females are so distinct as if they were from two different

planets. He also expresses the idea that very often there occur grave problems in the rela-

tionships between men and women because of these differences. According to Gray deep

misunderstandings occur between genders in various conditions of life. He acclaims that

men and women behave differently when handling problems, responding to stressful sit-

uations and even counting the received amount of love. In this book linguistic diversities

between genders are presented to be still greater. According to the claims proposed by

Gray, women are more sensitive towards communication, they talk more and are verbal-

ly more skilled than men. In short, Gray was a great advocate of the proposition that there

exist serious gaps between male and female speeches, which lead to misperception or

misinterpretation and finally to “miscommunication”.

The widely spread stereotype that men and women speak different languages is bro-

ken in 2007, when Deborah Cameron writes her book “The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do

men and women really speak different languages?”, which casts doubts on the claims

stated by Gray and his precedents. She calls the theory of “Mars and Venus” a myth in

the broadest sense of the word, assuming that male and female differences are biological

rather than social. The fact that there are differences between men and women is as nat-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

123



ural as communication itself. These diversities construct personal identities and give

meaning to the communicative process. As it is noticeable, the notions about gender

diversities greatly vary from each other, and they have been subject to cardinal changes

in the course of time.

The aim of the present paper is to find out whether men and women speak identical-

ly in English and Armenian. As a basis for our investigation we have taken the following

claims put forward by Robin Lakoff: color terms, strong vs weak expletives, women’s
versus neutral adjectives, tag questions, question intonation with statement syntax
and strength of directive speech acts. The analyses of gender talk in English linguocul-

ture are based on examples which are taken from fiction. The data that these examples

provide us clearly show that the above mentioned points which Lakoff mentions as dis-

tinguishing features between male and female speech, mainly hold true for English. 

Let us discuss the use of strong expletives by males first. The bulk of the material
obtained from the examples clearly shows that in modern English men really use strong

expletives when they are in extremely emotional situations. Males may use swear words

when they are disappointed, nervous or angry. Sometimes swear words appear in male

speech nearly automatically, along with word combinations which carry a positive mean-

ing. This can be proved by the following example: “It’s all right. He says it’s a damned
good part, a boy’s part, nineteen. Eight or ten weeks in New York and then on the road.
It’s a safe forty weeks with John Drew. Two hundred and fifty dollars a week” (M.S.
p.31). As we can see, the expression damned you is used alongside a word combination
which does not possess any negative connotations. In the same way, once, when Michael

is too touched by Julia’s acting and his eyes are heavy with tears, Julia approaches him

and asks what the matter is. Michael, who is clenching his jaw to prevent its trembling,

answers: “Don’t talk to me. You dirty little bitch, you’ve made me cry”. Then Julia asks
if he liked the scenes. To this “naive” question Michael answers in the same style: “The
scenes be damned, it was you. You just wrung my heart. The critics are right, damn it,
you’re an actress and no mistake” (M.S p.24). In this example uttering swear words is a
good means for Michael to express his deep emotions and also to show the extent he

admires the actress and her acting. 

Women, on the other hand, are more careful about words. They may use strong exple-

tives only in the case they are alone, or if they are addressing someone lower in status

and age. Lots of examples taken from fiction show that women use strong and offensive

words mostly in their inner speech. In the following speech situation Julia expresses her

disappointment, anger and depression: (“He doesn’t love me. He doesn’t care a damn
about me. I hate him. I’d like to kill him. Blast the American manager!”) (M.S. p.32).

In another example Julia is having tea with Charles Tamerley, who is the oldest and

the most constant of Julia’s admirers. Actually, Julia is not in love with him, she just uses

her artistic skills to pretend so and to make an impression on Charles. When Charles goes

away under the influence of Julia’s bitter cry, she gets up and looks in the glass: “You rot-
ten bitch,” she said to herself  (M.S. p.64). In the light of these data we can assume that
women in English linguoculture are more status-conscious than men, since they avoid
using expletives in the presence of others.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

124



The next point we focus on is the frequent use of tag questions by women. As the
analyses show, this is the dimension which mostly corresponds to the results of our data

in English. In modern English women tend to use questions with tags more frequently.

The abundance of the examples provides us with a firm basis to say that females some-

times apply tag questions in cases when their occurrence is not logical, such as when

women express their own emotions, feelings or other personal matters. For example, in

the following example the use of a tag question reaches extremes. Julia meets a young

actress Avice Crichton. When they are about to part, Avice asks her: “You won’t forget
me, Miss Lambert?” (M.S. p.133). To this Julia answers: “No, dear, I promise you I
won’t. It’s been so nice to see you. You have a very sweet personality. You’ll find your way
out, won’t you? Good-bye.” (M.S. p.133). It is obvious that Julia does not intend to find
out Avice’s opinion, otherwise she could have asked: “Do you think you will find your
way out?” Julia’s words express her own viewpoint and prevision. It sounds like an
encouragement or good wish, formed like a question.

Another point mentioned by Lakoff is the strength of directive speech acts. Directive
speech acts sound really strong and rude when used by males. In some cases they may

sound even too offensive. Females, on the contrary, tend to accompany their orders with

phrases which make orders sound like request. For example, each time Eloise gives

instructions to her own daughter, she says: “Close the front door after you, please,”
Eloise called (S.J. p.42), “Stand up, please….Tell Mary Jane how Jimmy looks” (S.J.
p.44) or “May I have this. Yes. Stay out of the street, please” (S.J. p.45).  Women often
form their requests indirectly. When Susan wants to tell Bo to stop smoking, she express-

es her request in the following way: “I don’t think you’re allowed to smoke in here” (S.J.
p.87). It is important to mention that Susan and Bo are quite on good terms. They are

close friends. However, Susan prefers to use an indirect way of making Bo understand

that his smoking is not pleasant for her. This feature does not occur so often in male

speech.

Question intonation with statement syntax is another distinguishing feature between
male and female speech mentioned by Lakoff. Based on the data of the analyses, it is pos-

sible to state that at present this point is rarely found in male speech, at least in the works

we have analyzed. Certain examples are present in female talk; however their occurrence

is not so often. When Dougald tells Susan that their friends are going to build a dam on

Ranna Creek, Susan says: “And I suppose he expects me to drop everything and survey
Ranna?”(M.A. p.67). On another occasion Annabelle tells Bo that she was too much
afraid to ever go back to Suttor country. When Bo asks her what she is afraid of,

Annabelle answers: “I’m not a very bold person,” she said and laughed. “Just imagine,
supposing I found the Suttor country meant so much to me that I decided my life for the
past twenty years had all been a dreadful mistake?” (M.A. p.78). Annabelle goes on with
another statement again with question intonation: “Supposing I found it meant nothing
all to me? They say you should never go back” (M.A. p.78). The assumption that the
above mentioned sentences are not mere questions but statement syntaxes with question

intonation is proved by the fact that they are not perceived as questions both by Dougald

and Bo, and do not elicit answer. We can easily see that these statements of question are

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

125



not directed to Susan’s or Annabelle’s addressees, but to themselves. It is evident that

they do not need an affirmation from their interlocutors. They merely express their opin-

ions formed like a question.

The next point that Lakoff mentions is the use of women’s adjectives by females and
the use of neutral adjectives by males in similar situations. It’s typical of female speech
to use a great number of intensifying adverbs next to the adjectives to emphasize the

meaning of the sentence and the frankness of their utterance. Thus, whenever Julia wants

to tell Michael how handsome he is, she says something like this:“It would be so silly to
pretend you weren’t divinely handsome” (M.S. p.30). When speaking about herself, Julia
also uses this kind of ‘colorful’ adverbs:“With a son of sixteen it’s no good pretending I’m
so terribly  young any more. I’m forty and I don’t care who knows it” (M.S. p.70).
Similar adverbs occur in Julia’s speech, when she talks to others, or when she thinks

about them. For example:“I couldn’t bear to think of your having to throw away your
good money on tips. I know that you’re not terribly rich and I knew you’d spent a lot on
green fees” (M.S. p.106). On another occasion Julia is telling Langton about her admira-
tion for Michael: “Oh, you don’t understand. He’s so frightfully handsome, they’ll fall
for him like a row of ninepins, and poor lamb, he’s so susceptible to flattery. Anything
can happen in two years” (M.S. p.34).

As the analyses prove, women tend to use rich and colorful adjectives in their speech,

but they do not overuse them. Meanwhile in male speech rich and colorful adjectives are

missing.

The last feature Lakoff focuses on is the use of specific color terms. It seems impos-
sible to present a full picture in this connection, as the factual materials provide us with

no typical examples concerning color terms. For the lack of data it is difficult to prove

that women often tend to use precise color terms. The total absence of typical examples

in the works that we have analyzed allows us to conclude that specific color terms are not

common in women’s talk.

As for Armenian linguoculture, we have the opportunity to conduct a more practical

survey of men’s and women’s speech differences. To do this, we have compiled a special

list consisting of 10 questions, each of which relates to the dimensions suggested by

Robin Lakoff., and carried out a survey among 200 Armenians (100 males and 100

females). The responses given by all the respondents are really interesting. These

answers prove the fact that the 6 dimensions proposed by Lakoff do not hold true for

Armenian linguoculture altogether. 

The data obtained from the analyses in Armenian are completely different from those

in English. The first point to be discussed is the use of strong expletives by men. Two of
the situations described in the questionnaire demand an expression of strong emotions.

As the answers show, the majority of female respondents prefer to keep silent or ignore

the situation and thus, they do not express their emotions. Even if they do, they do it

either in their minds or among their friends. Only a very small number of women, near-

ly 12% use expletives. However, if they apply them, they use even stronger ones than the

expletives mentioned by male respondents. The words that basically appear in females’

answers are the following: §ÑÇÙ³ñ¦, §ãáμ³Ý¦, §áã˳ñ¦, §³Ý¹³ëïdz-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

126



ñ³Ï¦,§³ÝßÝáñÑù¦. The majority of men, 55% mention they would definitely react to
the situation; they either would say something very rude or would even apply physical

strength, like: §ºë ¿É Çñ³Ý Ïμñ¹»Ù¦, §ÎË÷»Ù¦, §àï»ñÁ Ïç³ñ¹» Ù¦. However, even
if males write that under certain circumstances they would react very rudely, in most of

their answers strong expletives are missing. In order to present a more evident picture,

we shall note that among men only 9% apply expletives in one of the situations given

above, while among 100 women nearly 12% mention they would use rather offensive

words. So, as we can see, the data received from the analyses in Armenian present a great

deviation from the above mentioned dimension. 

If we come to the use of tag questions by women, we can see that among females only
40% use a tag question when the situation demands. Others form their questions differ-

ently. More than half of the respondents avoid using a question with a tag. Among males

the number of the respondents who apply tag questions is even smaller, only 25%. So,

we can assume that  tag questions are an inseparable part of female speech in English,

while their occurrence is not common by Armenian women. 

Among Armenian men only 42% of the respondents apply direct orders when
addressing a stranger. Others use polite and in some cases even indirect requests. In the

same situation the majority of females, 72% use polite requests. Thus, in Armenian the

majority of men and women tend to use polite requests rather than directive speech acts

when they address a stranger. The picture changes tremendously when the addressee of

the request or the order is not a stranger but someone very close to the speaker. Here, as

we can see, the social dimension of solidarity comes to the fore. In similar cases the num-
ber of polite requests greatly reduces, especially among the answers by women. 

Among 100 female Armenian respondents 74% use question intonation when sug-
gesting going to the cinema. Others apply affirmative sentences. Of 100 male respon-

dents only 46% use sentences with question intonation. Of course it is obvious that the

majority of women’s answers are formed in question intonation, however, in men’s

answers too, this feature is present to a great extent. Nearly half of the male respondents

form their suggestions using interrogative patterns. Thus, it would be wrong to state that

only Armenian  women use question intonation with statement syntax.

In Armenian the difference between men’s and women’s talks concerning the use of

rich adjectives, which Lakoff characterizes as women’s, is not considerable. Male respon-
dents, like the female ones, use such colorful adjectives, which do not frequently occur

in everyday speech. The number of adjectives used by both men and women is nearly

equal. 83% of male respondents and 88% of female respondents present different types

of adjectives, both colorful ones and slang terms. So, these data enable us to conclude

that the distinction of adjectives between neutral and women’s does not hold true in case

of modern Armenian. We can say that this feature cannot be characterized as a main dis-

tinguishing feature between male and female speech in modern English, however, taken

generally it is not completely wrong for the English linguoculture. 

The results of the questionnaire show that, the dimension concerning the use of spe-
cific color terms by women is a bit exaggerated for modern Armenian as well. It should
be emphasized once again that it is only female respondents who create new and precise

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

127



color terms like ¹»ÕݳϳñÙñ³íáõÝ, ¹»ÕݳݳñÝç³·áõÛÝ, ¹»ÕݳϳñÙÇñ, ϳñÙñ³-
ݳñÝç³·áõÛÝ and ϳñÙñ³¹» ÕÇÝ to describe the color which according to them is nei-
ther orange nor red, or neither yellow nor orange. However, these answers make up only

a small number of all the answers, besides, among the color terms mentioned by males,

there are again such specific names which do not provide us with sufficient ground to

assume that the use of specific color terms is a feature typical only of female speech.

Thus, the use of specific color terms is the only feature mentioned by Lakoff which is not

in accordance with our analyses in English and Armenian linguocultures. 

Our analyses enable us to draw certain culturally-oriented conclusions. Thus, as we

can see all the points mentioned by Lakoff hold true for English, of course to different

extents. Only one of the dimensions does not fit the analyses carried out in English. This

means women in English are more indirect in making orders and more self-assertive in

expressing strong emotions. They often seek confirmation from their interlocutors and

also express uncertainty when uttering statements. As far as the vocabulary is concerned,

it also varies greatly between men and women. The frequent use of women’s adjectives
by females and their absence in male speech proves that the word-stock used by men and

women is too distinct. So, we can come to the final conclusion that in English linguocul-

turedirectness and self-assertion are actual and applicable in female talk. Hence, English
males and females follow different speech patterns and thus, different value systems

work well for each of the parties. If men in English are more direct in making orders,

women tend to apply more indirect and polite utterances in the same situation. Males

may express strong emotion when females try to avoid the use of expletives. Different

reasons may account for the intention to sound less stiff and rude in speech. We can

assume that women in English linguoculture prefer to use milder elements in their speech

since they try not to offend their interlocutors, or intend to protect their face. So, it is clear

that females pay more attention to interpersonal relationships and the maintenance of

their own status and reputation in the society. This means that components of non-verbal

communication are of more significance for women than the direct expression of their

emotions, feelings or ideas through speech. It is believed that the tendency to attach more

importance to non-verbal components than to the verbal message is typical of high-con-

text cultures. As it is visible, English women’s sub-culture is clearly high-context. Males,

in contrast, follow patterns of low-context communication. When analyzing the use of

adjectives, it became obvious that male and female vocabulary is also different. So we

can say that in English men and women can be characterized as two distinct sub-cultures

that are socially expected to have different speech habits and preferences.  

As distinct from preconceived ideas and expectation, the above-discussed dimensions

proposed by Lakoff mostly do not hold true in Armenian linguoculture. This means that

male and female speeches in Armenian do not vary from each other to the extent they do

in English. As it is perceived, male and female vocabulary, syntax and choice of linguis-

tic elements differ in those cultures where the structure of the society is clearly hierarchi-

cal and there are clear-cut boundaries between different sub-cultures, in this particular

case, between males and females. Thus, we have every reason to conclude that modern

Armenian society, in contrast to modern English society, provides equal opportunities to

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

128



apply identical speech patterns for both men and women.  This may sound interesting,

and even unusual. However, as we see, globalization leaves its effects on modern soci-

eties, making them more westernized. Furthermore, our own analyses show that the

English society is even more hierarchical than the Armenian one. 

References:

1. Cameron, D. (2007) The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak
Ddifferent  Languages? Oxford: OUP.

2. Fasold, R.W. (1990) Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
3. Gray, J. (1992) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. USA: Harper Collins

Publishers. 

4. Holmes, J. (1992) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York:
Longman Group UK Limited.

5. Hudson, R.A. (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP. 
6. Jandt, F.E. (2004) (Ed.) Intercultural Communication. California: Sage Publications. 
7. Lakoff, R. (1973) Language and Woman’s Place. Cambridge: CUP. 

Sources of Data:

1. Maugham, S. (2001) Theatre. USA: Vintage Books.
2. Miller, A. (2002) Journey to the Stone Country. London: Clays Ltd. 
3. Salinger, J.D. (1982) Nine Stories. Franny and Zooey. Raise High the Roof Beam,

Carpenters. M.: Progress Publishers.

¶»Ý¹»ñÇ Ñ³Ýñ³Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Ñ³Û»ó³Ï»ñåÁ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñíáõÙ å³ñ½» Éáõ ¹»é¨ë 1975 Ã.-ÇÝ è. È»ÛÏáýÇ ÏáÕ-
ÙÇó ³é³ç ù³ßí³Í ϳݳÝó ¨ ïÕ³Ù³ñ¹Ï³Ýó ËáëùÇ ï³ñμ» ñ³ÏÇã ¹ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÇ
³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ: ²Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ Ñ³-
Ù³ñ áñå»ë áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ÝÛáõà »Ý ͳé³Û»É ·»Õ³ñí»ëï³Ï³Ý ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃ-
ÛáõÝÇó í»ñóí³Í ѳٳå³ï³ëË³Ý ûñÇݳÏÝ»ñÁ: Æ ï³ñμ» ñáõÃÛáõÝ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ,
ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÝ»ñÁ Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý áõÝ»ó»É ϳï³ñ»Éáõ ·áñÍݳϳÝ
áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ` ÑÇÙÝí³Í Çñ»Ýó ÏáÕÙÇó ݳ˳å»ë Ùß³Ïí³Í ѳñó³ß³ñÇ
å³ï³ë˳ÝÝ»ñÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛ³Ý íñ³:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

129