Thursday, March 5, 2009
Lakoff, Language, and Women's Place
A couple of years ago, while searching for bibliographic information (or at least a publication date) for the Robin Lakoff reading, "You Are What You Say," I came across this blog post by an individual who claims to know Lakoff. And I get the impression that he is responding to essentially the same ideas as those presented in our reading."Language and Women's Place" [his title, not mine, so please don't throw rocks ;-) ]This post may present a nice place to continue, and extend our class discussions.For now, I'm going to let the linked item stand on its own, as I think it provides ample and obvious material to respond to. But, I may come back and point out some elements to consider and comment on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
it is true that the ones that i have read lack quite a bit of evidence and i have only read one that showed the mens side as well but i account those to be because they are written by women and unlike some people i realise that there is another side left unexplained. the article was very boring i only read about 5 paragraphs before i gave up. if you use it i sugest you shorten it or maybe cut out the beginning. the one argument i did get to, that there are many types of talking styles i agree with. there is not just a mans style and a womans style and i believe that some of the issues that we have is because we try to simplify it so. people need to realise that the simplist way is not always the best
Professor Emeritus brings up points that I agree and don't agree with. What I do agree with is his argument about Deborah Tannens argument. She argued that men and women have different speech styles reflecting differences in how boys and girls are raised and these different speech styles can result in men and women failing to understand each other. Along with the professor I disagree with this argument. I also find this argument one sided. I have had plenty of life examples to support my thoughts. Take my parents for instance. My mother was raised in such a way that she was fed things such as liver and brussel sprouts. She moved all the time from place to place because her father was in the national guard. She was raised to go to church every sunday and to act like a "lady". My father on the other hand was raised almost the exact opposite. He played ice hockey and dirt biked. His parents were very laxed in discipline and he did not go to church. Theses two people raised in complete differences found each other in high school and are married until this day. They have been in love and best friends. They communicate very well with each other whether it be money or just having plain old fun. I have learned that communication is key in relationships but I have come to learn its not about how people are raised its about how they communicate with each other that makes their relationship.
What I don't agree with is that he attacks Lackoffs reading and he takes it as offensive. She does not attack men, she merely is pointing out the obvious. When a man reads that he takes it too personal and they let it hurt their pride.
Thats all I have to say about that
I thought his point about context was interesting. That he seemed to refute parts of Lakoff's argument because in certain contexts, the argument doesn't necessarily work. His example that in formal conversations, gender roles seem to even out, at least as far as language is concerned, whereas in more comfortable conversation, gender roles revert back to the uneven state that it is. So, in this sense, Lakoff was right. We don't talk formally all the time, most of our conversations are relaxed and informal. Since the majority of our conversations use language that enhances the imbalance of gender roles. So language, most of the time, shows an imbalance between the sexes.
I thought his point about context was interesting. That he seemed to refute parts of Lakoff's argument because in certain contexts, the argument doesn't necessarily work. His example that in formal conversations, gender roles seem to even out, at least as far as language is concerned, whereas in more comfortable conversation, gender roles revert back to the uneven state that it is. So, in this sense, Lakoff was right. We don't talk formally all the time, most of our conversations are relaxed and informal. Since the majority of our conversations use language that enhances the imbalance of gender roles. So language, most of the time, shows an imbalance between the sexes.
One thing i couldn't get past while reading the blog posted by the friend of Robin Lakoff was the fact that in class, we argued about whether or not she has actual research in this field or not. (i'll just point out that those of us who said it wasn't research were RIGHT)
Because of this newly found information about the article, I feel like the whole discussion we had about it is irrelevant because its just personal experience. What is we all wrote personal experiences of women? should we have discussion about those too? Maybe we could then publish it in a book and have it taught in some other TOK class.
Now, Mr.Currier is probably going to say something along the lines of "you dont believe that she did research, but you believe that he really knows Robin?" or "What is the difference in relevence of an experience and actual research.
You see Mr. Currier. Like I said, everyone could write a personal experience of women much like the one she wrote. anyone can write an experience of anything. But not everyone will be able to do the same research as someone else, or interpret it the same way.
I don't like this Robin Lakoff.
I think that this is a very intriguing response to the Lakoff article. It seems to bring up some very valid points on both sides of the arguments. At the beginning of the piece I thought that the author was essentially tearing down the ideas put forth in the readings, but by the end I thought that it was simply a response to how things were backed up. Rather than saying that the authors of the other readings were wrong, it was said that they simply didn't have a strong backing for their facts. I really enjoyed reading this well put together post and hope to read what others thought about it from our class!
I think that this article brings up many good points about this subject that I had never really thought about before. I think that it very true that it really does depend on the person’s intellectual level for there to be a fair comparison of language between male and females. It would not produce legit results if you compared the language between a high school dropout boy and a college graduate girl because their levels of education is so different and therefore they would have different ways of talking.
I think that it is also true that the way or the tone people talk with depends on the situation or environment that they are in. People talk differently when they are with their friends compared to when they are giving a speech or in a business meeting.
I think that this blog also brings up a true point which is that Lakoff’s piece somewhat places blame on males for the bad connotations that are placed on females in language. It is not entirely their fault because these have been in place for many many years so it is the responsibility of both genders to do something and change it, not only the males.
There were many things I found interesting about this topic, in fact it is one I have explored and debated amongst my friends many times. Males and females communicate differently because they think differently. Yes there are factors such as intellectual levels, environments and age involved but that is because how we communicate reflects who we are.
That is why when we are speaking formally our forms of communication are more alike because we are speaking how we were taught to speak. We are not being ourselves. However when we are in a casual environment we speak as we are and because we are different mentally, consequently males and females express themselves differently.
I find it interesting that this person had essentially blasted Lakoff's writing because it was mostly if not all based upon her own experiences when halfway into the blog post, he talks of his own experiences as well to back up his own comments and ideas, such as his experience of women in college being very aggressive rather than domicile. He also makes very general and sweeping statements, albeit in the opposite views of Robin Lakoff. But it makes me question why I should believe this man any more than I did Ms. Lakoff as both are similar in how they listed and created their arguments; the main difference being that this man also included other authors albeit very briefly to either back up his own words or to also criticize, along with his life experiences and opinions.
The information about the "five clocks" did catch my attention though, as it was something that I had read previously, in a slightly different context, and had not given much thought to aside from "formal" and "informal." This had been in anthropology where we had read an article called "Rapport-talk Report-talk" which discussed how women talked more often in intimate settings while men talked more frequently in more professional settings. Both, though, talked quite often when speaking of personal interests and especially when in the company of those of the same gender. The article had also been backed up by research and data studies, making it much more convincing than either Lakoff's or this man's blog post. But the idea from Joos, saying that there were 5 different speaking styles, that they were in levels had really gotten me to think a bit more and notice much more, that there were other levels than simply the black and white of casual and formal speaking.
Taking the intelligence of a person into account was also a significant point, as the interests and level of thinking likely really would change, also affecting the person's confidence and thus, their speaking ability.
I think that the most interesting part of this article is that it points out that there are various different types of language and that in each of these types of language the dynamic between males and females is different. I am curious though for a reason why the roles would get more equal as the occasions became more formal. The blogger compares this to different cultures speaking in a more formal manner so that their communication will be clearer, yet in almost every example from Lakoff's reading the difference between the languages exists even when men and women are speaking with each other. This discounts the metaphor of the different cultures becoming more formal for communication purposes.
I also find the statement that the author makes about when men and women share equal status they use more similar of language interesting. To me this seems to infer that language often points to status rather than only gender. This is probably why it is my mother uses more assertive language when talking to me, she is the one with more power, even though she is the female and I am male. I think based on this that the problem may not be that women are raised to use weaker language, and are therefore less assertive, but that when women are at a lower societal status they become accustomed to less assertive language.
I feel that this is a much more enlightened way of looking at the situation then blaming the evil dominance of man.It's perfectly understandable that we sound more alike when we speak formally which is the general idea but I wonder why we tend to develop so many ways of speaking the same language just because of the distance of a few 100 miles or being a boy or a girl. the question I'm left with is from where do these changes in the way we speak originate, is it the climate, the people, or something else entirely.
Post a Comment