A self versus other point of view in language: Redefining femininity and masculinity

Current feminist theories consider femininity and masculinity distinct and inherent properties (Chodorow 1978; Dinnerstein 1976; Gilligan 1982). Likewise, contemporary research into female and male linguistic behavior holds that women's and mens speech practices are “different but equal” (e.g. Tannen 1990). Women are found to be cooperative, employing addressee-oriented speech behavior, and men are found to be dominant, employing speaker-oriented speech behavior (e.g. Maitz and Borker 1982; Cameron 1985; Coates 1986; Tannen 1990; James and Drakich 1993; James and Clarke 1993; West 1995). Findings, however, do not always support this essentialist hypothesis (e.g. James and Drakich 1993; James and Clarke 1993; Uchida 1992; Ariel and Giora 1992a, 1992b). On the assumption that language usage reflects the speaker's point of view, we define femininity as adopting women's viewpoint and masculinity as adopting mens viewpoint. We propose a notion of Self and of Other points of view in language. We argue that while men can fully adopt a Self, masculine point of view, being the dominant group, women, as a powerless group, may find it difficult to identify with their group's objectives. Traditional women, are, therefore, expected to adopt the point of view of the Other, projecting a masculine point of view: their language is expected to pattern like men's. Feminist awareness, however, may override social constraints and should, therefore, enable feminists to exhibit a genuine femininity, adopting a Self (feminine) point of view. Our findings indeed show that traditional women and men writers' speech behavior is similar. In contrast, the speech behavior of feminists and traditional female writers is different. These findings cannot be accounted for by an essentialist hypothesis, which predicts that differences should cluster around the gender dichotomy.