# data[].attributes.headline
Ruby Eloise Summer - Why Does Every Teenager Sound Like They’ve Been on TikTok Too Long?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ruby Eloise Summer - Why Does Every Teenager Sound Like They’ve Been on TikTok Too Long?

# data[].attributes.body
Language changes the way fashion does: one minute everyone’s proudly wearing their regional accent like a vintage jacket, the next minute it’s all been ironed out into something more… Zara basics. Linguists like Lesley Milroy and Paul Kerswill point this out in their research on dialect levelling, where strong local features slowly fade as people move around, mix socially and consume the same media. Think about it: when was the last time a teenager sounded like they’d just walked off the set of Coronation Street instead of vaguely like someone who’s spent too long on TikTok? I remember visiting my nan’s village where the shopkeeper had a proper old-school accent, the kind you’d expect from a character in Hot Fuzz, while my cousins all sounded like generic “British teenager”. Kerswill found younger speakers often adopt more socially neutral forms, while Milroy showed that tight-knit communities hold onto traditional dialect longer. So are dialects disappearing? Not really. They’re just blending together like a linguistic smoothie—less chunky regional flavour, maybe, but still very much English. And honestly, if accents never changed, we’d probably all still sound like Shakespeare… which might be fun until someone asks you for the Wi-Fi password. 📶😅

# data[].attributes.body
If ever there were proof that language can be as stubborn as a New England fisherman, William Labov’s famous study of Martha’s Vineyard would be it. In the 1960s, Labov noticed something delightfully peculiar: islanders were leaning hard—very hard—into a particular vowel sound, especially in words like “right” and “house.” And not just a little. According to his findings, roughly 60 percent of the local fishermen used the centralized vowel strongly—60 percent, mind you, yes, sixty!—as if the vowel itself had decided to grow a beard, buy a boat, and argue about bait at sunrise. Why? Identity. Pure, stubborn identity. Younger residents who planned to stay on the island exaggerated the sound almost theatrically, practically shouting through their pronunciation, “We belong here!” One can almost imagine them declaring, “You can keep your mainland vowels—we’ll take ours with salt air and stubborn pride.”

And really, the whole situation practically begs for a joke. “Knock, knock.” “Who’s there?” “Vowel.” “Vowel who?” “Vowel bend it like a Vineyarder!” Somewhere in the background you can almost picture a grumpy local—let’s call him Chud—nodding approvingly while hauling in a net and stretching the vowel in “house” halfway across the Atlantic. Hyperbole aside, the pattern was unmistakable: the more someone aligned with Vineyard life, the stronger the pronunciation shift. It’s sociolinguistics at its most human—less a sterile lab experiment and more a linguistic bonfire on the beach. Frankly, if Labov had asked whether the word “trachea” should be pronounced with a heroic Vineyard twist, I suspect at least 60 percent of them would have obliged, happily bending the vowel just to prove a point.

# data[].attributes.body
The Sound of Status: How One Little /r/ Climbed the Social Ladder

In William Labov’s 1966 New York department store study, he essentially turned a shopping trip into a sociolinguistic stakeout — because why browse handbags when you can browse phonemes? He wandered into Saks Fifth Avenue (posh and polished), Macy’s (aspirational energy), and S. Klein (budget chic) and casually asked staff where he could find something on the “fourth floor.” Was he genuinely confused? Of course not — he was chasing the post-vocalic /r/, the tiny consonant carrying a surprisingly large social ego in New York English. When he pulled the classic “sorry?” and made them repeat themselves, employees — especially in Macy’s — suddenly located their missing /r/ and pronounced it like it was on commission. The results were almost poetic: the fancier the store, the stronger the /r/, with the most dramatic linguistic glow-up happening in the middle-class store, revealing pure linguistic insecurity. Who knew a single letter could climb the social ladder faster than an intern at Wall Street? Labov’s findings show language isn’t lazy or random — it’s dressed to impress, subtly tailored to status, and occasionally over-accessorised. In a city obsessed with image, even your consonants are networking.

# data[].attributes.body
Dialect levelling is often dramatised in the media as if regional accents are vanishing overnight, but linguists such as Lesley Milroy and Paul Kerswill would probably argue that the situation is far less tragic and far more predictable. Milroy’s work on social networks shows that in tightly knit communities—where everyone knows everyone and your neighbour might also be your cousin and your co-worker—local dialect features are strongly maintained because they symbolise loyalty and belonging. However, once people begin moving for work, education, or simply because they do not want to live on the same street as their entire extended family forever, those dense networks loosen and distinctive, often stigmatised features start to fade. This is not laziness or linguistic “decay,” but social adaptation; as Milroy suggests, Standard English is not inherently superior, just more powerful, rather like the popular student in school who somehow sets the trends. Supporting this, Kerswill’s research in new towns such as Milton Keynes found that children are the real linguistic innovators: while their parents may cling to their original regional features, adolescents mix and level them, smoothing out the most marked differences to form new, shared varieties that help them fit in with peers. In other words, teenagers are not “ruining” the language—they are doing what every generation has done, just with more attitude. Overall, dialect levelling reflects social change, mobility, and identity negotiation, proving that language is not dying but simply adjusting to who we are and who we want to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Talking proper or just talkin'? Why Trudgill's Norwich study still matters.

Peter Trudgills Norwich study might sound boring at first, but it actually reveals something fascinating about how we use language to show who we are. In his research, published as The Social Differientation of English in Norwich, he looked at how people in Norwich pronounced the "-ng" in words like walking versus walkin'- yes an entire study about the letter 'g'. And somehow found it ground breaking that there were clear patterns: middle-class speakers and women tended to use the standard "-ing" form more, epecially in formal situations.While working-class speakers and men used the non-standard "-in" more often. Even more funnier when people were asked how they thought they spoke, men often exaggerated their use of non-standard forms, almost as if sounding less "proper" gave them social credibility. i've even caught myself swithing from "goin" to "going" in a presentation - but why do we do that?

who decides what sound "correct" anyways?

Trudgills study shows that language isn't just about grammar; it's about identity, class and how we want to be percieved, proving that even something as small as the end of a word can say a lot about society.

# data[].attributes.body
Jenny Cheshire’s playground speech study basically makes you wonder: why do adults lose their minds over the way teenagers talk? Is English really on life support because someone said “we was,” or are adults just allergic to change? By closely observing working-class teenagers in Reading and recording how they spoke with friends (research published in Variation in an English Dialect), Cheshire found clear patterns in their language use. Non-standard grammar cropped up far more often in relaxed, peer-group settings than in classrooms or interviews with adults, showing that teens could switch styles when they needed to. She also found strong gender differences: boys used more non-standard forms overall, especially ones linked to toughness and group loyalty, while girls tended to avoid the most stigmatised forms—basically, the linguistic version of choosing between tracksuits and blazers. So no, this wasn’t random “bad grammar”; it was rule-based, socially meaningful, and tied to identity. Honestly, it’s pretty funny that adults panic about grammar rules while teenagers are expertly juggling language like social currency. Cheshire’s research proves that the playground isn’t where English goes to die—it’s where it adapts, evolves, and occasionally wears questionable slang, just like every generation before it.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1963, William Labov carried out a pioneering study on Martha’s Vineyard, interviewing 69 islanders from different social groups and deliberately asking questions that encouraged them to use the diphthongs /aʊ/ and /aɪ/ (as in mouth and price). As the notes in the photo show, a small group of traditional fishermen consistently centralised these vowels, pronouncing them in a distinctive way. Crucially, this was not random: Labov found that younger islanders who strongly identified with local life — and who resented the growing number of wealthy summer visitors — were the most likely to adopt this pronunciation. Imagine a young fisherman in the 1960s choosing to say house with a centralised vowel not by accident, but as a quiet badge of loyalty to his community; through something as small as a vowel sound, he signals, “I belong here.” The innovation spread because this group was seen to represent “old virtues and desirable values”, and others subconsciously imitated them. In my view, Labov’s findings are powerful because they prove that accent is not simply about geography but about identity and resistance. Far from being careless speech, the Vineyarders’ pronunciation was a social statement — a clear example of how language change can be driven by attitudes, solidarity, and a subtle “them and us” mentality.

# data[].attributes.body
Text C uses positioning to establish the dynamic of the conversation. Mrs Spence takes control of the interview by introducing herself and starts asking the questions establishing herself as the one leading the conversation. In contrast Jack is represented as being below Mrs Spence as he uses polite forms like nice to meet you clearly representing him as an inferior being. He also starts most of his responses with OK which is used as a filler to give him time to think which shows he is nervous about the interview.

# data[].attributes.body
advantage: With attaching prestige to standard english usage its easier to understand, meaning its more reliable when wishing to apply to higher job roles as the interviewer will view you as more intellegent giving you a higher advantage.

disadvantage: We also believe thart accent is apart of our identity, singling us out as people. Without that it will make us feel stripped of our personality and where we have come from and the experiences we have witnessed. Leading to everyone being similar and unidentified as one of their own, making companys difficult to pick apart off people to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantage: creates clear communication all over the country.

Disadvantage: it can make people feel like they’re loosing a part of their identity

# data[].attributes.body
Attaching prestige to Standard English encourages clear communication in formal settings like a job interview.

However it implies that those who speak non standard english are inferior to others who speak standard english.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that more people need to be educated on the difference between improper language and an accent. Accents are a natural way of speaking and everyone has one so no accent should be favoured over another.

However, dialect slang shouldn’t be used in a formal setting if it is an informal variation of previous language.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree - there should be a difference between informal and formal. So when you are in an interview or emailing someone for a job for example there should be that distinct difference between the standard English and non-standard English. This is so everyone can have a dialect that they can all understand instead of having different dialect and only having a certain group understanding the words.

Disagree - however it's important to keep the accent part of it and some of the dialect because that is what separates us all and it shows that we are not all robots and the same person. It gives us our own personality and everyone is their own individual person.

# data[].attributes.body
Attaching prestige to standard English creates a benchmark for things like exams job interviews meaning that people wouldn’t get a unfair advantage because of the way they speak.

However it could discourage people from taking prestige around where they are from and how they traditionally spoke.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that banning local dialect will lead to rebellion, because that’s a child/teenagers identity. Street languages are a common way to share identity and feel a sense of community amount young people.

I also agree that it shows the North South divide and the casual discrimination between the two regions

I disagree that children shouldn’t be told the difference between them and like the writer says “so long as people learn to differentiate when writing” it’s fine. However we shouldn’t overload them and pressure them to change, that will happen as they grow up

# data[].attributes.body
They show identity and culture.Dialects tell you where someone is from and connect people to their community, history, and background thats why it is important.

They can lead to misunderstanding or unfair judgement.Some people wont even understand it

# data[].attributes.body
it is important to attach prestige to how we use standard english as it creates a sense of collectiveness as a country.

however, it’s important to realize that dialect is not a measure of your academic or professional achievements/ability. it is a sense of individuality and diversity within england. knowledge and superiority isn’t based on how you speak, its crucial these stereotypes are broken. there is no evidence that supports the idea that your dialect will affect your opportunities in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantage: Attaching prestige to Standard English can create a shared, widely understood form of communication, which is useful in education, workplaces, and official contexts where clarity and consistency matter.

Disadvantage: However, it can disadvantage speakers of non-standard dialects by implying their language is less valid, reinforcing social inequality and linguistic prejudice.

# data[].attributes.body
it can promote clear communication and help people access things like education and employment.

however it can undervalue non-standard dialect speakers. (social inequality)

# data[].attributes.headline
Gossip, Giggles, and Hedging? Stereotypes of Women’s Language.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gossip, Giggles, and Hedging? Stereotypes of Women’s Language.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to speak to Man as a WOMEN. Tutorial 

# data[].attributes.subject
How to speak to Man as a WOMEN. Tutorial 

# data[].attributes.headline
‘is it that men hide their gossip behind closed doors’ - brooke, macie + zuzanna  

# data[].attributes.subject
‘is it that men hide their gossip behind closed doors’ - brooke, macie + zuzanna  

# data[].attributes.body
Are men the Black Cats and women the Golden Retrievers?

# data[].attributes.headline
English Equals - is there a difference in how the genders speak?

# data[].attributes.subject
English Equals - is there a difference in how the genders speak?

# data[].attributes.body
Difference, deficit and dominance, all of them say that the genders speak differently and use language in different ways. But is that actually true? Deborah Cameron disagrees, and came up with the diversity approach just to spite these other approaches. With her book, “the myth of venus and mars”, she showed how this ‘biggest myth of our time’ was outlined with how women are better communicators and men have a natural desire to compete and speak aggressively because of this. Instead, she directs us to the idea that maybe, instead of it being men vs women, its different for everyone, based on how you express gender. She stole the idea of gender being performative from Judith Butler, and then said that we speak based on our performative gender identity, either basing ourselves on stereotypes or actively challenging them.

In Judith Butler’s book, “gender trouble”, she described how our identities are unstable, constantly morphing and changing, like some TV show with no plot, and also that we use our language to show the role we are performing. This supports Cameron’s ideas, as she believed we speak based on how we identify and that the identity we have changes over time, rather than being a clear cut male/female divide, rejecting rigid, potentially sexist ideas suggested from other theories. The diversity approach is basically antithesis of the deficit approach, which is very rigid on the divide.

# data[].attributes.body
Are you less or you just different, the end to the gender wars.

Have you ever been talking to your boyfriend and wondered why can't he be more understanding and just hear me?! Deborah Tannen has the answer for you, with her book "you just don't understand"  she breaks the miscommunication between man and woman while exploring the differences and equality. So if you ever wondered why he told you to fetch the paracetamol instead of comforting you during a headache, Deborah would explain this through her theory of the six language contrasts between men and women. In this example your man is exhibiting his need to give advise as you seek understanding. Along with this Deborah also points out five other contrasts that are at the root of couples miscommunications,those are; status Vs support, independence Vs intimacy, information Vs feelings, orders Vs proposals, conflict Vs comprise. So next time you're upset at your boyfriend just remember you have different communication methods, but unlike Deborah's teacher Lakoffs theory of womens language being inferior to man's Deborah explains were equal just different in communication. So don't feel like you can't communicate just remember you're using a different model then him and if you know this you can come to a understanding

# data[].attributes.body
Do you ever feel like you can’t get a word in when men are around you? This is because they feel they must be most relevant to validate their manhood…

Pamela Fishman has cracked the code as to why men feel the need to speak so much…

They have to be powerful, a leader and influential! Pamela successfully found women use Tag question 4 times more then men. That’s insane, isn’t it?

In a running household 68% of women do housework (cooking, cleaning and washing) This is all because of the male ego.

In addition to men wanting to be powerful, they are also too lazy to do the ‘shitwork’ all because they need to be dominant and rule over women. Does this fulfill their egos?

Females cleverly utilise tag questions as a tool. Women in STEM, am I right? Women use tag questions to gain power over conversation, rather than to appear weak and submissive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robin Lakoff presents…. women’s ’lakoff’ power and authority 

# data[].attributes.subject
Robin Lakoff presents…. women’s ’lakoff’ power and authority 

# data[].attributes.body
is women’s language really inferior to men’s?

Have you ever felt a lack of power and authority in women’s speech? Well, Robin Lakoff (supposedly) has the solution to your queries. She proposes that women are in fact ‘inferior’ to men, the deficit model states that men’s language is the norm and the women’s language is deficient! Despite having a ‘lakoff’ evidence, Robin Lakoff suggests that there are features that characterise women’s language, features such as: Hedges, empty adjectives and super-polite forms. Since when were manners weak? i feel like Robin possesses a ‘Lakoff’ understanding about the women’s language, calling it deficient. Just wow, and stating men are the ‘norm’ so much for a feminist.

Ultimately, Lakoff’s model is severely outdated, almost archaic, and she possesses little to no knowledge of women and men’s language.

# data[].attributes.body
Is women’s speech actually weak?

Well, did you know that Robin Lakoff framed women as weak because of their lack of tag question (when someone says a statement followed by a short and simple question: “you don’t mind, do you?”) use in 1975? Lakoff also suggests that male language is seen as the norm however, Jennifer Coates redirected this to say that women actually lead the conversations and female language is cooperative in single sex conversations. Coates also suggests that women’s talk is more supportive and cooperative compared to Lakoff.

# data[].attributes.body
We are like main characters in our own series.

Have you ever been described as unstable by your loved ones, friends or even random people you barely know? Well Judith Butler agrees with them but not as a negative comment. She believes that humans have been shown to be unstable throughout all circumstances meaning that we change constantly and never stay the same for a long period of time. Similar to a man called Ervin Goffman, she believes that we change our language depending on who we are with, meaning we all change characters when we change our social groups (crazy, right?). I mean who knew we could be a celebrity in our own lives. Every person's dream.

Do you know who else thinks we are performing our day to day life? Deborah Cameron, she is a linguist who believes that both genders using language differently is a myth. Who would've thought of that? She says that speakers construct and perform gendered identities through a lens of stereotypes meaning that we constantly prove social expectations and that recently in the last decade we use our language to disprove social expectations. So no, some women aren't better communicators then some men and some men don't have a natural desire to be competitive that causes aggressive speech. So next time you get described as unstable don't take it as an insult because Butler and Cameron prove that it's natural and everyone is unstable.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it powerless language instead of female language

Do women actually use weak language or is it just a stereotype? Well O’Barr & Atkins court room study disproves this. They studied the language used in the courtroom and found female lawyers to be assertive and interrupt this shows that women are able to use more dominant language when they need to. However they just chose not to in their everyday life. O’Barr and Atkins also found that witnesses of both sexes would use Robin Lakoff’s weak “female” language which proves that both sexes use “powerless language” rather than “female language”.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conflict vs compromise. Sound about right?

# data[].attributes.subject
Conflict vs compromise. Sound about right?

# data[].attributes.body
Difference in language doesn’t always mean difference in status.

Would you ever go to a male for support, feelings or proposals? No! Well Deborah Tannen wouldn’t either. Student of Robin Lakoff, the infamous critic of women’s language, Tannen branched out to create a more elaborate detailed theory many would argue trumps her predecessor’s. The difference model argues that men and women do speak differently, much like other theories, but they are equal. Haha. Funny joke. Tannen explained our equality through male-female miscommunication, we have different values, but they all hold importance. Take advice vs understanding, tell a man you have a headache… “drink some water”. How typical! Tell a woman the same thing she might say “sorry to hear that I hope you feel better soon”. She understands, doesn’t give obvious, unhelpful advice. But to be frank, do each gender not think they are being helpful, equal? That is what Tannen explains, difference is key but it doesn’t make individuals inferior, just unique. A bit more progression than Lakoffs theory, don’t you think?

# data[].attributes.headline
Is women's language really "less than" 😐

# data[].attributes.subject
Is women's language really "less than" 😐

# data[].attributes.body
Why Lakoffs cognitive theory dismantles the deficit models core assumptions

For many years, men and women have argued if men and women have really spoke differently.For one idea that increased the opinions on men and women speak is the deficit model from robin lakoff (1975), increasing the criticism within society. How would you feel if you suddenly was represented based on using a language method you never knew existed? Through Lakoffs model she emphasised on Jespersons idea that men's language was the "norm", making others and "women's" language deficient". By identifying language features such as hedges, empty adjectives and tag questions made lakoff believe they weren't just some quirky language but it made women less socially valued. God forbid a woman tried to be funny but turns out to be at the bottom of the social ladder.🪜

That's the real problem calling women's language deficit rather than women trying to hype eachother up with words like "divine" . Sort it out. 🙄

# data[].attributes.headline
fisherman’s claim: women work harder to keep talk in the game.

# data[].attributes.subject
fisherman’s claim: women work harder to keep talk in the game.

# data[].attributes.body
“dominant dudes vs weak women”

Have you ever been in a conversation with a man and felt belittled?

Whereas when you talk to a woman- you both are heard and understood. If so, that’s normal and occurs in everyday life. This links to the Dominance theory that men typically dominant conversations over women. In 1983, a female linguist Pamela Fisheman built upon a pre existing theory that relates to this. However she explains a different approach that whilst men dominant a conversation, women use “weak and powerless” features whilst speaking. These are things such as Tag Questions; used by woman 4x more than men… yet these were used not as a sign of weakness but a way to gain power within the conversations and keep it going for longer… girl power! Whilst this is all relevant Fisheman also takes into account that men don’t want to do the “shitwork” in a conversation as they feel as they’re the dominant ones, they shouldn’t have too. Acting as a ploy to make women look more powerful during the conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
How interruptions reveal hidden power in conversations.

The other day I was chatting to a friend, and every time she tried to finish a point, someone jumped in before she could wrap up. It reminded me of Zimmerman and West’s 1975 study, where they noticed men interrupting women way more often than the other way around. That’s the main point of the dominance model the idea that everyday conversations aren’t neutral at all they’re shaped by the same norms and values we see in society. Interruptions become less about one’s character and more about who’s been socially trained to take the floor.

This doesn’t mean men are consciously trying to dominate women every time they speak. It’s more about these unchecked habits we pick up without even thinking. When men are more likely to interrupt and change the discussion, it reinforces who gets to “own” the space in a conversation. And that’s why the dominance model is important. It encourages us to realise times when inequality creeps in, even in something as simple as who gets to finish a sentence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Men Women? Who cares if we speak a little bit different. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Men Women? Who cares if we speak a little bit different. 

# data[].attributes.body
People are so fussed with gender we ignore the facts.

You’ve probably heard the stereotypes of men are heartless and women never shut up. However Penelope Eckett proposed that we confuse gender and sex. And no I’m not talking about when a man love a women very much, I’m talking about what your biologically born with. She stated that gender was a social concept of culture, societal roles, and identities. While sex is the biological side like voice pitch and hormonal changes. Sex is assigned gender is chosen.

Similarly Janet Hyde claims that it barely has anything to do with gender. Even going as far to argue that there more similarities between men and women’s speech. Any differences that can be argued against her she dismisses claiming that any differences are due to other factors we tend to ignore; age, social class, ethnicity, education, sexuality, occupations, and literally anything else! These all fall under the Diversity Model which contribute to a larger scale.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why women talk too much(the dominance Model)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why women talk too much(the dominance Model)

# data[].attributes.body
K. Kuiper’s Difference Model: How Men and Women Use Language differently

K. Kuiper’s Difference Model suggests that men and women speak differently not because of biology, but because they are trained that way from childhood almost like being sent to different “language schools.” Boys often grow up learning to talk like they’re competing in a verbal sports match: direct, confident, and sometimes interrupting like it’s part of the game. Girls, on the other hand, are more likely taught to communicate cooperatively, using polite language, questions, and emotional support basically making sure everyone in the conversation survives with their feelings intact.

According to Kuiper, this is why conversations between men and women can sometimes feel like two radio stations playing at once. A man may interrupt to show enthusiasm and think, “Great chat!” while a woman may quietly think, “Why is this person stealing my sentences?” The Difference Model reminds us that neither style is better or worse just different. Once people realise they’re following different conversational rulebooks, communication gets easier or at least, arguments become more entertaining and less confusing.

In conclusion, men use insults in global language in a way of expressing solidarity and dominance to become superior and to fit into society as men should be strong and confident in their speech.

# data[].attributes.body
With reference to how men and women are represented in society, sexist language is prominent. The dominance model clearly indicates that, as it suggests that because of our societal patriarchal values our language is reflects it. Within the dominance model, men are represented as dominant within society which reflects the structure of society, as a result of the patriarchy, for example a factor of the dominance model is that men typically interrupt more than women. Similarly in the deficit model, women’s language is viewed as weaker due to the notion that language is made for men. Considering the data shows that young boys are using metaphorical phrases ‘don’t be a girl’, as an insult the dominance model is evidently true. Being a girl is considered a bad thing or shameful, from societal pressure of men to embody masculinity and shy away from feminine or female traits and associations.

Mia and Daisy!

# data[].attributes.body
Our patriarchal society has generally marked women as the weaker sex, even in terms of language. However, this weak "feminine" language may not be bound by gender but rather, status. Two theorists, O'barr and Atkins conducted a study on language in the courtroom; they took into account Robin Lakoff's deficit theory on female language. They found female lawyers to be assertive, dominant as well as frequently interrupting. In addition, witnesses of both sexes would use Robin Lakoff's weak "female" language. In conclusion, they found that it was a "powerless" language, as it applied to the position of the person rather than gender. Making powerless language gender neutral.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you put more work into your conversations? According to Pamela Fishman this is a feature of female language, she expanded on Lakoff’s idea of tag questions being a feature of women’s deficit language , saying that instead tag questions are used to start and maintain conversations, instead of at the end of the conversation like Lakoff had previously stated. This is because men are reluctant to the ‘shit work’ due to their dominant role which includes features such as interrupting, initiating and speaking more. In 1975, Zimmerman and west studies interruptions in mixed sex conversations, finding that men interrupted 46 times in 11 conversations, compared to women who only interrupted twice. This excentuates Fishman’s prior point showing that language is sexist.

lottie+katie

# data[].attributes.body
The difference model in gender and language studies suggests that men and women have different communication styles because they are socialised differently not because one gender is inherently superior or more dominant than the other. This goes against the argument English is a sexist language because it suggests that men and women are equal and their language does not define them. However, Robin Lakoff explores the deficit model that suggests women's language is weak. Language features such as tag questions (you dont mind do you?) are often grouped with feminine language and are therefore viewed as weak. Tag questions are often used by women to encourage a male to continue with the conversation which suggests that women are not always viewed as competent enough to initiate a new conversation and have to rely on a male to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
Men and women are represented quite different in their use of language. The issues surrounding the languages are that in Cheshire’s study, she focused on women’s use of tag questions when they are having conversations. She claims that women do not often respond to a declarative statement or will only respond minimally to give information or expression directly. On the other hand, women uses tag questions to gain power rather than showing the weakness, mostly known as “conversational shitwork”. Women might use declarative sentences too, but they add things like “I think” or “maybe” to soften sentences and to lead the conversation by showing their feelings more than men.

# data[].attributes.body
In the complex sentence “Such language was often dismissed as “harmless banter”, but many of the students, particularly girls, did not see it such, and, in extreme cases, it verged on bullying”, they use the noun phrase “harmless banter” to describe the sexist language. Dr Deborah Tannen came up with a model called Difference model, where she discusses that men and women speak different, but equally. In this study, she mentions a difference called “Status Vs Support” which states that men grow up where a conversation is seen as something competitive, whereas women often seek support from each other. This is proven in the quotation, where it states that men look at this as “harmless banter”, whereas “particularly girls” does not. Therefore, this suggests that there are issues surrounding the ways that women and men are represented in a language.

# data[].attributes.body
One significant way in which men and women are represented differently through the usage of language is the concept of a marked term, where an implication is created that a norm is being opposed by the existance of a 'male nurse' or a 'female pilot'. Marked terms rely on the existence of a predisposition for somebody to associate certain roles, such as that of a doctor, as being held by a certain gender, in this case a man. This is representative of a larger patriarchal influence across language and linguistic norms, where women are often turned away as the 'default', and we are relegated to the usage of traditionally male terms to represent both men and women. Julia Stanley presented this idea that women are underrepresented linguistically through her observations that 'he' is seen as a default pronoun and often used in place of 'they', based on the assumption that it is a man being spoken about. Furthermore, she indicated that terms such as 'policeman', 'mankind', and 'fireman' were seen as the standard form to each of these words, and therefore the term 'womankind' would appear out-of-place due to this normalisation.

# data[].attributes.body
A study was conducted by Sarah mills to investigate the differences in connotations between male and female terms. Such as, "master" and "mistress" or "Bachelor" and "Spinster". Both spinster and bachelor have an origin of meaning 'unmarried', however, "Bachelor" developed into a strong title which has connotations of intelligence (e.g bachelor degree), high status, and respect. Bachelor also has connotations of freedom.

On the other hand, "spinster" has developed the connotation of "fussy", and or "undesirable". While the male term gained positive terms, the female gained negative connotations. This is known as semantic derogation. Text B displays this by the usage of "sissy", an evaluative adjective which, while with the origin of "sister", a familial term, has turned into a derogatory connotation to insult men who are seen as effeminate.

# data[].attributes.body
Text B demonstrates the importance of understanding the issues surrounding sexism in language through the example of the derogatory imperative: ' "don't be a girl" '. This represents women linguistically as weak and inferior to their male counterparts because males use the term of adress to lower the man's respect within a group. The harsh contraction "don't" emphasises the strong emotion and criticism of females or the stereotype of lacking in traditional qualities of what makes a man 'manly'. This links to the research conducted by linguist, Sara Mills who, in 1995 looked to female terms for words such as 'mistress' or 'madam' which label women as indirectly lower than men, degrading them. This a clear bias towards men within language, therefore belittling women and their roles within society. The proper noun mentioned in text B 'girl' should be representative of a small child rather than the women that is their equal and so represents women to be lacking in respect within society.

# data[].attributes.body
Women are represented through language as weak and small, through the use of derogatory nouns for example mentioned in text b “sissy” the term sissy derives from the proper noun sister , insinuating that the label of sister is insulting to men , portraying them as feminine and therefore belittling femininity and woman along side with it:

# data[].attributes.body
The issues surrounding the ways and women and men are represented in language is very prominent throughout society and media , as sexism appears to be normalised and embedded in day to day communication. Grandoll and swan (1989) define sexism in language as any discrimination against women and men because of their sex, and made on irrelevant grounds, or representing women or men in such a way as to make social inequalities between men and women seem natural. This can be seen in the data when sexist language was often “dismissed as harmless banter” . The emotive adjective harmless creates negative connotations as it appears sexism is seen as a joke or not real in schools or in general. It can create a more sexist view as it is dismissed as “banter”. The abstract noun and neologism “banter” creates the idea of a joke or almost seen as unimportant therefore is regarded as banter. However this can manifest a detrimental affect on young people to normalise this kind of language to be valid to use. This in turn can allow this type of language to occur regularly as it isn’t taken seriously in schools, the idea of sexism can be continued throughout people , especially young boys to believe this behaviour is okay and therefore can be promoted in friend groups.

# data[].attributes.body
One point that’s important to take note of is, of course, how society labels women in general as “girls”. Refferring to a woman on the street as “that girl” is sexist - according to Gradoll and Swan. This alone can put young women down whilst their male counterparts are referred to similarly to any man of any age. Furthermore, by commenting that “particularly girls” are affected by sexist language proves Gradoll and Swans point entirely: “Any discrimination ahainst women or men because of their sex, and made on irrelevant grounds.” Pointing out that “girls” are affected weakens the point of equality of language between the genders and that it’s an issue that should be cared about by everyone. Whilst theorists Konraad Kuiper and Jane Pilkington assess that men and women take compliments in different ways, this doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t be encouraged to prevent bullying and gender equality.

# data[].attributes.body
One piece of research that supports the idea that sexist language exists is Julia Stanley’s theory (1973) whereby she argued that women are not predominant represented linguistically in our language. For example, words such as ‘mankind’, ‘policeman’, ‘superman’ and ‘fireman’ all are male pronouns and are biased against women. This is evident in Text B in the phrase ‘harmless banter’. The emotive adjective ‘harmless’ displays the naivety of sexist comments and a lack of understanding of how they can detrimentally impact the way women are subconsciously perceived. Furthermore, the abstract noun and neologism ‘banter’ reinforces the immature nature of sexist comments how sexist language it’s treated as a joke compared to factors like homophobia and racism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Issues around men and women’s representation in language

# data[].attributes.subject
Issues around men and women’s representation in language

# data[].attributes.body
In Text B, an example given of sexist language is the derogatory informal noun “sissy”. This demonstrates the idea of semantic derogation as it has connotations of weakness and sensitivity in relation to femininity. Sarah Mills (1995) highlights other examples of this such as mistress, spinster and madam, which all have strong negative connotations, compared to the corresponding terms master, bachelor and sir used to refer to men. Dale Spender described this as showing clear bias against women because when they are represented in language it is negative and belittling.

# data[].attributes.body
One linguist who highlights the underlying issues with how women are represented in language when compared to men is Sara mills (1995) who highlighted some good examples of the semantic derogation attached to the female terms of certain words. For example, ‘spinster’ in place of the male term ‘bachelor’. Spinster has negative connotations of being ‘fussy’ and ‘undesirable’ which is a clear example of this semantic derogation. On the other hand however, bachelor has much more positive connotations such as ‘smart’, ‘professional’ and of someone who has relative power or wealth. These examples highlighted by Sara mills clearly displays the inequality between male and female terms and how women are often subjugated by these negative connotations whilst men are instead propelled higher by the associated respect and ‘desire’ attached to the male counterpart phrases.

# data[].attributes.body
While some accents may be determined as easier to understand than others such as standard english that does not necessarily mean they are ‘better’. Yes, these accents are more helpful for people with very basic english understanding, however, an accent can’t be better than another as it’s subjective. Some may find that accents like the ‘scouse’ accent is nicer than the esteemed accents like ‘received pronounciation’, vise versa.

It is not important to use a standard English accent at all times - while during a professional setting it would be appropriate to use standard English, when in a private or less informal setting there is not a need to conform to a societal standard of dialect.

Prejudice against certain accents is definitely natural, when you can’t understand simple sentences it’s certianly aggravating, however not justifiable to hold any negative views because of it!

Daisy, Mia, Olivia.

# data[].attributes.body
“some accents are just better than others”

Some are easier to be understood than others

biased because everyone thinks their accent is better.

“it is important to use standard english at all times”

It is good because people can understand it.

you can use it with a regional accent

It is not important to use it all the time because people may not use it in more relaxed or less formal places.

“Prejudice against different varieties is natural and can’t be stopped”

everyone should have the freedom to speak how they want

people naturally have different accents so expecting them to stop using them is wrong

# data[].attributes.body
“Some accents are just better than others.”

• Depends on the situation and the accent that you use.

• Right to the extent that everybody speaks different

“It is important to use standard English at all times.”

• It is not important at all times, because we have freedom of speech.

• Not important because diversity is important.

“Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can’t be stopped.”

• It is natural, but it’s more about how you are being prejudice.

• Over time it is possible to naturally stop or reduce the prejudice.

# data[].attributes.body
(Sam, Saara and Ellie)

It heavily depends on who you grow up around and who you socialise with, if you are primarily around those with the same accent as you, youre more likely to think a different accent is quite jarring, rather than having prejudice towards them.

However, if you are biased from older generations, then you have preconceived ideas and thoughts about specific accents, regarding social class or wealth status, based on their personal experience.

Furthermore, opinions on accents can be heavily associated with certain social groups, based on media, for example films and tv shows set in England are typically Standard English, unless it's a region specific film/show, which tend to be less well known than the "norm", and from these pieces of media, certain ideas about different regions can be misconstrued, such as crime rate, social class, attitudes and reliability.

# data[].attributes.body
No accent is better or best, they are just different.

Using Standard English can be good for a formal enviornment e.g. a workplace to standardise communication, but using it 'at all times' is unnecessary.
Prejudice isn't natural but is learned and the belief that it can't be stopped or unlearned is ignorant and lazy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can’t be stopped

# data[].attributes.subject
Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can’t be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
this is a fair statement, as it is human nature to criticise anything they are not familiar with.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can't be stopped

# data[].attributes.subject
Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can't be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
I think that initially we all use clues such as accents to judge a person and is a natural response however this should not continue, holding it against someone despite their personality. You shouldn't judge a whole population of people based on their language but it's something that we do subconsciously.

# data[].attributes.body
not necessarily better or superior but some people prefer a certain accent

the media highlights and favours certain accents so this influences people to prefer RP or ‘upper class’ accent

a posh accent is associated with higher status and wealth- people adopt this ideology

certain accents have bad reputation through representation in media and associated with the area it’s from. so dislike and create prejudice to a group of people based off their accent

# data[].attributes.headline
It is important to use standard English at all times

# data[].attributes.subject
It is important to use standard English at all times

# data[].attributes.body
Using standard English at appropriate times is completely necessary. For instance, at job interviews

Using standard English at all times could make conversations awkward depending on who you associate with

In social situations, it would be more prevalent to use the register of your peers, perhaps as a way to seem relatable

# data[].attributes.body
Limiting yourself to strictly using standard English represses your true identity. Though it is convenient in certain environments such as job interviews as standard English isn’t widely subject to prejudice it is known that certain regions around the UK hold their own unique language and dialect which expresses their individualistic self expressions.

# data[].attributes.body
Some accents are better than others -

-some accents are “better” but that doesn’t mean individuals are better than others because of their accent.

-“better” is subjective.

It is important to use standard English at all times-

-professional scenarios may require a person to speak using standard English.

-people usually naturally adopt different accents depending on environment.

-“at all times” is not necessary.

Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and can’t be stopped-

-not natural, but taught (socially constructed)

-common, so will not stop immediately.

# data[].attributes.headline
It is important to use standard English all of the time 

# data[].attributes.subject
It is important to use standard English all of the time 

# data[].attributes.body
Standard English is important in some situations eg: occupation, job interviews, speaking to anyone of social superiority or with higher power but it is not crucial for every aspect of life, most of the time we speak non standard English and this isn't a set back

# data[].attributes.body
Some accents are better than others- some can be harder to understand based on unfamiliarity but doesn’t necessarily mean some accents are superior to others.

It is important to use standard English at all times- it’s better to use standard English in certain professional settings however language is a form of self expression so it’s important to consider a persons idiolect.

Prejudice against different varieties of English is natural and won’t be stopped- prejudice attitudes can be stopped but won’t be stopped due to the division between classes, social groups, wealth etc. prejudice can also be created through the frustration of misunderstanding those with accents which are not understandable, as blame may be put on each-other and then more division between them is created.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prejudice against different varieties of english is natural and cannot be stopped

# data[].attributes.subject
Prejudice against different varieties of english is natural and cannot be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes prejudice against certain accents is almost engrained from childhood. Like everyone hates on the birmingham accent because people around them do as well. Which makes no sense in the modern day but theres a level of almost hierarchy of having particular accents.

It can be stopped because why would you judge people you know based on their accent? But sometimes its a first impression thing

# data[].attributes.body
This is not true, rather some accents are easier to understand. This of course can be used in argument for the statement, as surely an accent that is difficult to understand are worse than ones you can understand, but each one is unique so it is unfair to say that one is better than another.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Some Accents are just Better than Others'

# data[].attributes.subject
'Some Accents are just Better than Others'

# data[].attributes.body
Different accents can be considered better in different circumstances. For example, if someone were to work in customer service, it would be professionally preferred to have a slower and more rounded accent to be easily understood by many different customers. However, customers can argue that a posher more rounder accent can feel patronising and as though there is a superior undertone that looks down on the customers. It really is up to a person's interpretation and opinion rather than a blunt fact.

# data[].attributes.body
We agree to an extent, it's all about personal preference, and how you define better (based on actual superiority or enjoying the accent or if its approachable and understandable for you). Depending on where you live and your own accent you will have different opinions as you are used to certain accents.

# data[].attributes.body
-No, this question is very subjective, it depends on what someone would define as better, whether it depends on which accent gets you a better job, or which accent is audibly pleasing. Depends on the area of the UK different people have different views on which accent is the best

# data[].attributes.headline
It is important to use standard english at all times

# data[].attributes.subject
It is important to use standard english at all times

# data[].attributes.body
For most job interviews they would want you to have a standard english accent, which makes its use important gor your own wellbeing, but in customer service jobs customers can feel intimidated by posher accents and may want you to feel like one of them. So no, it’s not important to use standard english at all times but it can be used in certain situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
The difference model - Men are from Mars Women are from Venus

# data[].attributes.subject
The difference model - Men are from Mars Women are from Venus

# data[].attributes.body
Men and women are different, but they’re also equal - right?

Do you ever find yourself in a conversation with a man, wondering if they’re even listening to what you’re saying, let alone understanding it? Well Deborah Tannen found a way to describe the subtle but vital differences between men and women’s speech in order to explain why you might feel this way in a conversation. Men compete (believe it or not) to be the most dominating person in a conversation where women would use language to support one another and not compete, because that’s typical women being sensitive right? Well that’s status vs support according to Tannen. Carrying on from the idea of the ‘women’s nurturing role’ they seek sympathy and understanding when faced with a problem (apparently). Naturally of course, men are the complete opposite, needing no sympathy, only practical advice, which if you’re a woman is extremely aggravating.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who’s the boss of the conversation? Breaking down Zimmerman and West’s 1975 Study on Interruptions.

# data[].attributes.subject
Who’s the boss of the conversation? Breaking down Zimmerman and West’s 1975 Study on Interruptions.

# data[].attributes.body
Let’s talk interruptions. Have you ever been in a situation where the males in your life don’t know polite conversation etiquette? Well, studies show you’re not the only one! Zimmerman and West focused on everyday conversations between men and women where they found that in mixed-sex conversations, men tend to be the bigger yappers. The reports states that in 11 conversations between men and women, men interrupted a whole 46 times in contrast to the women only interrupting twice! Who gave them the confidence?! Gender roles, stereotypes, power.

# data[].attributes.body
We all know Lakoff and her views that women have a different way of speaking. But, her student, Deborah Tamen, is another amazing and, in my opinion, more elaborate view on men and women's language and their differences.

I mean we've all had those times, tired from school and trying to rant it off to a brother or father, and they simply shrug it off, or just tell you to "sleep if you're tired then".

Yet, when you talk to a girl-friend, or mum, you get a sense of being understood, you can relate together!

These contrasts just show how boring men can be with their ideas and lack of insight into anything.

They seem black and white while you see a spectrum of greys and all sorts!

Deborah Tannen in 1990 talked about this, how men and woman speak differently, no matter how equal we are; there are alot of contrasts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Have you ever wondered why women and men speak differently? Well…

# data[].attributes.subject
Have you ever wondered why women and men speak differently? Well…

# data[].attributes.body
In 2008, the linguist Deborah Cameron, wrote ‘The Myth of Venus and Mars’. This was written to discuss The Diversity Approach of language, which suggests that women and men have different reasons for using language and that they use language in very different ways. She talks about women caring more about being good at holding a conversation than men are, (so I guess what they say is true) and that men are more aggressive in their speech. Her theories are supported by more recent research but they think that, instead of biological differences, the diversity in language is down to how speakers construct and perform their identity, which could stem from gendered stereotypes we have lived with for centuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Male and Female Speech - Are We Really All That Different and Why?

# data[].attributes.subject
Male and Female Speech - Are We Really All That Different and Why?

# data[].attributes.body
The idea that gender impacts language use has been an ongoing debate between linguists for decades, mainly due to conflicting analysis on the true extent of its impact. Research by linguist Judith Butler from her study Gender Trouble (1990) tells us that identity is an unstable concept, meaning that language use differs and is dependent on the role an individual is performing in relation to a particular situation. So basically, don’t trust anyone! For example, how you speak at work is almost certainly not the same as how you speak with your friends or family. In the same year, it was suggested that the categorisation of people in these studies as ‘men’ or ‘women’ combines biological sex and gender by sociolinguist Penelope Eckett. She did acknowledge, however, that there are aspects of language, like voice pitch, that are a direct consequence of biological sex.

But, it was also claimed by Janet Hyde that the differences in male and female speech is more so dependent on other variables like age, class and ethnicity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shitwork, why men won't do it. (dominance model)

# data[].attributes.subject
Shitwork, why men won't do it. (dominance model)

# data[].attributes.body
The value of women in conversation according to fishman.

Men's dominance always seems to lead conversation, or does it? While for years we have all been assuming that every conversation is held by males while women are stuck at the sidelines, reduced to meer gossip, Pamela Fishman argues otherwise, opening our eyes to women's subtle and but effective power over their male counterparts in dialogue. Though men hold their own in discussions, she claims that they are unwilling to put in any hard work, as per usual, or shitwork as she coins it. Subsequently, women are forced to 'shovel their shit' in order to carry conversations through tag questions. She finds that women use these questions such as "its warm out, isn't it" to continue the dialogue 4 times more than men athlough they still, unsurprisingly, answer with minimal input. This begs the question are these boys really as dominant as they like to believe, or do they just yap?

# data[].attributes.headline
I’m Sorry, but men’s speech is sort of the standard.

# data[].attributes.subject
I’m Sorry, but men’s speech is sort of the standard.

# data[].attributes.body
Power levels or woman’s language is presented as inferior.

Have you ever heard of Robin Lakoff’s study of language in woman’s speech? It evaluates the oppression of language between woman and male during conversations. Out of surprise, she highlights many characteristics in women’s speech such as: hedges (which are phrases of uncertainty in spoken language such as “sorta” and “kinda”), empty adjectives (an adjective that is said but never actually has intent with the meaning of the word, such as “divine”) and tag questions (questions added on to the end of statements).

This theory may be categorised as the deficit model under the English language. The deficit model, by Otto Jesperson, represents that women’s language, in English, is seen as powerless and we whereas the male language is the strength.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Dominance Model - Once You See it You Can’t Unsee it.

# data[].attributes.subject
The Dominance Model - Once You See it You Can’t Unsee it.

# data[].attributes.body
Women lead the conversation, opposed to public belief.

Have you ever been told that men talk more than women but noticed that when you try to have a conversation with them they barely reply? Me too. This is relating to the male entity and their views on the ‘dominant role’. Pamela Fishman, a linguist in the 1980s, wrote a paper on this idea that makes it all line up.

She focussed on ‘tag questions’, which women use more. Tag questions are added onto the end of sentences like: “it’s cold outside, isn’t it?” And “you don’t have any change, do you?”

She listened to hours and hours of conversations between young American couples and found that women use tag questions up to 4 times more than men do! She argued that women used tag questions to engage in conversation and encourage the men to contribute more - but, who could guess, they often didn’t. Fishman found this to be the result of an internal sign of weakness to do this emotional ‘shitwork’. This means men don’t want to seem weak, even in conversations with their own partners!

I tested this out on my own partner and he followed the idea almost exactly as I counted every time each of us used a tag question. But, obviously this can’t be considered for every conversation ever. Almost 30% of women said they wished their male partner would engage more in conversation. But what did men think? Many men thought that their conversations with their partners were engaging, but they didn’t use tag questions as often.

# data[].attributes.body
So, you’re interested in the diversity and social group approach in language? Well I’ve got a theory that’s OUT OF THIS WORLD!

Deborah Cameron provides us all with her theory on this topic that she named: The Myth Of Venus and Mars. (I told you it was out of this world.)

Deborah argues that men and women using language in very different ways and for different reasons is complete baloney and I would agree. She points out that these myths have come from ideas such as women paying more attention to being good communicators than men (who woulda guessed?)

And that men have a natural interest in being competitive that results in aggressive speech styles, have you ever heard a man after the opposing team scores when he’s watching the football? Because that’s the perfect example!

Cameron’s work represents recent studies that have moved away from suggesting that male and female speech styles are driven by biological differences. And instead focuses on how the speaker displays these good old fashioned gender stereotypes we can never hear enough about! Which can lead to someone’s speech styles either conforming to these stereotypes or challenging them.

-Tyler and Charlie