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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

-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.

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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

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.

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.

lottie+katie

Mia and Daisy!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🙄

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.