Deborah Tannen and the difference model

Tannen was originally a student of Lakoff and her book You just dont understand was published in 1990. She was an advocate of the difference model (the theory that men and women speak differently): ;The desire to affirm that women are equal have made some scholars reluctant to show that they are different. There are gender differences in ways of speaking , and we need to identify and understand them'. Tannen represents male and female language use in a series of 6 contrasts to show this difference.

• Status vs support: Men use language to show power and dominance in conversations; women more likely to use language choices that support and agree with others.
• Independence vs Intimacy: Men will use language to show they do not need to rely on others. Women will prefer to use language as a way of connecting with others and maintaining closeness.
• Advice vs understanding: Men more likely to offer solutions to a problem, whilst a woman would display empathy and understanding.
• Information vs feelings: Similar to Tannens Advice vs Understanding concept, men are far more likely to be factual, whilst women will use less factual language choices, and have a more emotional viewpoint. 
• Orders vs proposals: In conversations, men are more likely to be direct in their language choices, using imperatives to command others. Women will avoid a commanding tone and be more suggestive in their language choices.
• Conflict vs compromise: Men are more likely to use language to argue a point, whereas women will use language to avoid such conflict and are far more likely to negotiate with others to try and find a solution or compromise.

Pamela Fisherman (1983) and the dominance model

Exert from text book

In the year following Cheshires study, Fisherman, in her paper Interaction:The work women do Looked specifically at aspects of language that can be linked to Lackoff's research, but came to very different conclusions. She focused, for example, on tag questions , listening to 52 hours of pre recorded conversations between young american couples. She agreed with Lakoff's findings that tag questions were more commonly used by women (4x more than men) however the conclusion she drew was very different. While Lakoff claimed that tag questions represented uncertainty, Fisherman argued that, for females. questions are actually used to start conversations with males and to subsequently continue and sustain dialogue.  She claims that men often do not always respond to declarative statements or will only respond minimally, whilst females use tag questions to gain conversational power, rather than show signs of tentativeness. Women are the ones who are trying to initiate the conversation and keep it going, an action she deems 'conversational shitwork' because of what they perceive to be their dominant role.

This links to another gender theory: The dominance model. The majority of research which supports this model was carried out in the 1970s and early 1980s.  It focuses on how men are dominant in speech through, for example, speaking more, interrupting, holding the floor and initiating and shifting topics.

Jenny Cheshire (1982)

Exert from textbook

Jenny Cheshire looked at specifically at certain grammatical variations in the speech of young children. She considered the frequency of children using

• Non standard - s (she calls me)
• Non standard - has (you has to)
• Non standard was (you was)
• Multiple negation
• Non standard never
• Non standard what (are you the boys what hit)
• Non standard do (she do)
• Non standard come (I come here yesterday)
• Use of ain't

Overall boys used the non standard forms more frequently than girls did. Cheshire concluded that 'variation is controlled by both social and linguistic factors. In boys speech, variation is governed by norms that are central to vernacular culture, and are transmitted by the peer group. Variation in girls speech appears to be a more personal process and less rigidly controlled by vernacular norms'.

Robin Lakoff (1975)

Exert from textbook

The influence of Robin Lackoff's Language and Woman's Place on the study of language and gender is undeniable. In Twenty years after Language and Woman's Place, The original text's editor Mary Bucholtz offers a reminder that the work was, at the time of publication, 'met with widespread criticism'. In the introduction of the book, Lakoff admits: 'It is my impression, though I do not have precise statistical evidence'. This is evidenced in her use of language in the book, using prrases such as 'many men' and 'men tend to'. Despite this, Bulcholtz argues that 'it launched a far reaching program of research  on language and gender whose effects we still feel today'. What is very clear is that Lakoff's work is still often quoted today and its list of the main features of female speech remains an integral part of language and gender discussion:

1) Hedges: Phrases like 'sprt of', 'kind of','it seems like'.
2) Empty adjectives: 'divine','adorable', 'gorgeous'.
3) Super polite forms: 'would you mind', 'is it okay if...?'
4) Apologise more: 'im sorry but I think that'
6) Speak less frequently.
7) Tag questions: 'You dont mind eating this, do you?'
8) Hyper-correct grammar and pronounciation: use of prestige grammar and clear articulation.
9) Indirect requests: 'I'm so thirsty' - really asking for a drink
10) Speak in italics: Use of tone to emphasise certain words, e.g. 'so', 'very', 'quite'.

Lakoff's research can be seen as representative of the 'deficit approach', or 'deficit model' to language and gender. The deficit approach is attributed to Otto Jepersen who, in 1922, argued that male language features were the 'norm' and language of others (including women) were 'deficient'. Looking at the list of main female features, it is perhaps apparent why Lakoff sees the language of women to be weaker. Indirect requests and the use of apologetic forms do suggest womens language to be less powerful than that of males,