top of page
Search

The Difference Theory of Language and Gender

Writer's picture: Rebecca Kate HodgeRebecca Kate Hodge
Jul 31, 20218 min read

Updated: Jan 11, 2022

The difference theory (also known as the cultural approach) was first introduced by Maltz and Borker in the 1980s, regarding women’s style of conversation as “different, yet equal to men’s” and suggesting that men and women grow up in separate “sociolinguistic subcultures” (Freeman & McElhinny, 1996:239). A model of the difference approach was proposed in 1990 by Deborah Tannen, Professor of Linguistics. It outlines six direct comparisons between male and female language and proposes advice to both genders on how to better understand each other’s different communication styles. The model represents a dichotomy between men and women and suggests that there is a binary separation of the types of language we produce depending solely on the gender group to which we belong. Tannen states that “the conversational styles of men and women differ”, and although she recognises that not all men and women can be boxed into one or the other category, she explains that many misunderstandings within relationships can be put down to “different conversational rules by which men and women play” (Tannen, 1990). She specifically believes that frustrations in conversation occur due to “systematic differences in how women and men tend to signal meaning in conversation”. (1994:7)

Tannen explains that men are brought up to understand conversation as competition. When men engage in conversation with others, they have a goal of achieving supremacy or at least preventing threat of one-upmanship; using language as a means of asserting and maintaining status. Oppositely, women understand conversation as an exchange of validation and solidarity, with their interactions characterised by the seeking and giving of support (Tannen, 1990). This difference outlines Tannen’s idea of ‘Status versus Support’ and helps to explain the following dispute of ‘Independence versus Intimacy’. She believes that women, concerned with support, “struggle to preserve intimacy”, where men do not consider conversation as a tool of expressing closeness but instead of expressing independence (1990). ‘Advice versus Understanding’ acknowledges men’s understanding of a complaint as being a request for help. Men see a negative remark as a “challenge to come up with a solution”, however women seek emotional support and an expression of empathy rather than a practical response (Tannen, 1990). Tannen points out that women are often upset that their men do not converse with them in the home and this often leads to men confused as to why their women are disappointed. She explains this as the issue of ‘Information versus Feelings’- men see the purpose of talking as providing information and therefore it is not necessary at home, whereas women see it as relationship building. Tannen advises that in order to avoid misunderstandings, women need to challenge their thinking of a man’s decision not to talk to them but, for example, “read the paper”, as rejective of them, and men need to challenge their thinking of a woman’s want to talk as “manipulative intrusion” (1990). In this difference model, women are also believed to construct requests as proposals, seeking to obtain agreement with their ideas. This explains the ‘Orders versus Proposals’ idea, as men do not respond well to this approach and tend to take it as indirect manipulation, as they would present their idea as a direct order. The ‘Conflict versus Compromise’ dispute describes how men do not worry about causing arguments, but women, in attempt to prevent conflict, do not directly oppose the ideas of others. Tannen states that “sometimes it’s far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict” (1990).

Deborah Cameron criticises Tannen’s difference model and believes the idea that men’s and women’s language use is fundamentally different “is a myth in the everyday sense... a false belief” (2007). She views the perceived differences between men and women as stereotypical assumptions- which are consequently reflected by the sexes due to their different expectations- and not physiological truth. This links to the concept of Performativity discussed by Butler, describing it as the act of using language to exhibit identity (1990). She considers gender to be something we “do” rather than a naturally occurring concept, displayed through a process of imitation of repeated gender norm patterns (Butler, 1993; cited in Morison & Macleod, 2013). Burr explains that people are products of social processes, stating that people have no internal essence that determines their identity; people do not have a pre-determined nature (1995:5). If these sociolinguistic gender ideas are believed, the disputes proposed in Tannen’s difference model would not be quite as problematic as each gender is believed to be performing their male or female identity and, therefore, is able to simply neglect it or choose another linguistic ‘performance’ in order to prevent disputes. It would also question the general relevance of this model since gender is believed to be constructed and therefore these disputes might not be explained so simplistically by pre-determined, biological sex. Clarke and James have expressed the belief that the difference in “group dynamic” of males and females is a result of established societal gender roles (1993:33). Therefore, it has been proposed that if the behaviours associated with ‘male’ and ‘female’ were not performed, these concepts would not continue as significant societal categories (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003:50)

The difference approach does, however, have regard for ‘societal gender’, but a much more old-fashioned, simplistic one at that. Uchida states that the difference approach explains difference in sex as difference in culture; strongly suggesting that “cross-sex communication” is a form of “cross-cultural communication” (1992:547). This is put down to the idea that during childhood, rules for interaction are presented to boys differently to how they are to girls, and the different sexes subconsciously learn these rituals and accepted norms through same-sex social interaction (Uchida, 1992: 547-548). These interactional rules are reinforced throughout a child’s life, so much so that new generations of girls and boys create their own, separate cultures (Macoby 1986; cited in Uchida, 1992:549). However, this ideology is extremely simplistic and arguably idealised. Firstly, it either neglects the idea of children interacting with the opposite sex, or, believing that girls and boys do grow up in different linguistic cultures, it neglects the idea that mixed-sex interactions would have any influence on both cultures’ language use. Furthermore, the difference approach suggests that men and women apply the conversational ‘rules’ acquired throughout childhood into adulthood interactions; proposing the idea that females only converse with other females until they reach adulthood when they then apply their ‘female’ linguistic patterns to mixed-sex conversations (Uchida, 1992: 555). This simplistic proposition arguably implies a lack of linguistic maturity and inability to adapt to different linguistic ‘cultures’. Tannen suggests that women seek the same conversation from men as they get from other women, but in a study by Aries and Johnson, it was discovered that women share things with their female friends that they would not discuss with their husbands (1983; cited in Uchida, 1992:556). This evidences the opposite of the difference approach in that is shows how women adapt their conversation topic to whom they are talking with; therefore, if the topics they discuss are different, surely the expectations they have for conversations would differ depending on the sex of the “conversation partner” (Uchida, 1992:556).

Tannen appears to share her ideas with the objective of improving relationships between heterosexual couples through educating them of the dichotomy of language between the two sexes. She states “once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiralling out of control” (1990). This approach demonstrates heteronormativity in its expectation of heterosexual relationships having disagreements due to the different linguistic practises of men and women, neglecting to represent homosexuals. Therefore, this model arguably expects us to assume that there would be no disputes of this same nature within homosexual relationships, as both individuals are the same sex. Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality is the norm, resulting in any other form of sexuality to be viewed as somewhat abnormal, not expected (Berlant & Werner, 2000; cited in Usai et al, 2020). It is the heteronormative society which is responsible for the underrepresentation of homosexual and bisexual identities. Crawford highlights the “(re)conflation of sex and gender” (1995:9), and this is evident in the difference approach through the use of the noun gender as being interchangeable with sex. It’s lack of distinction, or rather merging of the two concepts into one definition, fails to consider an individual’s biological sex as being different to their gender identity.


The difference theory seems to reject other dimensions of a person, placing all reason for difference on maleness and femaleness. In doing so, it suggests that sex (or gender, as used interchangeably), is the most significant aspect and it is this aspect that binds women, and men, together above all else. Bohan explains it as an “essentialist approach” in that it sees gender as the fundamental aspect, giving a person the “set of properties” of which their personality and characteristics are formed from (1993; cited in Crawford, 1995:8-9). Crawford proposes that men and women exist along other “socially salient dimensions”, for example, race, class, and sexuality (1995:7-8). This foregrounding of gender tramples on the idea of these other aspects of a person’s identity influencing their language. The question of “which women do we mean?” has been raised in response to Tannen’s difference model (Bohan, 1993; cited in Crawford, 1995:8), as it condenses women into one category, failing to see the multi-dimensional woman. Crawford states “lesbians share the experiences of social invisibility, heterosexism, and homophobia with gay men”, bringing to light the simplistic approach to gendered language that is the difference approach (1995:8). Therefore, in today’s society, the difference theory presents itself as unreliable in that it oversimplifies linguistic behaviours as being the direct result of gender, represents an old-fashioned, heteronormative society, and is unable to represent all gender identities, accepting these two physiologies as the fundamental part of a person beyond which they do not exist. References:

 
 
 

Comments

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

  • Twitter

@RebeccaWrites Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page