Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-lxvtp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-29T13:22:53.949Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Penelope Eckert
University of Illinois, Chicago and Institute for Research on Learning, Palo Alto
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Core share and HTML view are not possible as this article does not have html content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Speaker's sex has emerged as one of the most important social factors in the quantitative study of phonological variation. However, sex does not have a uniform effect on variables or even on variables that represent sound change in progress. This is because sex is not directly related to linguistic behavior but reflects complex social practice. The correlations of sex with linguistic variables are only a reflection of the effects on linguistic behavior of gender — the complex social construction of sex — and it is in this construction that one must seek explanations for such correlations. Sociolinguists generally treat sex in terms of oppositional categories (male/female), and the effects of sex on variation are generally sought in linguistic differences between male and female speakers. However, because gender differences involve differences in orientation to other social categories, the effects of gender on linguistic behavior can show up in differences within sex groupings. Data on sound changes in progress (the Northern Cities Chain Shift) among Detroit area adolescents show that gender has a variety of effects on variables and that the significance of gender in variation cannot be reduced to notions of male or female speech as “more or less conservative.”

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989


Baroni, Maria Rosa & d'Urso, Valentina. (1984). Some experimental findings about the question of politeness and women's speech. Language in Society 13:6772.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre & Boltanski, Luc. (1975). Le fétichisme de la langue. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 4:232.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope. (1980). How and why women are more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth A. & Furman, Nelly (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 111136.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Steven. (1979). Social structure, groups and interaction. In Scherer, R. Klaus & Giles, Howard (eds.), Social markers in speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 291341.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Steven. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Clermont, Jean & Cedergren, Henrietta. (1978). Les “R” de ma mère sont perdus dans l'air. In Thibault, Pierrette (ed.), Le français parlé: études sociolinguistiques. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research. 1328.Google Scholar
Deuchar, Margaret. (1988). A pragmatic account of women's use of standard speech. In Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (eds.), Women in their speech communities. London: Longman. 2732.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1984). Age and linguistic change. In Keith, Jennie & Kertzer, David I (eds.), Age and anthropological theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 219233.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1987). The relative values of variables. In Denning, Keith, Inkelas, Sharon, McNair-Knox, Faye & Rickford, John (eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV. Stanford, Department of Linguistics. 101110.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1988). Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society 17:183207.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1989a) Jocks and burnouts. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1989b). Social membership and linguistic variation. Paper presented at NWAVE,Duke University.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent “girl talk.” Discourse Processes 13:91122.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, Edwards, Alison & Robins, Lynne. (1985). Social and biological categories in the study of linguistic variation. Paper presented at NWAVE IV,Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. (1981). Public man, private woman. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. (1988). Within the plantation household. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gauchat, L. (1905). L'unité phonétique dans le patois d'une commune. In Festshrift Heinrich Morf. Halle: Max Niemeyer. 175232.Google Scholar
Guy, G., Horvath, B., Vonwiller, J., Daisley, E. & Rogers, I. (1986). An intonational change in progress in Australian English. Language in Society 15:2352.Google Scholar
Haeri, Niloofar. (1989). Synchronic variation in Cairene Arabic: The case of palatalization. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting,Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hindle, Donald. (1979). The social and situational conditioning of phonetic variation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara & Sankoff, David. (1987). Delimiting the Sydney speech community. Language in Society 16:179204.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972a). Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In Labov, William (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 122142.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972b). The linguistic consequences of being a lame. In Labov, William (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 255292.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972c). The social motivation of a sound change. In Labov, William (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 142.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1980). The social origins of sound change. In Labov, William (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 251265.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1984). The intersection of sex and social factors in the course of language change. Paper presented at NWAVE,Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Report on NSF project No. 65–3287.Google Scholar
Laferriere, Martha. (1979). Ethnicity in phonological variation and change. Language 55:603617.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, social class, and education. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel & Borker, Ruth. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Gumperz, John J. (ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 195216.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nichols, Patricia C. (1983). Linguistic options and choices for black women in the rural south. In Thorne, Barrie, Kramarae, Cheris and Henley, Nancy (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 5468.Google Scholar
Rickford, John. (1986). The need for new approaches to class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and communication 6:215221.Google Scholar
Sacks, Karen. (1974). Engels revisited. In Rosaldo, M. & Lamphere, L. (eds.), Women, culture and society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 207222.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David & Laberge, Suzanne. (1978). The linguistic market and the statistical explanation of variability. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 239250.Google Scholar
Sattel, Jack W. (1983). Men, inexpressiveness, and power. In Thorne, Barrie, Kramarae, Cheris & Henley, Nancy (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 119124.Google Scholar
Thibault, Pierrette. (1983). Equivalence et grammaticalisation. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1972a). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179195.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1972b). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein. (1931). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. A. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar