The search for explanatory coherence in language
and gender research has fostered a variety of research
methods and analyses; this article evaluates the contributions
of the Communities of Practice approach, with its focus
on the constructive practices of a group – especially
mutual engagement of learning a jointly negotiated practice
of gender. Rather than presupposing gender differences
as a starting point, CofP emphasizes the learning and mutability
in gendered linguistic displays across groups; CofP theory
thus naturalizes intragroup variation, not marking it as
deviant. However, while the CofP approach focuses much-needed
attention on the social construction of gender as local
and cross-culturally variable, gender research must be
augmented by critical study of two other facets of gender:
ideology and innateness, which are critical components
of a more comprehensive theory of gender for language research.
I would like to give thanks to Janet
Holmes for organizing the original forum in which the paper developed,
and for her very helpful comments; to Sally McConnell-Ginet and
Penny Eckert for their sustained support, through their
work, of me and others in the field; and to all three of
them – plus Alice Freed, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Susan
Ehrlich – for stimulating comments and discussion
of these issues. Thanks also go to Mary Talbot and Craig
Waddell for comments on an earlier draft. All errors remain
my own responsibility.