F. F. Ademola-Adeoye

 Abstract

Women and men are peculiar as far as social groups go because they tend to live in pairs consisting of one woman and one man and until recently, women and men viewed themselves favourably unlike other social groups who define themselves in relation to out-groups and often come into conflict with these groups (Coates 93: 7). The resistance of women to being treated as a minority group is believed to have led to the discovery of distinct male and female subcultures which in turn resulted in differences in women’s and men’s speech (i.e. gender-differentiated linguistic styles).

This study looked at the relationship between sex and language by examining the writings of one hundred and forty-four female and male undergraduate students in the English Department of the University of Lagos, Nigeria. It aimed at discovering how their sense of female or male identity is linguistically expressed. All 144 students were questioned regarding their choice of words/language and their attitudes towards language in terms of its relevance in defining their personal and socio-cultural identity, using open-ended questionnaires. Their speech and writing were analysed in relation to the use of obscenities or swearing, slang and alternative names for women/men (or lady/young man).

The study adopted two main approaches to gender differences (the dominance approach and the difference approach) in explaining the differences in the linguistic styles of male and female undergraduates.

Introduction

In a substantial number of empirical investigations, the language used by men and women has been shown to differ in meaningful ways. According to Mulac (2001) some investigations have shown that men tend to use more references to quantity than women and studies have also revealed that men employ more judgemental adjectives (e.g. working can be a drag). Some other studies have demonstrated that women use more intensive adverbs (e.g. this is really hard) and a number of researches have shown that women use more references to emotions (e.g. if he loved what he was doing …).

Many linguists have however issued warnings that such language differences should not be thought of as markers of gender whose presence unerringly points to the gender of the speaker. Instead, these differences should be seen as gender-linked tendencies to favour certain linguistic features over others. Although there is widespread agreement among researchers that there are some gender differences in a wide range of communication contexts, a great deal of so-called differences is perceived as opposed to actual differences.  

Common Stereotypes and Prejudices

1. Women talk far more than men

2. Women ask more questions

3. Women’s intonational contours display more variety than men’s

4. Women use more diminutives and euphemisms than men

5. Women make use of expressive forms (adjectives, not nouns or verbs and in that category, those expressing emotional rather than intellectual evaluation) more than men

6. Women use hedges and epistemic modal forms of all kinds more than men

7. Women use intonation patterns that resemble questions, indicating uncertainty or need for approval

8. Women’s voices are breathier than men’s

9. Women are more indirect and polite than men

10. In conversation, women are more likely to be interrupted, less likely to introduce successful topics

11. Women’s communicative style tends to be collaborative rather than competitive

12. More of women’s communication is expressed non-verbally (by gesture and intonation) than men’s

13. Women are more careful to be “correct” when they speak, using better grammar and few colloquialisms than men

(See Conrick, 2001; Coates, 1993: 16-37 and Kramarae, 1986)

It is important to note that considerable amount of research have been carried out to correct some of these stereotypes. For example, evidence (as found in Spender, 1990) strongly suggests that men (and boys) talk far more than women (and girls).

Background to the study

             As a budding academic I have always been thrilled at the speed with which the young undergraduates of my university (University of Lagos, Akoka, Nigeria) come up with new slang expressions. Take for instance, the GSM with its various marketing outlets like MTN, Econet, etc. is less than a year old in Nigeria, yet university undergraduates now refer to a “gossip” as an MTN or Econet Wireless.

            In order to obtain detailed information regarding their use of slang expressions, swear words/expressions and alternative names for members of the opposite sex, 26 males and 118 female 2nd year (English) Language Major undergraduate students were investigated using open and closed-ended questionnaires. The study aimed to see:

1. If there is a difference in the choice and use of slang expressions by male and female undergraduates

2. If both male and female undergraduates utter swear expressions and if there is a difference in the kind of  swear expressions used by the female and male undergraduates

3. If female and male undergraduates are in the habit of giving alternative names to members of the opposite sex and also find out if there is a difference in the kind of names given by male and female undergraduates to members of the opposite sex

Slang Expressions

           According to Burke (2000) American teens, in their never-ending mission to keep their teachers and parents guessing and confused, routinely use opposite speak, “taking common definitions of everyday words and spinning them around 180 degrees. Therefore ‘bad’ is really good and ‘the bomb’ means ‘great’ and ‘dope’ is no longer a noun meaning ‘fool’ rather an adjective meaning ‘wonderful.’”

            Slang refers to a collection of vocabulary specific to e.g. a particular generation of younger speakers as well as in ordinary usage, specific to a group of professions (e.g. army slang) (Matthews, 1997). It is a colloquial departure from standard usage; it is often imaginative, vivid, and ingenious in its construction – so much so that it has been called the plain man’s poetry. It therefore attracts those who for reasons of personality or social identity, wish to be linguistically different – to be one of the gang, whether the “gang” in question be soldiers, nurses, gays, pop singers, actors or students. The chief use of slang is to show that you’re one of the gang. Eric Patridge (1894-1979) was however able to distinguish as many as 15 different reasons for the use of slang.

1. for the fun of it

2. as an exercise in wit or ingenuity

3. to be different

4. to be picturesque

5. to be arresting

6. to escape from clichés

7. to enrich the language

8.  to add concreteness to speech

9. to reduce seriousness

10. to be colloquial

11. for ease of social interaction

12. to induce intimacy

13. to show that one belongs

14. to exclude others

15. to be secretive.

  Table I

            Under this section, respondents were asked to give 10 slang expressions and their meanings while in the second part they were given 18 expressions to which they were asked to give corresponding slang words/expressions. Nine out of the twenty-six males were able to give ten slang expressions and their meanings, eleven of them were able to give between five and nine slang expressions with their meanings and only six gave less than five slang expressions and their meanings. In the second section, twenty-one out of twenty-six males were able to supply between ten and eighteen slang words/expressions which corresponded to the eighteen expressions given them. Four out of twenty-six gave between three and nine slang expressions, while only one male was unable to give any corresponding slang expression.

            Forty-seven out of one hundred and eighteen female undergraduate respondents were able to give as many as ten slang expressions and their meanings. Forty-two of them were able to give between five and nine slang expressions and their meanings. Twenty-four female respondents gave less than five slang/meanings while only five of the one hundred and eighteen female respondents could not give any slang expression. In the second section where respondents were asked to supply slang expressions which corresponded to eighteen expressions given them, eighty-eight females gave between ten and eighteen slang words/expressions; twenty-four of them gave between three and nine, while only six gave between zero and three slang words/expressions.

            This shows that there is no significant difference in male versus female students’ understanding and/or use of slang. In other words, both the male and the female students understand and/or use slang expressions.

            Table 1 also shows that both also use similar slang expressions and have same meanings for most of the expressions except for instances where there are mild differences in the choice of slang or meanings ascribed to certain slang expressions. Take for instance:

Table II

*Note that slang expressions are arranged in the order of the frequency at which they occur.

Table III

Like most American teenage slang, some of the slang expressions/words used by the students investigated are “opposite speak” like:

   Table IV

A few of the expressions are acronyms or abbreviations:

Table V

  Some other slang expressions are shortened forms of some English words:

  Table VI

              A handful of the slang words/expressions originate from some of the indigenous Nigerian languages like Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, etc.

  Table VII

            Slang                     Language              Meaning

                Gbeborun                        Yoruba                           gossip 

                Amebo                            Yoruba                           gossip

                Lepa                               Yoruba                           very slim person

                Orobo                             Yoruba                           a fat person

                Wahala                            Hausa                           trouble

                Shakara                           Yoruba                          to show off

                Yanga                              Igbo                              to show off

                Omotodun                       Yoruba                           beautiful lady

                Opeke                             Yoruba                           beautiful lady

Many of the slang words/expressions can also be traced to the Nigerian Pidgin language:

   Table VIII

Highly remarkable is the way in which these young female and male undergraduates are able to use words, expressions or terms connotatively.

  Table IX

            For majority of the one hundred and forty-four students investigated, using slang expressions means being part of “a clique,” sounding informal, being sociable, friendly and intimate, showing that one belongs and being secretive.

Swearing

            According to Crystal (1997), cursing and swearing constitute a remarkable variety of linguistic forms. They are of various kinds. At one extreme, there are the complex and sophisticated expressions that may be found in religious, legal and other formal contexts like God, dear Lord, heavens, Hell, etc. At the other, there are the many daily examples of taboo speech usually profanities or obscenities that express such emotions as hatred, antagonism, frustration, surprise, anger, shock such as heck, dash, fuck, cunt, shit, etc.

            The functions of swearing are complex but the most obvious of its functions is as an outlet for frustration or pent-up emotion and a means of releasing nervous energy after a sudden shock. Swearing is also regarded as a marker of group identity and solidarity and a way of expressing aggression without resort to violence. Though swearing is regarded as an “emotive” or expressive function of language, there are also many other emotive utterances of a positive kind, such as our involuntary verbal reactions to beautiful art or scenery, our expression of fear and affection, and the emotional outpourings of certain kinds of poetry such as Gosh, My, What a sight, etc.

            The belief that women’s language is more polite, more refined is very widespread and has been current for many centuries (Coates, 1992). Many cultures all over the world not only condemn the use of linguistic taboos in general, but also condemn the use of vulgar language by women, and its use by men in front of women. In fact, some peoples, such as the Amerindians, Polynesians, and Japanese, swear very little, or not at all (Crystal, 1997).

            It is also generally believed and expected that even when females utter swear expressions, they are usually emotive utterances of a positive kind such as Oh dear, My God, heavens, etc. This study however reveals that not only do females swear, but, the swear words and expressions are similar to those used by the males, and females utter swear words and expressions almost as frequently as their male folk do.

Analysis of Data Collected from Male and Female Students on Uttering Swear Words/Expressions

Only four out of the twenty-six male students said they never used swear words. Sixteen of the twenty-two male students who said they used swear words, used it occasionally, four used it very often and only two used it often.

Data on Female Swearing

             Of one hundred and eighteen (118) female students investigated, eighty-one (81) said they swear either occasionally, often or very often. Thirty-seven (37) said they never swore.

  Table X

These students gave various reasons for uttering swear words.

  Table XI

From the table above, it is obvious that young female and male undergraduates have various reasons for swearing, the most common being to express feelings of anger, disappointment, frustration, excitement, etc. But while a great number of male undergraduates seem to swear in order to express their emotions, many female undergraduates swear for no reason at all. The study shows that the females are more likely to swear just for the fun of it than the males. Also, the females give the flimsiest excuses for swearing.

            The respondents claim to have acquired the swear words and expressions from various sources – friends, television, foreign films, novels, magazines, elders, parents, etc. The major source of acquisition is, however, through friends.  

Table XII

The media seems to be the next major source of acquisition of these swear words. This is not surprising as most of the television stations in Nigeria are known for showing foreign movies/films which often promote violence and obscenity. Even the locally produced films/videos have started to toe the same line.

            The most common swear words/expressions uttered by both male and female respondents consist of single words or phrases, conveying different levels of intensity. Sex, excretion and the supernatural are the main sources of swear words. Examples of the most common ones are as follows:

Shit, fuck! bullshit! Damn! Hell! Motherfucker! Asshole! Fuck Up! Fuck you! Cross my heart! Bitch! Holy Moses! Heavens!

            Apart from these expressions in English, there are also a few in some indigenous Nigerian languages:

Egbesu! Olorun! Allah, wah lai ta lai! Ogun, Amadioha.

Interestingly, those swear expressions in vernacular deal with the name of God (or gods), sacred places and anyone or anything that holds a sacred place in the belief system of each respondent’s community.

            Contrary to expectation, none of these emotive utterances (whether of a positive or negative kind) is peculiar to any of the two groups, i.e. males/females). In other words, males as well as female undergraduate respondents used swear expressions like Bitch! Fuck you! Shit! Damn! Motherfucker! One strongly suspects that the use of swear words (or lack of it) is more related to social class and religion than gender. Many young undergraduates come from parents who have a minimum level of education (or exposure) or are religious. Quite a number are both religious and educated therefore swearing will be a taboo in their homes. Some of the respondents who do not swear also claim not to do so because of their faith. This, of course, explains why only three out of the one hundred and forty-four male and female respondents investigated say they acquired the swear expressions from some family member.

Alternative Names for Members of the Opposite Sex

There is now a widespread awareness of the way in which language indirectly and subtly displays social attitudes towards men and women (Crystal, 1997). The criticisms have not only been directed at the biases built into the vocabulary and grammar of certain languages (English and many European  and African languages) which reflect a traditionally male-dominated and oriented view of the world, but also at the ways in which language is used to denigrate women as well as reinforce the low status of women in society. English language, for instance, has an infinite variety of alternatives to “women” – chicks, dolls, dames, babes, skirts, broads – which reduce women to their sexuality. This is not to say language cannot be sexist against men, after all, there are also alternative names for men – hunk, toy boy, stud – all of which also reduce men to their sexuality. The “question” is whether this counts as  sexist, since the power relations underlying the language use are different. Moreover, men still hold more high status occupations in most societies than women do, and they have more physical power than women (Wareing, 1999).

Analysis and Explanation of Data on Females and Male Students’ Use of Alternative Names for Members of the Opposite Sex

For this study, respondents were asked the following questions:

i.                     If they call members of the opposite sex alternative names

ii.         Why they call them names

iii.                  If they call members of their own sex names

iv.        Why they call them names

v.                   Write down ten names they call members of the opposite sex

vi.                 Write down ten names they call members of their own sex.

Seventy-four of one hundred and eighteen female respondents said they call their colleagues alternatives, while forty-four of them said they never used alternative names for males. Twenty-two out of twenty-six male respondents call females alternative names and only four of them do not. The table below shows the different reasons given for using these names.  

Table XIII 

Some of the names given by male respondents as alternatives to female names are as follows:

Babe, Aristo chic (i.e. an aristocrat’s mistress), tomato, Lepa (slim woman), orobo (fat woman), chick, pussy, arshy, doggy, boobs, Sharon, cowbell, Jezebel, dame, thing, girl, honey, pancake, obe (soup), zobo (a local drink), baby, figure eight, cream, pepperless, aje (witch), bitch, milky, omo (child).

Some of the names given by female respondents as alternatives to male names are:

Hunk, bloke, dude, Aristo, Notorious, Guy, Chief, Daddy, Macho, Loverboy, Heart, Honey, Shaggy, Rookie, Niggie, Homey, Bastard, Scrub, Dearie, Under Siege, Captivating, Prince Charming, man mi (my man), Stud, Chap, My paddy, Mr. Universe, Bros, My Guy, Player, Batter, Fine Boy, Chap, Handsome, Dude, Big Boss, Michael Jordan, G.S.M. (God Sent Man), Tommy, Lover, Americana, Froggy, Chewing Gum.

            The impression one gets from the foregoing is that most male and female undergraduates give alternative names for members of the opposite sex, most to make fun of them than for any other reason. Only one male respondent may be a misogynist in the making – the one who says he give alternative names to women because they deserve to be called those names.

            In spite of the seemingly innocuous reasons for giving these names, one cannot but wonder at what these names connote. Take for instance the alternative names for females. Examples are Tomato, Honey, Pancake, Obe (soup), Zobo (a local drink), Cream. These are names of food items or consumables all of which tend to dehumanise the female person (see Miller and Swift 1986 for an overview of alternative names for “women”). There are also others that reduce females to nothing but sex objects – boobs, cowbell, figure eight, etc. and the worst of them all, “thing” which portrays women as having no more importance than as acquired property.

            Conversely, females give to their male colleagues alternative names which are mostly complimentary and sometimes eulogise male sexuality, e.g. Hunk, Loverboy, Stud, Mr. Universe, Macho, etc. They also give to males names of their most loved foreign and local stars – Michael Jordan, Shaggy, Alariwo, Tommy; while the not-so-complimentary ones are not nearly as demeaning as the alternative names for females.

            It is interesting to note that many female respondents also referred to their female folk by those somewhat demeaning alternative names, not because they want to sound rude, but because they are friends with those other females and they also want to “belong.” This goes to show that most female undergraduates do not see anything demeaning about being referred to as a babe, chick, cream or pancake by males. This may be due to what is known as gender socialisation, that is, “that process through which women come to identify themselves as sexual beings, as beings that exist for men. It is that process through which women internalise a male image of their sexuality as their identity as women” (Mackinnon 17). The Nigerian woman is expected to be docile, soft, passive, childlike, domesticated, made for childbirth, homecare and husband. Certain physical qualities like fatness, large buttocks and busts and more recently, lightened skin are now considered by men to be aspects of Nigerian femininity (Adebayo, 1999).

            The male respondents in this study have used several demeaning referents for females and these may be the only alternatives they know how to use since the society they live in is a patriarchal one where men tend to have more power than women, physically, financially, socially in workplace hierarchies, etc. The question of sexism (and differences in language use) is a question of the power relations between the sexes, and this power struggle will be part of the context of all utterances under patriarchy. It does not follow, however, that in every case, the feminine speaker will emerge as the victim (Moi, 1985).

References

Burke, David (2000). “The Slangman Guide to American Slang.” In American Language Review, Nov./Dec. 2000 pg. 68.

Coates, Jennifer (1992). Women, Men and Language. New York: Longman.

Conrick, M. (2001). “Gender and Linguistic Stereotyping” (Internet).

Crystal, David (1997). “Contextual Identity.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Second Edition) by David Crystal pp. 53-59.

Crystal, David (1997). “Social Variations: Gender Issues.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, pp. 368-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David (1997). “The Functions of Language.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Second Edition) by David Crystal, p 10.

Freed, Alice (1995). “Language and Gender.” In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, pp 3-22.

Kramarae, Cheris (1986). “Folk Linguistics: Wishy-Washy Mommy Talk.” In G. Goshgarian (ed.) Exploring Language. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Mathews, P. (1997) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Casey and Kate Swift (1986). “One Small Step for Genkind.” In G. Goshgarian (ed.) Exploring Language. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Moi, Toril (1985). Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Routledge.

Mulac, A. (1998). “The Gender-Linked Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make A Difference?” In D. Canary and K. Dindia (eds.) Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Essays and Empirical Investigations of Sex and Gender in Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Opara, C (ed.) (1999). Beyond the Marginaland: Gender Perspective in African Writing. Port Harcourt: Belpot (Nig.) Co.

Romaine, Suzanne (1994). Language in Society Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stipek, Barbara (2000). “Language and Oppression.” In American Language Review.

Thomas, L. and Shân Wareing (1999). Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. London: Routledge.