Dominance Approach

Have you ever wondered why we say "he" instead of "they" when referring to a person of unknown gender? Or why calling a woman a "girl" can be seen as condescending? These are just a few examples of how the dominance approach to gender and language can shed light on the power dynamics at play in our everyday speech.

Gender and language use are closely intertwined, and the dominance approach is a useful framework for understanding how power and social hierarchies are reflected in linguistic patterns. The dominance approach to gender and language use examines how gendered language reinforces or challenges existing power structures, and how gender is constructed and expressed through language.

This approach acknowledges that language is not neutral, and that linguistic patterns reflect broader social and cultural norms and values.

Dominance approach: definition

The dominance approach examines the relationship between communication and gender. In particular, the approach looks at how communication works (or doesn't work) between men and women and suggests that power relations can be seen in everyday conversation and nonverbal behaviour.

For example, according to the dominance approach, men are more likely than women to:

• Adopt an instrumental communication style.
• Interrupt more.
• Take up more personal space.

The dominance approach (or theory) has its origins in linguistic research that began in the early 20th century with Otto Jesperson, followed by other linguists like Robin Lakoff and Dale Spender, who contributed new research on the way men and women use language in the 1970s and 80s. Lakoff developed a theory called the dominance approach (on women's language).

The dominance theory in linguistics

The dominance theory was presented by Robin Lakoff in the 1970s and challenged the way women were perceived in communication.

To better understand what Lakoff was challenging, we need to look first at the deficit approach.

The origins of the dominance model

The dominance approach has its origins in linguistic research that began in the early 20th century with Otto Jesperson. His theory has since been called 'the deficit approach' because it suggests that a lack of something, such as education, social freedom, or cognitive ability, affects how people use language.

In 1922 Otto Jesperson published his book Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin. In the chapter entitled 'The Woman', Jesperson suggests there are differences in the way women communicate based on how they think. Although Jesperson observed that, linguistically, women are quicker to learn, listen, and answer than men, he also included the following observations:

• Women tend to think before they speak

• Women speak in unfinished sentences

• Generally, a woman's vocabulary was smaller than a man's

• Women use language more emotionally than men

• Women prefer to move ‘in the central field of the language, avoiding everything that is out of the way or bizarre’ (Jesperson, 1922, chapter XIII), while men pick up new or technical terms more easily.

• Women who are educated might avoid using slang or swearing, while an educated man might use both.

Jesperson was the first modern linguist to examine how women use language and remained unchallenged until Robin Lakoff’s work in the 1970s.

Fig. 1 - The Deficit Theory proposed that women think more before they speak than men do.

The dominance approach: language and gender theories

Let's take a look at some of the key theorists of the dominance approach.

Robin Lakoff & the dominance approach

In 1975, Lakoff published Language and Woman's Place. Countering Jesperson, Lakoff argues that girls were being brought up to use language that made them appear to be the weaker sex.

According to Lakoff, women spoke less frequently than men, as women would tend to give shorter responses like “mmm” or “yes” to show that they are paying attention. Furthermore, Lakoff identified that, when women did speak, they would speak in a ‘woman’s register’ with various characteristics, including:

• Hedging, e.g., using indirect language such as 'sort of', 'kind of', and 'it seems like'

• Rising intonation in statements, e.g., 'this is really good?'

• 'Empty' adjectives, e.g., adorable, divine, charming, lovely

• Extra polite forms, e.g., indirect requests, euphemisms

• Tag questions, e.g., 'nice weather, isn't it?'

Since the publication of Language and Woman's Place, other linguists have produced studies that support and challenge Lakoff's arguments.

For example, Lakoff's work has been criticised for its lack of research and data, in addition to its feminist bias; in other words, a prejudiced view favouring women that is unsupported by scientific investigation. On the other hand, Lakoff was paramount in raising the question of how women are treated linguistically and how this affects their status and behaviour.

Here is an overview of the supporters and critics of the Dominance Approach. We will take a look at their arguments and their own contributions to the scope of language and gender studies below:

Pamela Fishman (1978)

Fishman challenges Lakoff's Dominance Approach assertion that asking questions reveals women's uncertainty and apprehension in communication. Instead, Fishman views questions as a feature of interactions: women ask questions because they have power, not because they feel insecure.

Fig. 2 - Fishman views quesitons as a feature of interaction.

'Conversational shitwork' is her iconic expression for the work that women perform to keep a conversation going (1977). In her paper titled 'Interaction: The Work Women Do' (1978), Fishman states that women do more conversational work than men.

In an experiment conducted in the 1970s, Fishman recorded conversations between three couples, five of whom were postgraduate students, and analysed the results.

She observed that:

Fishman concluded that women work harder than men in communication because they have less certainty of success:

Fishman claims that women have to do most or all of the work when interacting with men. She adds that this is not down to the way women talk, it is more because men make minimal effort to adequately respond.

Fig. 3 - According to Fishman, women carry most of the burden of conversations.

Dominance approach: criticisms

As with any theory, there have been many theorists who have criticised or challanged the dominance approach or work establishing the theory.

Geoffrey Beattie (1982)

Geoffrey Beattie challenged the dominance approach, specifically Zimmerman and West's theory in 1982. He conducted a study in which he taped over ten hours of debate between men and women. The results showed there were 557 interruptions (compared with 55 recorded by Zimmerman and West).

Men and women interrupted with about equal frequency (men interrupted 34.1 times on average, while women interrupted 33.8 times on average). For Beattie, while men did interrupt more, it was by an insignificant margin.

Jane Pilkington (1992)

Jane Pilkington’s research challenges Lakoff by suggesting that men were not so much dominant as competitive.

Pilkington discovered that women in same-sex conversations were more collaborative and polite. She found that men, on the other hand, were a lot less collaborative, less complimentary, and less supportive than women in same-sex conversations.

In 1998, Pilkington conducted one of the few comparative studies on female and male friendships and in-group conversation. Pilkington's study took place in New Zealand with two groups of women friends and two groups of male friends, and her findings were that both women and men gossip, but do so in different ways and for different purposes.

According to Pilkington, the two types seem to correspond to the established notion of cooperation (female) versus competition (male). She concluded that the competitive style is part of a male culture that is built on challenge, risk, and power.

Pilkington also admitted that both male and female groups found gossip reassuring and considered it a sign of comradeship as a part of identity and community building.

The dominance approach in films

The dominance approach has been challenged by other theories, such as Deborah Tannen's difference approach or the diversity approach. However, it is worth observing how we can use the dominance approach to analyse everyday life, including films and TV shows.

Consider Disney movies: many of these are white male-dominated in terms of production, direction, cast and dialogue. In 2016, Hanah Anderson and Matt Daniels confirmed this after they analysed over 2000 screenplays and produced data that showed how a male-oriented trend set in during the 1990s.¹

Their results showed that, in Beauty and the Beast (1991), Pocahontas (1995), and The Princess and the Frog (2009), around 75% or more of the dialogue is male-spoken and that, in Aladdin (1992), 90% is male-spoken dialogue.

Furthermore, in more recent princess films, the dialogue continues to be male-dominated.

In Frozen (2013), for example, female-spoken dialogue barely reaches 45% of the total and, perhaps surprisingly, starkly contrasts with early Disney 'princess' films such as Snow White (1937), Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959), where female characters have 50% to 70% percent of the dialogue.

Fig. 4 - How often do men and women speak in movies?

Hanna Anderson and Matt Daniels also confirmed ageist trends in the film industry, with actresses in their 20s and 30s having the most lines. This number, however, decreases as they reach their fifties. On the other hand, Male actors have less dialogue in their twenties, speaking the most lines once they reach their fifties.