The folk‐linguistics of women's speech: An empirical examination

Folk‐linguists have advanced the claim that women's speech differs from men's in several significant ways that serve to reflect and reinforce the lower status of women in this society. This study examined this claim by focusing on reactions to male and female discussants who used varying linguistic and substantive strategies to express positions of dissent in small decision‐making groups. Specifically, the study compared the presence and absence of qualifying phrases (tag questions and disclaimers) and of supporting evidence.

Results indicated that both males and females were more influential and perceived more positively when they used well supported arguments than when they advanced their assertions without support. The use of qualifying phrases only had an adverse affect, however, when they were used by women in the investigation. Females who advanced their arguments with tag questions and disclaimers exerted little influence and were viewed as having little knowledge and intelligence. Moreover, regardless of structural or substantive techniques, women were not as well liked as men. These findings suggest that linguistic devices used by women in this society are devalued, not because they are inherently weak or inappropriate, but because of the lower status of their female source.