The deficit approach is the largest approach and can probably is the most identifiable in conversation. Robin Lakoff’s (1975) is the most prolific and applicable of these. For example it is likely that women will use a specific colour compared to men, this is supported by women being generally closer detail however contrasts with the idea that men try and put across what they mean in as fewer words as possible. Therefore there are potential flaws with some of her theory’s but are supported by the results of studies. Other areas of her studies are more evident for example women use more hedges and tag questions. This is because women aim to include people in conversation. What Lakoff also states is that women’s language is a result of socialisation and biology has only a small role e.g. maternal instincts have nothing to do with that women use less expletives. I believe that this is still evident nearly forty years later for example girls are often encouraged to be polite when boys aren’t due to cultural expectations (i.e. men must not show emotions) and the attitude that ‘boys will be boys’ has left an impression that its enviable behaviour. However Tannen also suggests that because of television people are more aggressive with each other, I think that this can be applied to the UK (she was referring to the US), previously it was undone to share emotions in public or in the media until the rise of reality TV and social networking. People cry on the X factor to gain sympathy but this only works if the person has a ‘sob’ story or is a young female, men are slowly being able to express emotions but in limited amounts. A Father desperately appealing to find his missing daughter is allowed but a widower is expected to keep emotions to himself. Anything else is viewed as incorrect and conflicts with the traditional British emotionless state.
Within the deficit approach ‘umbrella’ Holmes (1992) suggests that tag questions are not uncertainty (opposing Lakoff) but that it’s to try to include and be polite. This would coincide with the theory that women do use more politeness strategies than men. This may not simply be a gender factor though; it’s fulfilling the expectations of other people. This can also be applied to other theories. A woman may be more be more likely to say “ I am sorry to bother you but could you tell me the way to the train station?” but it’s likely that a man will still use a similar format such as “ ’scuse me do you know where the station is?”. Both ask the same question with elements of politeness and are likely to achieve the same results; one is simply more formal and longer than the other. The use of slang in the man’s sentence is from the difference approach. Whereas a woman may use the politeness at the start (such as “Oh I am sorry but” or “Sorry to interrupt”) this is to build relationships (so that they seem less aggressive) but men use more general language to get directly to the point as they don’t feel the need to establish in the same way. Likewise as Pilkington (1992) suggests, men use nicknames or general address, such as ‘mate’ or ‘love’ so that they are not as personal, the same goes for banter in all male talk, and it prevents intimacy that men seem to dislike / fear.
The dominance approach compliments the above idea that women try to include and that they use more politeness strategies than men. Zimmerman and Wests studies displayed that 96% of interruptions were made by men in a mixed gender conversation. This is in the attempt to dominate similar to how women supposedly want to include. Other studies suggest that men only interrupt not so that they come out on top with a punch line or that they seem clever but as they have misinterpreted the situation and believe that they are supporting the woman, that they are showing they understand.
As important as it is to observe mixed conversation it’s also intriguing to reflect upon non mixed conversation, women tend to support each other, even if they dislike each other, with a sort of false politeness preferring to complain or ‘back stab’ afterwards. Men do almost the opposite, they will use ‘macho bulling’ or insults to each other’s faces, some times in a fond way, e.g. ‘you daft idiot! What did you get me a leaving present for!?!” Although sometimes women do tend to use more collaborative language simply as back challenging or to show that they understand, like “yeah I know” or “uh uh I know how that feels”.
On the whole the three Ds have an important role to play when observing language, there may be theory’s or evidence outside of the norm that make it even harder to define what is gender/ language. Geographical elements can challenge, some dialects have different speeds or cultures have different expectations that can throw out of the window all known theories. As own culture develops and what it is to be a man/woman is ever evolving there may be a need for new studies producing new theory’s, old ones may be cast aside, the most recent accepted studies came from the early nighties’ . But when observing the English speaking world at this moment, it would seem that, for now at least that the three Ds are here to stay.
