"The Epicene Pronoun: The Word the Failed"--Dennis E. Baron Blog #13

In this article, it's interesting to note that several other languages have a gender-neutral pronoun for "his or her". Baron explains that in French, there are two different phrases for "his or her" and "him and her". In my opinion, "everyone", "everybody" and even "they" all imply gender neutrality, and I've never felt personally affronted by the use of one of these terms. They are less cumbersome and sound far more natural then constantly trying to say "him or her" and "he or she". One thing the article pointed out is the use of "one" as a pronoun, as in "oneself". I agree that this hasn't been the most widely used pronoun outside of formal environments or the highly educated.

Even in formal academic essays, many college students opt for the incorrect second-person pronoun "your", rather than using "one's" or "oneself". It's interesting to me that this hasn't really caught on as a gender neutral pronoun in our language as much as using "they" or "everyone".

The thing that is most sad to think about is how these gender biases came to be in our language. I really have never felt bad or offended through the use of the masculine bias in language, however, it's sad when I consider the fact that at one point, women were not considered to be any different from property. The bias came to be over the years because of the fact women were devalued and treated as less than men. So, while it may not bother people enough to be changed, the reasons behind the bias should be enough of an issue to spark change in our language.

"Making Changes: The Debate on Sexist Language" by Deborah Cameron Blog #12

I agree with many of the arguments presented in Cameron's article. I'm not surprised that there are more insults readily available for women as opposed to men. In my opinion, it's a lot more common for women to be ostracized in general. Another thing that stands out to me is the "terms of endearment" often used by men to address women. I'm sure that many men do not mean disrespect when they refer to a woman as "Dear" or something like that. I worked through college at a coffee shop, and many men, especially seniors, would call me dear or hunny. Generally, I found it to be friendly, because I worked in more of a friendly environment, serving people. However, there were instances that I've experienced these types of terms where they have not been in friendliness. When a man is referred to as "sir" but then a woman is referred to as "sweetie", it does communicate disrespect. That person is communicating an entirely different level of respect toward the man, and is placing him on a "higher level" than the woman. It's interesting to see that woman are often infantilized and devalued by our language.

"This New Species that Seeks a Language: On Sexism in Language and Language Change" by Nancy M. Henley Blog #11

After reading this article, I can honestly say that my mind was changed a little. I used to think that most of the idea that sexism exists in language was just "left-wing" notion. The evidence in this article has convinced me that it does exist in our language, and the bias in language only prolongs the sexism against women in our culture. One of the things that stood out to me was the fact that, while men are usually referred to according to their occupational status, women are reffered to by their relational status. This never really occured to me, even though it's obvious because a woman's "title" shifts between Mrs., Miss, and Ms., while a man is always Mr., despite his marital status. This emphasizes the fact that woman continue to be defined by their relational and marital status. I also found it interesting that "neutral" occupations are still modified with gender, like "lady judge". It shows that our language is truly biased toward men, because occupations without a specific gender attached are immediately registered as male in most people's minds.

"The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance" by Deborah Tannen Blog #10

Tannen's article was incredibly interesting, and I have never thought of conversation being used to establish solidarity or dominance. The information in the article actually helps me understand how a lot of miscommunication happens in conversation. I though the example of the woman asking a man she works with, "Where's your coat?" and he replies, "Thanks, Mom." was an excellent example of how intent is miscommunicated. She was attempting to show solidarity, or caring for him as a peer, and he felt like she was being condescending. It's interesting to think that people in general need to work harder to make their intent clear, and less ambiguous.

It's interesting that there is such ambiguity between establishing power over another, as opposed to building rapport. It was also a fascinating example of the person who's friend is always insisting on paying for dinner. The friend is either being generous and "showing solidarity" or establishing power by showing they have more money, and it's nearly impossible to tell. Most people feel that they must reciprocate every nice thing that someone does for them. For example, if someone has their friends over for dinner, most of the time the friends want to reciprocate. In a way, it is showing that most people do not want to be in a subordinate position. It's funny that our language even reflects our attitude that we don't want to "owe" somebody something.

"Complimenting--A Positive Politeness Strategy" by Janet Holmes Blog #9

I agree with the author's findings in this article wholeheartedly. I find that compliments often put people at ease, and it's not unusual for a compliment to spark up an entire conversation. I thought her ideas on compliments not always being considered so polite was very interesting. Holmes' example of the Pakeha woman giving a necklace to the Samoan friend was a great example, and it reminded me of something that happened to me not too long ago. I complimented a woman at church on her necklace, and she took it right off and gave it to me. I felt very awkward, mainly because my intention was truly just to compliment the necklace. I wasn't saying it because I wanted it, and I undestand why that can be off-putting.

I also agree with her notion of compliments between intimates not being received well among other people. I have five sisters, and there are things we "compliment" each other on that I wouldn't say to another person. If my sister told me, "Wow, your skin is looking really clear!", I would just thank her. But, if someone I didn't know so well said the same thing, I would probably be a little offended because of the implication that, at one point, they thought otherwise.

"I'm Sorry, I'm Not Apologizing"--Tannen, Blog #6

This article was almost humorous to me because I realized how often myself and those I interact with use apologizing incorrectly. "I'm sorry" truly has become a conversation smoother, rather than an actual apology. I noticed I tend to do this a lot, and I have in the past ended up taking blame for things I wasn't responsible for. More importantly, I have used this in conversation and it hindered my ability to fully communicate my thoughts.

I was reminded of an experience where I apologized to someone that was actually apologizing to me. They had done something very hurtful, and when I realized that they were remorseful and trying to apologize, instead of acknowledging the fact that I was, in fact, upset, I apologized for their remorse. I remember being frustrated after because I had been hurt, and I wasn't entirely "over it" yet, and I felt like I didn't get to communciate exactly how upset I was. I should've been comfortable for their remorse for something wrong they did.

I think "I'm sorry" and "I apologize" really have become space fillers, like "you know", "um", and sighs, etc. We must be careful not to "over apologize", because it seems to communicate a sense of low self-esteem and low worth. Self-deprecation, as Tannen states, can even be seen as apologizing when "I'm sorry" is never uttered. It's interesting to me that self-deprecation and negative comments about oneself can be taken as an apology. That fact shows that apologizing can be associated with weakness and low self-value, which is why "over-apologizing" should be avoided.

"Interaction: The Work Women Do"--Fishman Blog #5

I never considered the idea of adding suffixes to positions (i.e. stewardess, actress) as evidence of a male-dominated society and language. However, it is extremely interesting and it is becoming more and more obvious to me that English is truly bent toward males. I also thought it was interesting that men are referred to more by their last name and women are referred to more by their first, even though they may hold the same rank. It's strange how many hidden and underlying signals there are in the English language and in society that show the power given to the male gender.

I also think Fishman does a good job at explaining why questions are so common in language. I found it interesting that we often form our comments into questions because questions generally ellicit a response. If we didn't "ask questions", the conversation would generally fail. The notion of "attention beginnings" was an eye-opener for me, and I found that I do this very often in conversations. Furthermore, the explanation of "minimal responses" was interesting, and from my point-of-view, extremely accurate. Men often use them and a lack of interest is displayed, whereas women may use them to show they are listening or to "support" the conversation. I thought it was funny that this is so common in my conversations with my husband. I tend to get irritated or frustrated when I'm telling a story or explaining something and he doesn't encourage me to elaborate or go on. On the other hand, I feel it necessary to "support" his end of the conversation and continue to show my interest.