Mary Ritchie Key. Male/Female Language. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1975.

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONCurrent interest in sex as a sociolinguistic variable is the result of the convergence of two trends in social science research -emphasis on the social context of language and emphasis on sex as a social and behavioral variable. Understanding sex-based sociolinguistic variation may shed light on previously unanswered questions regarding conversational interaction, semantics, language acquisition, acculturation, socialization, mechanisms of social control, and maintenance of group solidarity. Therefore the subject of language and sex is attracting researchers from a broad range of academic specializations.In 1975 the first three books on language and sex appeared almost simultaneously. One is a depth discussion of a few selected topics (Lakoff 1975). Another is an edited collection of the work of eleven specialists in many different disciplines (Thorne & Henley 1975). In contrast, Male/Female Linguistic Behavior by Mary Ritchie Key attempts the difficult task of synthesizing the entire embryonic field. The result is a collection of numerous ideas, often interesting, but usually undeveloped and unintegrated. Where Key does develop an idea, she often neglects methodological niceties. In particular, intuitionally based suggestions, claims, hypotheses, and speculations of other scholars appear in Key's retelling as having been 'shown' or 'demonstrated', with no hint to the reader of their empirical base. In what follows I will outline the book, then discuss three general issues underlying Key's approach, and conclude by discussing two major problems with the book. SUMMARYThe book begins with elementary introductions to social dialects and to the social and biological bases of sex differentiation. The bulk of the book is devoted to description and illustration of lack of analogous (a) treatment of women and men in labels, descriptors, titles, names, terms of address, taboo words, the pronominal system, and selectional restrictions and groupings in which female and male may occur; and (b) differential use by men and women of strong language, of standard vs. nonstandard varieties, of alternative languages in bilingual communities, and of nonverbal communication. There is also a chapter on language acquisition, a cross-cultural survey, and a discussion of the semantic implications of the linguistic convention of using only + masculine as gender marker vs. using + masculine and + feminine.Key usefully ranges into areas not covered by a strict interpretation of her title. She provides extensive illustration of cartoons and jokes dealing with sex