Wordslut: A Feminist Guide to Taking Back the English Language

NPR radio host Bob Garfield lamented the rise of “vocal fry,” a linguistic phenomenon in which speakers close their vocal chords, creating a slight “creak” while they speak. In his show, Garfield attributed the rise of vocal fry to young women speakers, but Montell claims that this tendency is not unique to young women. 

Garfield’s criticisms are part of a larger trend in which journalists, corporations, and other commentators have made controversial statements about women’s speech. For instance, Time magazine ran a story claiming that “uptalk,” or raising one’s tone at the end of a sentence, made women speakers sound uncertain. Pantene, the shampoo brand, ran commercials encouraging women to not say “sorry” so often.

Such critiques are similar to linguist Robin Lakoff’s conclusions in the 1970s, in which she theorized that women have been socialized to behave submissively and that this explains their language habits. Lakoff claimed that, to attain equality with men, women should change their communication to mimic male speech and tone. To her, shedding feminine habits would give women a better chance of being taken seriously by their listeners. Montell feels that this is the wrong approach, and that women’s verbal habits should be appreciated for the purpose they serve in communication. For instance, some researchers hypothesize that vocal fry is a way to show dominance by lowering one’s voice, or to communicate boredom or dismissiveness, since vocal fry makes the vocal cords more relaxed.

Saying “like” is another oft-criticized verbal habit often attributed to women. Montell explains that using “like” as a filler word or discourse marker has become more common in the last few decades. She argues that using “like” in this way serves a purpose, as the speaker effectively communicates who was speaking in a conversation, or what their reaction was.

“Uptalk,” or raising one’s tone at the end of a sentence, is frequently judged as a feminine trait and sign of insecurity. The author clarifies that uptalk probably did not originate among young Californian women but may actually have been taken from Australian English, in which it is more common. However, Montell also points to linguistic studies that have shown women using uptalk to assert their authority, such as when sorority members tell their juniors what to do. Montell refers to another study in which uptalk was used by men in business meetings to “assert dominance” (123). Montell hypothesizes that, because the speakers were men, their uptalk was not considered a sign of insecurity.

Men and women use hedging (inserting words such as “you know” and “like”) about the same amount. Women tend to use “like” more than men, and Montell argues that this is because this hedge helps women communicate about sensitive and vulnerable topics, which men are less likely to discuss. Montell argues that the upset about women’s speech is entirely due to biased social judgments. 

Significantly, there is evidence that young female speakers tend to be more influential in language change than any other demographic. Montell points to international studies on women in Spain, southern Africa, and China to show how women have historically used language innovation to mitigate their own oppression. Montell believes that young American women’s speech is harshly judged simply because it is coming from women speakers, frightening or even angering people who feel threatened by these unfamiliar changes to the language. 

Montell concludes her chapter by urging the reader to feel comfortable with their own communication style and not be manipulated into feeling guilty about using certain verbal traits. She agrees with Deborah Cameron that women can resist sexism by maintaining their own voice, rather than changing it to suit older, male listeners.

Montell claims that “good grammar” is ever-changing, just like language itself. What is more stagnant are grammatical gender categories. In romance languages, for example, nouns are generally categorized as either masculine or feminine. Montell argues that these categorizations can subconsciously affect how people perceive the world. For instance, if a language refers to “doctor” in a masculine form and “nurse” in a feminine form, this will perpetuate the perception that doctors are men and nurses are women. 

Confronting gendered grammar has been at the forefront of some countries’ feminist movements, such as France. While the English grammatical system does not have gendered words, there are still some entrenched gendered terms in the language. Other languages, such as Finnish and Korean, lack gender pronouns completely, while in Algonquin languages, speakers shift pronouns depending on the topic rather than the person they are referring to.

Historically, linguists have tried to explain the logic behind grammatical gender systems seen in languages like Italian. For instance, 19th-century German grammarian Jakob Grimm claimed that gendered languages assigned masculine terms for things that were creative, active, and firm, while feminine terms described things that were passive, quiet, and small. Montell refutes this notion, since gendered grammar for objects is often quite random. However, she agrees that when it comes to describing people, gendered grammar tends to be very intentional, and often sexist. She lists examples of sexist bias in romance languages to support her point.

Montell explores how languages around the world deal with the issue of gender, finding that it does not always play a prominent role in how languages are structured. Some languages, such as Ojibwa, categorize things based on whether they are animate or inanimate. Others, like Tamil, categorize nouns based on caste. Meanwhile, many languages not only use gendered nouns commonly, but refer to the male versions as the default. Montell observes, “Ultimately, language can serve as a rather blatant means of otherizing all things feminine” (149).

The author assesses how English has a tradition of assigning feminine pronouns to things like boats, cars, and storms, arguing that this tradition indirectly objectifies women. By referring to forces of nature and territories using feminine language, Montell believes that people are subconsciously categorizing women as wild things that need taming and conquest. For instance, she contrasts the concept of “Mother Nature” with a civilization’s “founding fathers” (150).

Feminists in France have tried to feminize aspects of the language by defying masculine grammar and inserting feminine terms instead. Meanwhile, in English, many people are making an effort to take previously masculine terms and turn them into gender-neutral terms, like changing “chairman” to “chairperson.” English also has terms which are feminized with “ette” or “ess” endings (e.g., “actress”); some find this belittling and otherizing, while others embrace it. 

Montell argues that women and non-binary people benefit when traditional grammar is critiqued and alternatives are invented: For example, when appropriate, people can use gender-neutral terms like “they” instead of “he” or “she.” Montell defends the use of “they” as a singular pronoun, pointing out that it is already used as such in different contexts, and she feels it is respectful to use it when people request it.

Montell ponders people’s intense opinions about grammar and grammar violations. She explains that having “proper” grammar is inherently intertwined with class. Beginning in the 15th century, as social mobility became more possible in British society, people have used grammar and speaking style in their effort to advance socially. Montell believes that “grammar snobs” feel superior to those with poor grammar, but points out that policing others’ grammar often weaponizes classist prejudices. By critiquing others’ grammar, grammar snobs are directing unfair judgments on people, just as some commentators have judged women for hedging and vocal fry. Montell argues that teaching people to have “linguistic flexibility” (166) and to understand language change should be as much of a priority as teaching the supposedly “proper” way of speaking and writing.