Talk:Gender differences in Japanese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pronouns list

I thought jibun as a pronoun was exclusively male, no? Also, uchi might be used to talk about home and family by men, but is it used as a pronoun meaning "I"? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Anyway the entry where it says "anta" is used insultingly is wrong as it stands, as is the entry on "atai" - ask a Japanese woman what she thinks of "atai". --DannyWilde 08:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Jibun can be used by women (whereas atashi, for example "cannot" be used by men), but in practice is mostly male. I've heard uchi used to mean "I", but it's usually used to mean "my." The heading should read "I," "me," or "my." Exploding Boy 15:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tag questions

Not sure what this means - Japanese doesn't have tag questions as such. It would be a good idea to give an example of what is meant by a tag question I think. I think this page is a good start on the topic, but in general it would be nice to see more examples on the page. --DannyWilde 08:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese most certainly does have tag questions. Ne is the one that springs to mind first, but there are several others. Even deshō can be used as a tag question. Exploding Boy 15:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Those are the equivalents of tag questions, but they aren't tag questions as such. It might be easier just to say "Japanese women use ne a lot", if you think it's true. Frankly, I doubt whether it is true, but I don't have any numbers to prove it. --DannyWilde 14:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You live in Japan and speak Japanese and you "doubt" that women use ne a lot? I suggest you do some background reading on linguistic differences and gender. You can start with the sources given in the article. Exploding Boy 19:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How about some discussion or mention in the article of the particle na? Admittedly this is hardly a wide sample, but my family are from Kansai (Amagasaki shi) and they end almost every sentence with "na". --Kenji Yamada 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong article, try Kansai-ben, it is mentioned there. --Mkill 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slightly sexist?

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something slightly disturbing about the tone of this article ... I think there is too overt of an attempt to equate "female language" with the archetypal "demure (onnarashii?) Japanese woman" who can't survive without a man around. But to me at least, the bare bones linguistic gender differences in the Japanese language need to be decoupled from interpretations about submissiveness, inferiority, etc. of women in Japanese culture or else it's inadvertantly implied that women are doomed to be 2nd class citizens in Japan because, paradoxically, they speak like women. I'd argue that interpreting the content of what people say and how it's said is more important rather than strictly the forms used (the same goes in English as in Japanese). wa can be less assertive, just as assertive, or more assertive than zo depending on how it's used.

Also, I think the article needs recognize that there is an increasing amount of grey area in usage as well ... the man/woman difference in language is not as stark or universal as the article implies. The same goes with the notions of otokorashii and onnarashii, which are a bit outdated and oversimplified. I'll try to come back and make a couple edits to the article ... I think it's got the potential to be a good one but it could use some work right now. CES 12:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a few changes, including:

• Removed: -- which "carry connotations of powerlessness . . . and a lack of intelligence" -- ... I'm sure the intention was not such, but it seemed to equate women with powerlessness and a lack of intelligence. Same with and the differences in their social status.
• Edited usage of watakushi ... Men use watakushi in many business situations that are formal but I'm not sure if I'd call them very formal
• Edited atai ... to me at least, atai sounds like something rough ladies of shitamachi would use, a couple Japanese dictionaries seem to back this up.
• Removed 乃公 as a way to write ore ... although dictionaries list 己 and 乃公 as other ways to write ore, 俺 is by far the most commonly used in my experience.
• Added 儂 as way to write washi ... fairly common.
• Expanded on male use of wa ... usage isn't just limited to Kansai.
• Added section on language-related gender differences in modern society
• Expanded the "difficulties for foreign speakers" section

Although many of these changes are subjective on my part, my goal was to balance the treatment of concepts such as onnarashisa in the article.

I was going to tackle the -san vs. -kun vs. -chan etc. issue today as well, as it seems like it would fit in well with this article, but that is, of course, a rather nuanced issue (the three above examples are frequently used for both men and women, but the rules of usage are quite distinct) so I'll do that another day. Or, if someone else wants to do it, go for it. Do we have an article on this topic anywhere else in Wikipedia? Seems like we must have one somewhere. CES 21:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

One more thing--the use of citations in the article seems a little overt ... perhaps footnotes would be a better option? CES 21:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your changes, I do question the removal of the quotes -- which "carry connotations of powerlessness . . . and a lack of intelligence" -- and ... and the differences in their social status. These are direct quotes from the sources provided; they're relevant, they're still true, and they should stay. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the citations seem "overt," but if you prefer to change them to footnotes that's fine with me. Exploding Boy 21:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here are my issues with the quotes, and please let me know if you think I'm interpreting them wrong:

• Differences in use of language reflect social norms and expectations of men and women, and the differences in their social status.

What is meant by "differences in their social status"? To me that implies that men and women are not of equal social status. If you meant that language reflects social status of individuals (regardless of sex) then the statement can probably be reworded easily to indicate this.

Yes. In fact, both the differences in social status of men and women and the differences in the social status of individuals regardless of sex are reflected in the use of language. Are you suggesting this is incorrect? We have at least one source (the one quoted) that confirms the statement, and really, the question's not under debate is it? Exploding Boy 16:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Women, for example, use tag questions (such as "don’t we?" and "isn’t it?") -- which "carry connotations of powerlessness . . . and a lack of intelligence" -- more often than men (Smith)

The implication (A is B and B is C, so A is C) seems to be that women, because they more frequently use tag questions, are actually or perceived to be powerless or lacking in intelligence. Again, this was probably not the intent, but it was my impression.

No, I think it is the intent. See above as well. Exploding Boy 16:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the citations, compared to other Wikipedia articles there seem sto be a large number of direct quotations and in-paragraph citations. There are probably at least a dozen "according to ~" statements in this short article. I just wondered if there was a reason for this, or if it was just a choice of style. Footnotes (or just the bibliographic references) might make the article flow a little more smoothly. CES 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Just making use of the sources. As I said before, changing the in-text cites to footnotes is fine with me, and will probably visually declutter the article. Exploding Boy 16:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd hoped I was misinterpreting your implications but I guess I wasn't. While I agree that on an individual basis differences in social status, power, and lack of intelligence can be reflected in language usage, I would not spread that assertion across gender lines (or race groups, for that matter) to imply that women--because they speak like women--are of inequal social status, powerless, and lacking in intelligence. I think it's faulty logic, not NPOV, and (most importantly) not true. Are there people that have these views? Yes. But doesn't it seem more logical that they hold these views because women are women, not because of how they talk, or dress or eat for that matter? As another way of thinking about it, does it make any more sense to state the opposite: that men--because they speak like men--are of inqueal social status, powerful, and intelligent? To me, this assertion sounds as prejudicially biased as the implication I gleaned from the statements I deleted, regardless of the source.

If there's anyone else reading this talk page it would be nice to have some other opinions on the matter. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I really don't feel that I am. CES 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you're misunderstanding a little or I'm not explaining it properly. The suggestion is not that women are unequal because they speak like women, but rather that the inequality of women is reflected in the way they (and men) speak (and are spoken about). Also, the suggestion is not that women actually lack intelligence, but rather that some of the forms they use suggest powerlessness and a lack of intelligence, which is a further reflection of their actual status. Bear in mind, these are not my own suggestions, but rather what countless researchers--some quoted in this article--have confirmed in their studies. To put it oversimply, the ways that women speak reflect a lack of power because women lack power, while the ways that men speak reflect power because men have power.

One example is the expectation of politeness: it is seen as less acceptable for women to swear than for men. Why? Because the social expectations--the gender roles--of men and women differ. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic, and I'm sure it's being said somewhere on Wikipedia. You can also check the references given in this article; this type of research is widespread and ongoing. Exploding Boy 00:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think we're getting on the same page now ... the key is to be able to word what you're saying without implying belief in the system you describe (which is what I had difficulty in discerning from your posts and from the article as it was originally). In other words, the difference between perceived and actual attributes needs to be delineated clearly. The other challenge is to seperate gender differences in speech that may be culturally significant (e.g. a more frequent use of tag questions) versus those that have no such inherent attribute (e.g. wa is not inherently more passive/assertive etc. than zo). Do you have any more examples of the former besides tag questions? And do you have sources that say that Japanese women use them more than men? I've heard that statistic for English speakers, but the nuances of tag questions in Japanese are different than in English I would argue. While tag questions in English ("isn't it?" or "right?") often seek agreement or permission, particles like ne in Japanese don't have as strong an overtone, in my opinion at least. It is more an aizuchi to keep the conversation flowing than a tag question that asks for an affirmation. The impression I would get from someone who used a preponderance of tag questions in English is pretty different from the impression I'd have of the same usage in Japanese due to the innate differences in the languages. CES 02:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Quick post here: see Aspects of Japanese Women’s Language. Eds. Sachiko Ide & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin. Tokyo: Kurosio, 1990. Exploding Boy 02:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Think you could provide a quick summary of the highlights? CES 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems for Japanese learners

I see potential for this section to discourage anyone attempting to pick up the lanugage from anime. The discrepancies are limitless. -70.160.162.237 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Discouraging people to learn Japanese from animation is a good thing. --Mkill 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol Depending on the Anime, we could have a bunch of fool's speak the equivilent of thy and thou, Olde Japanese, or being super offensive. - Gav

References

I converted the references-section to the cite template format and removed a reference I couldn't find anything about online:

• Hall, N. J. "Gendered Japanese: Sexism in Conventions of Japanese Language as Revealed in Literary and Popular Texts," 2004.

Someone please provide evidence that this actually exists and where it can be found before putting it back, thanks. --Conti|✉ 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tag questions

I think someone with an ideological dog in some fight is responsible for the statement that tag questions "carry connotations of powerlessness and lack of intelligence." In Southern American English, men use just as many tags as women (know what I'm sayin'?), and aren't viewed as "powerless and less intelligent" (by their peers, anyway).

The actual purpose of tag questions in any language is politeness, specifically, being sure that others agree with one's statements. While tag questions may show a lack of assertion on the part of Japanese women--their frequent use sort of implies they need constant "buy-in" to their opinions--it doesn't show lack of intelligence. Whoever interpreted it that way seems to have been misled by an interpretation of "ne" as meaning that women are constantly double-checking their information. "Ne" is closer in meaning to "Don't you agree" (or the aforementioned "know what I'm sayin'?"), and seems more to request confirmation from the rest of the group. A competent researcher could interpret its use as implying more group-dependence on the part of women, but lack of intelligence is not implied.

I would suspect that a large portion of this faulty interpretation is also caused by an Occidentocentric and, especially, ideologically Feminist worldview, rather than by a real understanding of Japanese (or any other) culture. By ideological feminist I particularly mean the hardline, quasi-Marxist Feminist orthodoxy of the academies, not the more general concern for women's rights. Most sane people have at least some sympathy for the latter; the former makes a joke of any subject it interprets.

Unfortunately, I can't find any sources to back up my interpretation at the moment.71.223.169.27 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

social status

I thought the different uses of pronouns reflected primarily social status and that the different gender usage was mostly a side-effect coupled with tradition. I don't think the article is clear enough about this, and in my opinion it borders on being prescriptive rather than descriptive about the usage. As I understand it, the pronouns only have gender connotations because of the traditional Japanese gender-roles.--Shadowdrak 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with localization of video games

However, games created outside Japan, especially in America and Europe, generally use the same messages for both sexes.
I don't believe that's true. English is relatively unique regarding its inability to express gender differences in first person statement. Even in French (eg original alone in the dark..) you can do that. And regarding honorifics, at least half a Europe (Slavic languages - games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., hidden and dangerous, mafia..) do have a very similar structure, so I believe what you talk about is only and only English and I don't believe developers from all over the Europe create games in english-version only. Muflon 83 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Words for "I" or "Me"

Expanded the explaination about ore-sama due to the fact that it uses an honourific title, which is the reason for it sounding pompous, would also be the same as using san(well worse due to the formality of it). - Gav 81.77.170.56 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't use san with ore. Oda Mari (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, what I meant was that it is like refering to yourself as san e.g Gav-san but worse, either way I haven't stated that in the article, but thank you for informing me of this. - Gav 81.77.170.56 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead

The lead seem to imply that English is not without male and female speech. And Japanese is one of the many languages that have gendered speech, but then it doesn't imply which ones of what group. This leads to a false idea that Japanese speech is relegated to "unfair" gender practices. That's ridiculous. I know of no language that is *ungendered*. (And I know Japanese, Korean, English, French, and Mandarin Chinese, plus every person I've met thusfar has claimed there is gender speech in their language.) This article asserts there are three classes of languages and then goes on to say Japanese is one of them, without outsourcing links. "ungendered" "gendered" and "highly gendered." But English is also gendered. There was a report on it and it was put into a post: http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

Overall, I find the whole classification of languages into those three categories as ridiculous. English uses tag questions too. Often those are considered "feminine" speech as well.

I also think there should be a separation between perception by using gendered speech and general usage of the speech. As in the society looks at woman for a given point of time dating from X to X this way which may give the impression that X is true. But without stating that it is absolutely true of the individual using it, rather that it is a perception of the listener, not necessarily of the speaker. You have that with dialects too. Southerners in the US are "Dumb" Mancester speakers in the UK are "lazy." But the speaker themselves don't see it that way. That's just a language clean up issue in terms of phrasing.

I also have a question of how it is percieved within the language itself rather than American perceptions of the Japanese speakers as a third party. I can't get that separation at all, and I keep feeling like it's an American watching Japanese speech without asking the speakers. There should be mitigation too for context since speech can change meaning of words with context, such as sarcasm.

I also find two of the sources questionable... Mangajin and the 1979 source. The latter being out of date, the former being from a source that has a register to it and often exaggerated speech patterns which don't work in day-to-day Japanese setting. It's also unclear how these sources pan out, for example, Deborah Tannen did NOT write about Japanese gender differences AT ALL. I assure you. She wrote about AMERICAN ones in a sub set of a sub set which makes me wonder if it's just being included because it's a gender difference. She also doesn't know Japanese... and the way the source is used is misleading... Differences in the ways that girls and boys use language have been detected in children as young as three years old (Tannen). This reads as Japanese girls and boys can tell the difference in gender speech.

So overall, the lead needs a ton of work. It's confusing, misleading, and the sources are unclear or scattered. Could someone try to crack at this again?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)