Are the observed differences between women's and men's
             speech great enough to justify our speaking different genderlects?
             Since the beginning of the twentieth century, much attention has been turned towards the investigation of gender based differences in language use. Jeperson (1922), Lakoff (1973) and Tannen (1990) are all recognised as being on the forefront of this field. Lakoff is notorious for her belief that the different sexes spoke a different type of language, as much in its syntax as its vocabulary and grammar. With this new thrust of investigation came a new terminology: 'women's language' (Lakoff 1973); 'the female register' (Crosby and Nyquist, 1977); 'genderlect' (Kramer, 1974b); and most recently 'gender-linked language' (Mulac et al., 1986). What Crawford (1995) does well to point out is that these terms did not refer to separate languages, but a system of 'sex linked linguistic signals, a set of features used by both sexes but more by women than by men'. Whilst this might be true of the school of thought as a whole, some linguists were more fervent in their description of 'women's language', especially Lakoff. Whilst the title of this essay demands an investigation into the justification for the belief in 'genderlects', it begins with the a priori that certain differences have been observed. Before any conclusion can be made about the reality of genderlects, first of all these 'observed differences' must be held up to the light; I believe that once this has been done, many of Lakoff's original presumptions shall be shown to be tenuous, and her conclusions far from infallible.
             Crawford (1995) demonstrates the dramatic importance and effect Lakoff's 1975 book 'Language and Woman's Place' had upon the linguistic and wider scholarly community. Her description of &a...