Useful Language

Inviting a response

• What’s your feeling about this?

• Don’t you think?

• Don’t you agree?

• How do you feel about it?

Returning to the topic

• As I was saying …

• Anyway, going back to …

• Anyway, what I was going to say was …

• to return to my earlier point …

Interrupting

• If I can just make a point here please …

• Excuse me, but that isn’t quite right …

• hang on, get your facts straight …

• I don’t think I agree with you there …

• Hold on a second, …

• Wait a minute, …

Strong agreement / disagreement

Agreement

• You’re a hundred percent / absolutely right.

• I couldn’t agree with you more.

• I’m totally with you on this one.

Disagreement

• What? You must be joking / kidding!

• You’re not seriously suggesting that …, are you?

• I’m sorry, I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick / you’re barking up the wrong tree.

• Excuse me, but what you’re saying amounts to nonsense.

Challenging someone to express their opinion

• You have a better idea?

• Let’s hear a suggestion from you, then.

• OK, then. Put something on the table.

• Why don’t you tell us what you have in mind, then?

Persuading

Attempting to persuade

• But surely the best course of action would be to …

• Surely the most sensible thing would be …

• It is essential / vital / extremely important that you …

• I really think it would be a pity if we …

• We’d be making a mistake if we didn’t …

• If we don’t … now, we won’t be able to … later.

• Have you considered the consequences?

• You might regret it later if we / you don’t …

• You do realize that if … then … don’t you?

Responding positively

• You might have a point.

• OK, let me sleep on it.

• Hmmm … OK, let’s look at the facts again.

Responding negatively

• There’s no point.

• My decision is final.

• My mind’ made up, I’m afraid.

• Believe me, there’s no other way.

Ending an attempt to persuade

• Well, I’ve tried.

• Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

• Not much left to say, then.

Framing an argument

• The real question is …

• I mean, you would have to agree that …

• The point I want to make …

• Let me just pose a question here …

• I would say specifically that …

• The thing we need to look at is …

CD TRACKING GUIDE

Part 1. English: Origin and Diversity

1. Language: Origin and Diversity. Lecture overview

2. Language: Origin and Diversity. Lecture

3. 'Do You Speak American?'

4. Linguistic Profiling

Part 2. Globalisation of English

5. Languages in Conflict: Irish and English

6. Languages in Conflict: Irish and English. Multiple Choice Exercise

7. Esperanto, a world language

Part 3. Language and Gender

8. Verbal Hygiene for Women. Exercise 1

9. Verbal Hygiene for Women. Exercise 2

10. Male-Female Conversation as Cross-cultural Communication

Part 4. Language of Politics and Politically Correct Language

11. Looking for Red Meat Political Terms That Won't Bring a Hail of Dead Cats

12. Language Police

Part 5. Translation as a Profession

13. The interview between the journalist and Fiona Guiffs, the translator

14. Is something lost in translation?

AUDIOSCRIPTS

PART 1. ENGLISH: ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY

LISTENING 1. Language: Origin and Diversity

Lecture overview

In this lecture about the origin and diversity of our system of communication—language—one of the speakers will begin by remark­ing that communication is common to both animals and humans. He will give several examples of animals communicating messages through actions or gestures, sounds, and smells; however, he will emphasize that human beings, unlike the animals, can carry a message or a communication far beyond the immediate situation or time that the message is given in. Further detail about this point will be given during the presentation. After this he will define just exactly what language is and he'll say something about the different forms our system of communication takes, but he will state that he's going to be dealing with a discussion of our spoken language in this lecture—not with our written or sign language. Anyway, he will talk briefly about the mystery that surrounds the origin of language. You see, it's not really known for sure whether at one time all our different modern languages had one common source or whether they developed from different sources in different places during our prehistory—that's, of course, the time before written records of language were kept. He will point out that attempts have been made to trace the history of our languages with a system known as comparative linguistics. He will cite the tracing of most of the languages used in the Western world today to the unrecorded source or parent language called Proto-Indo-European. At this point in the talk, I'll begin to list some of the modern languages spoken today and indicate the approximate number of speakers who use the language as a first language, according to some recent language statistics. You should note down all of these statistics on the number of speakers of each language. This will test your ability to get down numbers that are given in fairly rapid succession. Most of these numbers will fall, understandably, into the millions category; but let me also point out here that in the entire world today there are really only thirteen languages that are spoken by groups of people numbering more than fifty million. Some languages are spoken by small groups of people numbering only a few hundred or a few thousand. Can you guess where people who speak such languages live? Well, I'll let you know. O.K. The first speaker will end up with a brief discussion of the attempt to develop an artificial "universal" language. You may have heard of Esperanto, the synthetic language developed for international communication purposes. Well, it really hasn't solved the problem of our many and varied languages. This is partly because Esperanto is mostly based on Western European language structure and vocabulary. The only solution, for the present, it seems, is to do just what you are doing right now—learning a second language in order to communicate with people who do not speak your native language. How are you doing with your endeavor? Let's move on now.

Lecture: Language: Origin and Diversity

As we all know, both humans and animals communicate with their own species, but, unlike us, animals do not communicate with words and sentences; they use signals, such as gestures, sounds, and smells. For instance, a dog barks to show excitement, but it snarls to show annoyance or anger. A cat purrs to indicate contentment. Gorillas will shake their heads from side to side to show that they mean no harm, but their steady stare is a definite threat or warning. To be sure, an animal can show joy, anger, dislike, or even fear through its voice and actions, but it seems that the animal cannot carry its message of anger, fear, and so forth beyond the immediate situation. Human beings, on the other hand, can. We mean by this that we can refer to the present, the past, or to the future. We can deal with what is out of sight and with what is millions of miles away. We can even communicate through writing or a tape recording with grandchildren who are born only after we are dead. To do all this, we use language.

Now, in a general sense, language is any form of expression used for communication. This would include writing, sign language, music, dance, and painting; however, we are going to focus our discussion on the basic form of language, which is, of course, speech. It is a fact that no human group is without speech, even though some groups do lack a writing system to record their speech. So it is safe to say that all humans combine sound and meaning into a complex code of communication. This code is their language.

When, where, and how language began is still a deep mystery, although there are many theories on the subject—some of them quite funny. The problem is that there are no written records of any language that are more than several thousand years old. To the best of our knowledge, the oldest writing was done approximately 5,000 years ago in Sumerian, the language of ancient Mesopotamia—a region that has become part of modern Iraq. And so, we cannot really know for sure whether at one time all our different modern languages—which number about three thousand—did have one common source or whether they developed from different sources in different places during our prehistory. Yet, it has been possible to trace the history of our languages down through the centuries by examining the similarities and differences that exist among today's various languages. This examination is called comparative linguistics.

Most of the languages used in the Western world today have been traced to the common, yet unrecorded, source which linguists call Proto-Indo-European. The languages descended from this parent language, which was spoken as far back as 4000 B.C., include nearly all those major languages spoken in Europe and in both North and South America. Certain Persian languages as well as several of India's chief languages have also been traced to Proto-Indo-European.

As for the major languages of the Far East—Chinese and Polynesian— there are more speakers of the languages of this region than there are speakers of Russian, Arabic, and the various Western languages put together. While Russian is spoken by about 140 million people, Chinese is spoken by approximately 800 million people. The latest statistics show that the world's population is over 3.5 billion and growing, and it has been estimated that the Chinese languages are gaining approximately 14 million speakers each year. Arabic, which belongs to another historically important family—the Afro-Asiatic family—is spoken by 115 million people, mainly in the Middle East and North Africa.

Eet's put aside language families for awhile and talk about some of the various languages that are spoken by large groups of people today. There's Japanese, spoken by 105 million people; French, spoken by 55 million people; German—120 million; and Italian, with 60 million speakers. The Persian language is spoken by 25 million people while Vietnamese and Thai are spoken by 35 million and 29 million people, respectively. Finally, 184 million people speak the major language of India, Hindi. Let me emphasize, however, that it is always difficult to get accurate language statistics of any kind.

As for English, well, today it seems to have replaced French as the world's lingua franca. It is spoken and understood by nearly 317 million people as a first language. It has become the most common second language for many millions of people all over the world. The next most popular second language for millions of people is Spanish. It is spoken by at least 180 million people as a first language.

As I previously pointed out, the peoples of the world speak about 3,000 different languages. One linguist has put the number at 2,796 languages. It is true, however, that many of these languages are spoken by small groups of people numbering only a few hundred or a few thousand. For example, Spanish almost completely replaced the languages of the small groups of South American natives, while English has replaced many of the languages of North America. And yet, more than 1,000 languages are still spoken by different tribes of North American Indians. Approximately another 1,000 languages are spoken by small African and Asian groups. Actually, there are really only thirteen languages in the world today that are spoken by groups numbering more than fifty million people.

Because of all this linguistic diversity in the world, it is no wonder that people have been so intrigued by the idea of developing an artificial "universal" language. At various times in the history of the Western world, there have been several attempts to develop just such a language. The most well-known attempt was the development of Esperanto. This synthetic language was devised in the late nineteenth century by a Polish scientist, Dr. L. Zamenhof; however, for the most part, Esperanto has not really been very widely used.

LISTENING 2. 'Do You Speak American?'

I'm Avi Arditti. Rosanne Skirble is away. This week on Wordmaster: "Do You Speak American?" That's the name of a new book by journalist Robert MacNeil. Mr. MacNeil - who was born and raised in Canada - explores how immigration, technology and other factors have changed the way Americans speak English.

The former television newscaster likes to use everyday experiences to illustrate the changes taking place. For instance, he says that when he and his wife - both in their mid-70s - go to New York City restaurants, they're often greeted by a waiter as "you guys," as in: "What'll you guys have?" Yet to be spoken to so casually might offend some people.

Robert MacNeil spoke with VOA's Keming Kuo about the challenges that English presents to its users worldwide.

ROBERT MacNEIL: "The English language, to anybody who is trying to learn it from the outside and not from birth, is a devil of a language, with all sorts of nuances. For instance, a hotel in Egypt which put up a sign saying: "Clients need have no anxiety about the water; it has all been passed by the management.' You see, to an American or a native English speaker, that is hilarious because it suggests that it's passed through the body of the manager. No native speaker of English would make that mistake. Otherwise, it was a perfectly grammatical sign."

Robert MacNeil says one reason American English became such a nuanced, and sometimes difficult, language is that it was shaped by the country's rapidly changing demographics.

ROBERT MacNEIL: "So much of the English vocabulary comes from immigration, first of all to Britain going back 1500 years, but then, in the last couple centuries, to the United States. And much of our American vocabulary comes from German or Yiddish or Italian or Dutch or Irish or Scandinavian -- all those sources of immigration. And certainly an awful lots of words from Spanish, because the Mexicans owned and lived in what is now a large part of Southwestern United States."

Mr. MacNeil points out that the United States is a restless, mobile society, with about one-seventh of its residents moving every year. He says those moves from rural to suburban and urban areas created peer pressure for many young people to adopt "inner city lingo" as part of their speech.

ROBERT MacNEIL: "Partly it's explained by one sociolinguist in our book as a way for young, white males, teenage males, in the suburbs -- where they grow up feeling kind of safe and everything -- to borrow some of the overt masculinity of blacks living in the inner cities, where they at least appear to know how to look after themselves, they know how to deal with women, they're familiar with weapons and all that sort of thing. And that has a huge appeal to adolescent white Americans."

In his new book, "Do You Speak American?", Robert MacNeil addresses those who bemoan what they consider the decline of English in America.

ROBERT MacNEIL: "The desire of some people, going back to the 17th century in Britain, to police the language because they want to control it, and they think it's getting messy. People like Daniel Defoe, the author of 'Robinson Crusoe,' and Jonathan Swift, the author of 'Gulliver's Travels,' were among those who thought that the language had gotten out of hand during Shakespeare's time and needed to be guarded from too much innovation. Daniel Defoe, believe it or not, wanted it to be as serious a crime to coin your own new word as it would be to counterfeit money."

Mr. MacNeil says schools are criticized for abandoning strict grammatical discipline, and the media are criticized for using so much informal or non-standard speech.

ROBERT MacNEIL: "This is not as strict a country, as strict to observe certain standards, as it used to be. And the language reflects all that. It's also become a society which partly through the force of law -- laws against racism and so on -- has become a good deal more tolerant of races, of other people, of different people. And more tolerant of people who are fat, who are tall, who are disabled in some way. And the language reflects that."

Twenty years ago, Robert MacNeil first explored changes in the English language in his book "The Story of English." Looking toward the next 20 years, he says there will be additional changes to English in America, with technology playing a major role.

LISTENING 3. Linguistic Profiling

AA: I'm Avi Arditti with Rosanne Skirble, and this week on Wordmaster: linguistic profiling.

WALT WOLFRAM: "What I mean by linguistic profiling is to hear a voice and on the basis of that voice make a judgment about that person which would sort of rate them or exclude them or in some sense not treat them fairly."

RS: Linguist Walt Wolfram at North Carolina State University says this sort of thing happens all the time. For example, he notes that Americans tend to think of people from New York City and the South as sounding less educated than others. Unless you ask a New Yorker or a Southerner, that is.

AA: Lately, Professor Wolfram has been working on a series of television documentaries. The aim is to help take some of the social stigma out of language differences in America.

WALT WOLFRAM: "What's taught in terms of the English language is always going to be taught in some sort of dialect framework. So for example, where is there no dialect of English? The Midwest certainly has a dialect. I may not be as salient as Southern dialect, but it's still dialect.

"So it's actually, although most learners of English as a second language aren't aware of this, it's virtually impossible to learn English without learning some dialect of English."

AA: "Well, I'm curious what you think of this fairly recent development of American companies putting call centers in India, using Indian workers to answer technical questions, and computer support and so forth. And the workers are being taught American English, they're being shown American programs. In some cases they're supposed to tell customers that they're actually in the United States. And I guess there's been some anger at outsourcing or offshoring of jobs, but what do you think about this, and ... "

WALT WOLFRAM: "Well, I mean that's a perfect example of linguistic profiling, in a sense. So, for example, if an American calls up and they hear an Indian accent, you know, even though the speaker may have been a native speaker of English, which is often the case, there's a certain kind of prejudice that they have.

"What we're trying to do in our series of documentaries is to show the American public, and particularly in the state of North Carolina where most of them have aired, what we're trying to do is show them how linked language is with cultural background, how natural language differences are as a part of different cultural experiences, and how this is something that should be accepted -- and in fact embraced -- as a part of cultural heritage, rather than rejected as not standard English and therefore not worthy for mainstream uses.

"So, for example, we've done documentaries on mountain speech; we've done documentaries on Outer Banks speech, you know, coastal speech; we've done documentaries of sort of the whole state of North Carolina, showing African American dialects and so forth. And the point of our documentaries is to counter some of the illegitimate feelings and reactions that people have to these varieties when they hear them."

AA: "And what's been the reaction to programs that take that position?"

WALT WOLFRAM: "So far the reaction has been very positive. I mean, we've gotten very few complaints that our programs are trying to simply encourage bad speech."

RS: "Now, are these programs being used in the public schools?"

WALT WOLFRAM: "Yes, actually we have an experimental program in middle schools where we use vignettes from these programs to educate students about language differences as a part of cultural differences."

RS: "And how are the kids responding?"

WALT WOLFRAM: "The kids love it. The fact of the matter is, people find language differences intriguing. They don't always view them fairly. But they sort of stop and listen and people speak differently. And if you can sort of take that plum and dangle it before kids and then run with it, they find it really an engaging activity."

AA: Walt Wolfram is the William C. Friday Distinguished Professor in the English Department at North Carolina State University. His accent, in case you're wondering, is from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

RS: That's Wordmaster for this week. Our e-mail address is word@voanews.com. And you can download all of our segments at voanews.com/wordmaster. With Avi Arditti, I'm Rosanne Skirble.

PART 2. GLOBALISATION OF ENGLISH

LISTENING 1. Languages in Conflict: Irish and English

The Republic of Ireland is a small country in northwestern Europe. It occupies most of the island of Ireland. Its land area is only 26,600 square miles. Its population is given at a little less than 3,000,000. A part of the island which is called Northern Ireland is a member of the British Commonwealth. Northern Ireland then is a political unit that is quite separate from the Republic of Ireland.

In the early Middle Ages - that is to say in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. - - Ireland was one of the principal cultural centers of Europe. You know, when the barbarians conquered the continent of Europe, it was Ireland that kept alive Western culture and learning. Later, however, in the twelfth century - that is to say in the late 1100s - the Norman English conquest of Ireland began. By the sixteenth century, England had gained control over the whole of Ireland. That is to say, by the 1500s England had subjugated the entire country. During this time, Irish lands were taken from their owners and given to the English and Scottish settlers. To be sure, the Irish people continually rebelled against the English, but these rebellions were always put down, or completely crushed. Throughout the eighteenth century - that is, throughout the 1700s - the Irish suffered from economic exploitation and political and religious persecution. As a result of this exploitation and persecution, the majority of the Irish people lived in great poverty.

In the late 1840s, a disaster hit Ireland; the potato crop failed because of the bad weather. You see, the potato had been the principal food of the majority of the Irish population up to that time. It is estimated that the population of Ireland in the 1830s was around 9 million people. In the four years after the potato crop failure, more than one million people died of starvation, and more than a million and a half people left Ireland in ships for Canada, the United States, and other countries. These ships were often called "floating coffins" because of the large number of people who died on board during the journey across the ocean.

In the early nineteenth century - in the early 1800s - Irish was spoken almost everywhere in Ireland. After the Great Potato Famine of 1847, however, and after the massive emigration of the following years, use of the Irish language in Ireland decreased rapidly. The English language replaced the Irish language. By 1870, only 20 percent of the Irish people spoke the national language. During the latter half of the nineteenth century - in other words from 1850 to 1900 - English was the only language taught in the schools in Ireland, and English was the language of the politicians, the clergy, and the landlords. English was, in fact, the language of the rulers; while Irish, on the other hand, was the language of the ruled.

After years of struggle, Ireland finally achieved self-government from England in 1922 and became a free republic in 1949. At that time, nationalistic feelings of pride and independence from England started a movement in Ireland to make Irish the national language of Ireland. And so, the government decreed that knowledge of the Irish language was required for all elementary school teachers. As a result, by the year 1949, only 8.2 percent of the Irish teachers lacked a certificate to teach Irish to the school children. And today, Irish is a required subject in all state schools. Knowledge of Irish has been a requirement for college matriculation in Irish colleges since 1913 (except for the famous Trinity College in the capital city of Dublin). Today, all government papers issued must be in the two languages. Newspapers now publish articles in Irish as well as in English. And you can be sure that any Irish politi­cian who wants to get elected in Ireland today must be able to make a speech in Irish, not just in English.

And so, the near-extinction of a language spoken for more than two thousand years has, perhaps, been slowed, or even stopped altogether.

LISTENING 2. Esperanto, a world language

P = Presenter

N = Professor Nesbit

P: Hello, and welcome to today's Worldly Wise, the programme that examines world issues and the way they affect each and every one of us.

Today we turn our attention to languages, or more specifically, to language. What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? Would we understand each other better and be more sympathetic to each other's causes? I'm not talking about everyone sharing the same first language, but sharing the same second language, and I'm not talking about English, but Esperanto.

What are the facts about this artificial language? Well, it was invented in 1887 by a Polish doctor, Ludwig Lazarus Zamenhof. The vocabulary comes mainly from Western European languages, and the grammar is similar to Slavic languages. It sounds like Italian.

From the learner's point of view, it has the advantage that there are no exceptions to rules. It is spoken all over the world by approximately eight million people, and there are many who would like Esperanto to be the official second language of the world.

I spoke to Professor Desmond Nesbit of the University of Edinburgh for more information and asked him, hasn't the world got enough natural languages, so why make an artificial one?

N: I prefer the term planned to artificial. Esperanto means 'hopeful', and it was Zamenhof's hope that a common language would promote a friendship and an understanding amongst all people of the world. His er . . . inspiration is summed up by the Esperanto term interna ideo which means central idea, and it is an idea of human peace and justice.

P: What are the advantages that you see of Esperanto as a world language?

N: I see many. The advantages of the world being able to talk freely to each other about business, politics, culture, sport, hobbies, well - are obvious. The costs of translation at any international conference are staggering. Did you know that 55 per cent of the EEC's budget in Strasbourg is taken up by translation costs?

P: My goodness!

N: The main advantage, as I see it, is that Esperanto is a neutral language. It doesn't have the national, political, and cultural bias that all others of course have. If everybody has to learn a second language, then everybody is equal.

P: But isn't it making a difficult situation even more difficult? I mean, there are already so many people who speak English throughout the world, why should they have to learn another language? Why not English as the world language?

N: I think I've partly answered that question already. Why should people have to learn English? For many it's a waste of time, energy, and money. The other thing that must be said is that English is by no means an easy language to learn. There is the problem of spelling, of the large number of exceptions to any rule, it is very idiomatic and the prepositions are terrible! English is one of those languages which for many seems easy in the beginning, but then the bridge between basic knowledge and mastery takes a long time to cross, and many people give up.

P: On the subject of ease of learning, how does Esperanto compare?

N: Esperanto is a very easy language to learn. The tense system has none of the complications of English, and the grammar is based on just sixteen rules which have no exceptions. There are five vowel sounds, and ...

P: How many vowel sounds does English have?

N: Twenty. The most remarkable thing is that after a very short time learners find that they can express quite sophisticated ideas, the same sort of things that they would want to say in their own language.

P: That's remarkable. But Professor, do you really see Esperanto becoming the World language? There's quite a difference between the four hundred million speakers of English and the eight million speakers of Esperanto.

N: I think it will happen, yes. I think it's happening now. Esperanto is taught in many schools in Yugoslavia and Hungary. China is very interested. It has such internal logic that it could become the international computer language, and that would really establish it.

P: Professor Nesbit, thank you very much.

N: Thank you.

PART 3. LANGUAGE AND GENDER

LISTENING 1. Verbal Hygiene for Women

Exercise 1.

Now anyone familiar with the scholarly research on gender differences in language will immediately recognise the source of this magazine article, a book by the American linguist, Robin Lakoff, published in 1975 under the title, Language and Women's Place. Lakoff was the first linguist to publish a whole book on the subject of gender differences in the use of English and her book was influential because it opened up a whole new line of enquiry.

What Lakoff suggested was the existence of a distinctive register in English called 'women's language'. The alternative, by the way, is not men's language, it's neutral language. The difference between neutral language and women's language is that women's language lacks force, authority and confidence. It's full of hedge words like 'perhaps', 'sort of and 'I'm not really sure'. It's full of tags, rising intonation which makes statements into question, trivial words and polite expressions. Women use this language, Lakoff suggests, because they were taught as little girls that it was feminine or ladylike. But what's charming in a little girl becomes irritating in a grown woman trying to make her way in the world.

Women who talk the way women are supposed to won't be taken seriously as competent professionals because the language itself is neither competent nor professional. This argument in the last 20 years has provided a very strong rationale for courses designed to change women's speech habits and make them more effective or powerful communicators. As I said before, such courses might look like a classic example of linguistic findings being applied to a real world problem, the problem of women's speech style. If we believe in gender equality, perhaps we should be applauding.

Exercise 2.

But those of us who work in the field of language and gender studies are unlikely to be applauding for several reasons. One is that, although Lakoff deserves credit as a pioneer who brought the subject of gender differences in language to the attention of a wide audience, she can't be given much credit for the quality of her research on the subject since she did no empirical research at all. Her book really belongs to a very old tradition of anecdotal speculation about women backed up by no real evidence. Those who've set out to gather the evidence since 1975 have found a much more complicated picture than Lakoffsuggested.

There are differences in speech style between women and men, though like all social differences they're not absolute or without exception. We're dealing here with generalisations, averages. Nevertheless, even having said that, there is no such thing as a women's language. On one hand, the linguistic differences between different women are as great as the differences between women and men. On the other hand, many differences that seem to 8e connected with gender are actually more closely connected with an intervening variable such as social status or situational context.

The way women are said to speak often turns out to be the way people speak in a particular setting or the way people speak when they are in a subordinate position. Because in most societies women tend to be found in some settings more than men and vice versa and also women tend to occupy low status positions more than men, the variables of status, setting and gender can very easily get conflated. When this is done by academic theorists, it is a regrettable error. But when it becomes the basis for real world interventions, it has more serious implications.

If women's generally low status, for example, is the reason for certain features of their speech style, and not as the trainers would have it, the other way round, then obviously training women in a different style of speech is not going to solve the problem. At the same time, the theory of women's language gives employers and others a justification for women's continuing low status, that women don't get on as well as men because they're not effective communicators. This is a stereotype and a damaging one for women.

That brings me to the second problem with Lakoff s work and with training materials based on the idea of women's language as an inferior register. I've already said that Lakoff over-estimated the degree to which women differ from men, but in addition, later researchers have suggested she was wrong in her very negative assessment of so-called women's language. Even if all women in all situations did speak in the ways Lakoff claimed, which, to repeat, is very far from being the case, you would still have to pose the question: What's wrong with the way women speak?