Women's Language Features Used by Meghan Markle in the “Archetypes” Podcast

In her influential 1975 article "Language and Woman's Place," linguist Robin Lakoff argues that differences in speech between men and women reflect and perpetuate women's societal status. This study aims to explore the women’s language features used by Meghan Markle in the "Archetypes" podcast. Employing a conceptual content analysis approach, the study analyses and describes the data in terms of words and sentences. It applies Lakoff's theory of ten types of women's language features to effectively identify, analyse, and explain the linguistic characteristics present in Markle's communication. The findings reveal that the most prominent women's language feature in Meghan Markle's speech is the use of emphatic stress, followed by lexical hedges, intensifiers, and the use of rising intonation on declaratives. These linguistic traits perform diverse functions, ranging from seeking confirmation and expressing politeness to emphasising crucial ideas. The results of this study have significant implications. For educators in English and Linguistics, the findings can inspire the use of diverse media, such as podcasts, to create more engaging teaching and learning experiences. Students interested in sociolinguistics can gain deeper insights into the study of women's language features. Additionally, future researchers in the field of language and gender, particularly those exploring women's languages, can use this research as a valuable reference to enrich discussions on this topic and advance their own studies.

women’s language feature, podcast, Lakoff’s theory, archetypes

1. Chao, M., & Bursten, J. R. S. (2021). Girl talk: Understanding negative reactions to female vocal fry. Hypatia, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2020.55 [3] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches 4th edition (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff's hypothesis. Language in Society, 6(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Delve. (2020). What is conceptual content analysis in qualitative research? Retrieved from https://delvetool.com/blog/what-is-conceptual-qualitative-content-analysis-step-by-step-guide [2] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G. (2023). Hedged performatives in spoken American English: A discourse-oriented analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 51(3), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231173419 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. (1975). The question of tag questions in women’s speech: they don’t really use more of them, do they? Language in Society, 4(3), 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hammond Thrasher, S., & Järvikivi, J. (2023). Rating gender stereotype violations: The effects of personality and politics. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1050662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1050662 [1] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Holmes, J. (1997). Women, Language and Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jaspal, R. (2009). Language and social identity: A psychosocial approach. Psych-Talk, 1(64), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpstalk.2009.1.64.17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row. 5-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Martínez Caro, E. (2020). Discourse functions of question tags: Exploring the right periphery in English. In B. Achiri Taboh (Ed.), Exoticism in English Tag Questions: Strengthening Arguments and Caressing the Social Wheel. Cambridge Scholars. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3465914242020MartinezCaroDiscoursefunctionsofQTspdf [5] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. McLeod, S. (2024). Peer debriefing in qualitative research. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/peer-debriefing-in-qualitative-research.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/SPC3.12295. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Miles, M.B, and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed, 10-12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ofcom. (2024, April 16). Audio listening in the UK 2024 (Report). https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/data/statistics/2024/audio-report-2024/ofcom-audio-report.pdf [2] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Parab, Dr. V. V. (2015). The factors that shape the features of female language in English. PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, 4(7), 2250–1991. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/paripex/recent_issues_pdf/2015/July/July_2015_1435994121__14.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief Note on the Origins, Evolution, and Meaning of the Qualitative Research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Politz, D. (2023). What is conceptual content analysis in qualitative research? — Delve. Delve. https://delvetool.com/blog/what-is-conceptual-qualitative-content-analysis-step-by-step-guide [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Schrauf, R. W., López De Victoria, P., & Diaz, B. (2020). Linguistic stance: An integrative paradigm for mixed methods social science. Language in Society, 49(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000757 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Spender, D. (1980). Man made language (Vol. 5). Routledge and Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.5.3.16tro [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Spinelli, M., & Dann, L. (2019). Podcasting. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501328671. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Tobin, S., & Guadagno, R. (2022). Why people listen: Motivations and outcomes of podcast listening. PLoS ONE, 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265806. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Trujillo, J., & Holler, J. (2023). Interactionally Embedded Gestalt Principles of Multimodal Human Communication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18, 1136 - 1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141422. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Weissler, R. E. (2022). A meeting of the minds: Broadening horizons in the study of linguistic discrimination and social justice through sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic approaches. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190521000131 [3] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Wilson, V. (2016). Research methods: Content analysis. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/12180/13124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Yeomans, M., Boland, F. K., Collins, H. K., Abi Esber, N., & Brooks, A. W. (2023). A practical guide to conversation research: How to study what people say to each other. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231183919 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet