Abstract
This paper explores the intersection between gendered communication styles and language bias in applied linguistics through a critical analysis of the Nigerian film Irreplaceable by Omoni Oboli. The film portrays complex gender relations and emotional dynamics within familial and romantic contexts, providing fertile ground for examining how linguistic practices reflect and reinforce gender stereotypes. Drawing on scenes from the film, this study investigates the speech patterns of male and female characters, focusing on conversational dominance, politeness strategies, emotional expression, and power negotiation. These findings are then contextualized within existing theories in applied linguistics, particularly those related to gendered discourse and language socialization.
The study employs a qualitative discourse-analytic method grounded in feminist linguistics and conversation analysis. Through selected excerpts, it illustrates how language use in the film mirrors broader societal norms and expectations regarding gender roles. The analysis demonstrates how women in the film often employ mitigating language, seek alignment, and display emotional labor, while male characters more frequently exhibit assertiveness and control of topic shifts. These patterns align with existing findings in gender and language studies but also expose unique cultural dimensions.
The paper concludes by emphasizing the pedagogical potential of film in highlighting linguistic gender bias and suggests integrating similar media-based discourse analysis into language teaching curricula. This approach encourages critical language awareness, helping learners recognize and challenge gendered assumptions embedded in everyday interactions.
Keywords
References
- Adichie, C. N. (2003). Purple hibiscus. Farafina.Google Scholar ↗
- Adichie, C. N. (2014). We should all be feminists. Fourth Estate.Google Scholar ↗
- Aidoo, A. A. (1991). Changes: A love story. The Feminist Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Bâ, M. (1981). So long a letter (M. B. Boddie, Trans.). Heinemann.Google Scholar ↗
- Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.Google Scholar ↗
- Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory. Macmillan.Google Scholar ↗
- Cameron, D. (1998). The feminist critique of language: A reader. Routledge.Google Scholar ↗
- Cameron, D. (2007). The feminist critique of language: A reader. Routledge.Google Scholar ↗
- Emecheta, B. (1979). The joys of motherhood. George Braziller/Heinemann.Google Scholar ↗
- Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.Google Scholar ↗
- Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Pearson Education/Routledge.Google Scholar ↗
- Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. Blackwell.Google Scholar ↗
- Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. Harper & Row.Google Scholar ↗
- Lazar, M. M. (Ed.). (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar ↗
- Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. OxfordGoogle Scholar ↗
- University Press. Oboli, O. (Director). (2016). Irreplaceable [Film]. Nollywood.Google Scholar ↗
- Okorafor, N. (2015). The book of phoenix. DAW Books.Google Scholar ↗
- Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. William MorrowGoogle Scholar ↗
- Paperbacks/Ballantine Books.Google Scholar ↗
- Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men at work. William Morrow.Google Scholar ↗
- West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
- Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar ↗