A. INTRODUCTION
What we intend to examine in our research paper is the stereotypes men film directors apply to the representation of women linguistic behavior. Despite some superficial changes occurred during the last three decades, it seems that even nowadays women are still subject to the boundaries of the patriarchal society (Beauvoir 1997: 608). Since cinema exerts influence on society and has the power to promote stereotypes, we consider that it constitutes a fertile field for research.
So, in our research, we expect to show through linguistic evidence that men film directors are not only influenced by the stereotypes of women language, but also promote them via their films. According to these stereotypes, women are supposed to be charming, witty and amusing (Mills 1995: 71). Furthermore, we anticipate women to occupy the role of the weak sex, especially in the social and professional environment.
In order to confirm our research hypothesis, we opted for three contemporary films: Crush by John MacKay, Erin Brockovich by Steven Sodebergh and Tootsie by Sydney Pollack. Each of these films focuses on a specific context, from which we will extract the essential linguistic evidence. Our research involves the personal, professional and social context from where the expected discoursal differentiations will emerge. Firstly, we will select the most representative dialogues and through the method of observation and note taking we will proceed to a detailed analysis of our collected data.
However, before moving on to the data analysis, we regard it fundamental to cite the theoretical background of our research.

B. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.  Do gender language differences really exist?
We cannot really feel dubious about the existence of gender differences in speech, since there are numerous sources deepening into the matter, trying to provide evidence for this kind of “linguistic determinism”. It has been claimed that women have real problems in speaking and being heard, are denied access to the most influential registers of language in a particular culture and are generally marginalized and oppressed as far as expression is concerned. There’s a tendency to believe that the woman’s sphere includes mainly the interpersonal rather than the rhetorical, so, at least linguistically, she symbolizes the private as opposed to the public, as if she’s forbidden to speak effectively in front of any audience. As a matter of fact, Cameron (1985) argues that registers of language historically created by men very often represent women as marginal or inferior, attributing to them speech characteristics, such as silence, inadequacy and irrelevance. However, this myth of impoverishment is being rejected by recent feminist researchers, who want to erase this image of inarticulate women, struggling to express their experiences and feelings (Cameron 1985). The folklinguistic value is gradually proved to be inaccurate, since the “rich verbal culture” women possess starts reaching to the surface, something that used to be hidden rather than absent. 
A view similar to the one mentioned above is held and explained by Trudgill and other sociolinguists such as Austin and Hymes (Preisler 1986:4), suggesting that it is the women’s traditional social position preventing them from being rated socially by what they do and are instead judged from the way they appear, including how they speak. As also Rubin (1975) remarks, every society develops a sex/gender system in which the fact of biological sex differences is invested with culturally determinate signification. In a similar vein, the psychoanalytic theory by Jacques Lacan maintains that “the language code is seen as constituting the structure of our culture, and it is through the acquisition of language that we obtain our psychological and social identities as male or female”(Preisler 1986:7).

2.  Stereotypes of women language
Society is putting a far greater strain on its women than on its men and now it is time to ask whether it is true, and if true, how the burden could be equalized (Lacoff 1975:62). Therefore, the fact that women lack assertiveness in more contexts than men do (Lacoff 1975:58) can be attributed to a linguistic discrimination to which women are subject. That is to say, a girl must learn and use the “women’s language” in order not to be scolded or considered unfeminine but the same language is used against her when it is support that women cannot speak forcefully or take part in serious conversations (Lacoff 1975:7, Preisler 1986:6). Hence, there are a number of specific forms that women are expected to use in their speech and often they are trapped in them, since society has categorized these forms under the term “women’s language”. These forms are provided here as found in Lacoff (1975:53-57), Preisler (1986:98-112) and Coates (1991).
a) Women are supposed to have a large variety of words related to their specific interests, such as cooking, sewing, etc.
b) Women are prone to use frequently “empty” adjectives. e.g. divine, charming, cute, etc.
c) Women use tag questions more often than men which suggest a “question intonation” in their sentence when a declaration is expected.
d) The use of hedges in women’s speech (“well”, “you know”, “kinda”) suggest that women are taught that asserting themselves strongly is not ladylike, so they give the impression that they lack authority.
e) Women are not supposed to talk rough, thus their grammar is hypercorrect.
f) Women are considered more polite. They should think what they will say, uphold social conventions and use euphemisms.
g) Women do not tell jokes but this can be reduced to the social level, since Coates (1991) has observed that when women friends talk, the use of laughter is essential.

3.  Differentiations of women language in different contexts (personal, professional, social)
Taking into consideration the multiple levels of a woman’s life, we can explain the diversification of the roles she is invited to perform and therefore of the linguistic behavior she adopts in order to communicate successfully. Different discourses give access to different femininities which are always in accordance with the context women are located in. This can be explained by the fact that our culture offers us various ways of being and hence, all kinds of self are possible. (Coates 1996:232-233).
The talk of women is regarded as “the substance of their friendship” (Johnson and Anes 1983 a:354) which is mainly based on cooperation as well as revelation of secrets and clandestine events about their private lives. Women friends are keen on gossiping, especially about the opposite sex and having fun through their chats to the point of being stupid. They also stick to one topic for a long time, let all speakers finish their sentences and try to have everyone participate (Coates 1986). When women friends construe their talk, they are not confined by taboos or rules, but they feel free to go anywhere (Coates 1996:84).
Explanation, listening and truthfulness characterize women in their professional environment. In particular, they have the tendency to be attentive and responsive towards their colleagues; they elicit constructive ideas and encourage others to contribute to the conversation; they seek consensus; they suggest actions; they ask for facts and clarification; they use tentative statements, though absolute ones can also be included; they employ speech acts, while their intonation varies according to the situation (Cole 2004). Their use of hedges and apologies are the residue of men’s domination in the professional sector which in combination with their paying compliments render them more polite (Holmes 1995).
In their social surroundings, women wish to present themselves as independent and active on the one hand, as well as helpful and gentle on the other (Athenstaedt 2003). The basic linguistic traits spotted in their social interactions are: politeness, taciturnity, well-timed supportive minimal responses, style shifting and code switching (Cameron 1999:1-20). In general, because of their powerlessness in society as a whole, they have learned communication skills which have helped them survive (Holmes 1995).

C. DATA ANALYSIS
1.  Analysis of the film Crush (personal context)
Three 40 year old friends in a small English town meet weekly for a ritual of gin, cigarettes and sweets gossiping about their love lives and arguing which of them has the most pathetic one. All of them acquire high positions in the hierarchy of work: Kate is a headmistress at a local school; her best friends are: Janine, the town’s police chief and Molly, a cynical thrice divorced doctor. When Kate begins a fling with a handsome younger man, the other women can’t simply be happy for the couple’s unusual new romance. In jealousy they promptly take it upon themselves to break up the pair, taking drastic measures which result in unintended outcomes, some happy and some tragic.
The dominating element in this film seems to be the conversations between the three friends which trigger a series of events and make their relationship pass through different stages: union, division and reconciliation.
In the beginning, they are having fun in a house, sharing their experiences either through narration or discussion. During the narration, the interlocutors were taciturn or mute as they were interested in listening to the story or anxious about what happened next. Consequently the only utterances heard were questions of curiosity and interest, such as: “what did you do?”, “and??”. On the contrary, after the story telling, discussion took place, where everyone joined to mull over particular issues raised by the story. The most common characteristic of the discussion was interaction (see appendix: I.1).
In jealousy, interruptions are frequent and the language is caustic. The tension between them becomes evident via the interlocutors’ high pitch of voice (see appendix:I. 2) The hostile confrontation towards Kate and her friend’s anxiety, takes the form of tag questions (see appendix:I. 3). Hedges are used between Molly and Janine when the first strives to prove that Kate’s future husband in not appropriate for her. Janine is less assertive and doubts about the correctness of their initiative.
M:  - So how are you?
J: - I think this is such a bad idea. Well, you know, he was sort of wanted by the police for a robbery…
When the three women wanted to rekindle their relationship and go for a mini-trip to Paris, their speech becomes enriched with empty adjectives, expressing their enthusiasm about clothes, men and their having fun. (see appendix:I. 4)

When Kate secretly runs away to meet her boyfriend and future husband, things get worse. Repetitions in this context might express hostility, anxiety and constitute an emphasized speech. (see appendix:I. 5)
Despite their high social positions, when Kate Molly and Janine are together, they tend to use two types of swearing: nicknames and obscene words and phrases, leaving behind their seriousness. (see appendix:I. 6)
In the last reconciliation scene, they realize that nothing is more valuable than their friendship and enjoy their independence deciding that they can live without having serious affairs with men. All of them are deeply moved, hence lost for words.  (See appendix:I. 7)
Linguistic forms encapsulated in women’s talk, according to Jennifer Coates, can be multifunctional, depending on the context. Some of the main characteristics of such a stereotypical linguistic behaviour are verified in the film.
Friendships between women are of utmost importance, as they are overtly recognized as a key component in their lives (Coates 1996:42). In Crush, friendship served as an emotional outlet for women frustrated in their partnerships with men, who were the actual focus of their conversation. Having a symmetrical relationship based on equality, all of them had the possibility to participate in the discussions via interaction. Most of the utterances, however elliptical, gave us the impression of unanimity between the friends, on the grounds that each one could read the other’s mind and complete her sentence. This kind of syntactical deviation could possibly be interpreted as a reflection of an internal upheaval. Hedging in the specific context was used to present women’s reluctance, while questions and question tags helped speakers exchange information and keep the conversation going, fulfilling their need for assertiveness. Furthermore, repetition expressed anger and surprise rather than affirmation of the group voice. The extended use of swearing is likely to provide proofs about women’s reacting regardless their social status. The creation of a secret code full of nicknames and taboo words and phrases could underline the liberating nature of friendly chats. Women are depicted as beings that can go beyond the limits and through the use of empty adjectives, reach the point of stupidity.
Finally, what is important and should be highlighted is the fact that talk is intrinsic not only to friendship, but also to the formation of close relationships, which is essential to our development as human beings (Coates 1996: 67). 

2.  Analysis of the film Tootsie (professional context)
When we selected the film “Tootsie” for the analysis of women’s linguistic behavior in their professional environment, we found particularly interesting the fact that the film deals with a talented actor who pretends to be a woman in order to get a job in a very popular soap opera. The protagonist convinces everyone for his “female” identity not only because of his external metamorphosis but also because he behaves as a woman is expected to behave, namely he follows all the existing stereotypes of women.
According to Holmes (1995:214) most women regard verbal politeness as a very important element of their speech and as a result, they give and receive more compliments and apologies for men. In the film, Dorothy-which is the name that the protagonist has chosen for his fake identity as a woman-seems always hesitant and extremely polite, always saying “Thank you, thank you very much” or starting her questions with “May I” (e.g. “May I ask you a question?”). Furthermore, she is always apologetic when the director of the programme makes a comment or passes a criticism on her job. (See appendix:II.1). Another instance of her apologetic tone can be found in Dorothy’s discussion with the female producer of the programme. (See appendix:II.2).
In the professional environment, moreover, it is most unlikely for women to get an opportunity to contribute to discussion and decision-making. They are likely to be interrupted more often than men and in interactions with men they are rarely welcome to contribute (Holmes 1995:211). One very characteristic scene that proves this example can be seen in a dialogue between Dorothy and the director (see appendix:II.3). The other women characters like the producer of the programme or July, the co-star of the soap opera, are much close to the stereotypical representations of “career women”. The producer has managed to occupy a high position but she has lost her feminine characteristics, becoming tough and man-like (e.g. use of swearing: “pain in the a**”). July on the other hand has an affair with the director and seeks affiliation to the face of Dorothy through bitching for her work and her relationships, something usual for women at work. (Sotirin: 2000).
Dorothy: - I enjoyed the day at work.
July: -Tell me that after a week.
July also occupies the role of the weak sex and lets the director speak on her behalf. Director: -Barry, bring me a bacon cheese, right?
Barry: -July, you want anything?
Director: -No, she’s fine, thank you.
Women are likely to confront sexual harassment in their working environment and most of the times they endure it stoically as in the case of Dorothy and her co-star John Van Horn. Other times, however, women assert their right for equality. Dorothy reacts to the use of diminutives by the director (see appendix:II.4).
Summing up, in this film women are represented as polite, shy, hesitant and weak in their interaction with men, especially at their professional environment. Some reactions, such as the final example provided with Dorothy, have to be attributed probably to the true identity of Dorothy, since we have seen earlier in the film that the protagonist was a man quite aggressive and dynamic who was obliged to suppress his male attitude in order to perform the stereotypical female role.

3.  Analysis of the film Erin Brockovich (social context)
What we considered particularly striking while observing and taking notes on the above film was the dynamic character of the protagonist and the power of her will, something that we did not really expect, considering the predicament on which her life was situated. Erin Brockovich is a woman twice divorced, with three children, no stable work, no support by family or friends and great economical problems. After much effort and tenacity, she persuades a lawyer into hiring her as an assistant to his office, and in next to no time she gets seriously involved into a legal case, trying to collect evidence against a water company, PG&E, which spreads devastating illnesses by contaminating the area.
During the examination of Erin’s linguistic behavior, what we found surprising and interesting at the same time is that she appeared to be a highly confident woman, straightforward and rather audacious at times:
“I’m a client and I want him to call me, as simple as that!
Is he ever in the office? I’ve called a thousand times!»
This is the way Erin addresses people, without inhibitions, no passiveness and no hesitance in her words. She even dares to interrupt people, speak impolitely, abruptly and with sheer directness when the conditions of life pose a high pressure on her.  (See appendix:III.1). Another point worth mentioning is concerned with the use of swearing by the protagonist. For instance, we detected the following typical examples of obscenity and expletives: goddamn noise, shut the f**k up, stupid b***h, f**k you back, this pisses me off, f*****g ugly shoes, sexual favors, blowjobs, bulls**t, etc. This may actually be explained by recent studies exploring women verbal patterns, indicating that they routinely use obscene language, are well familiarized with it and it constitutes a powerful identity resource (Stapleton 2003).
Another thing to notice is that Erin’s utterances almost totally lack the use of hedges, modality and expressions of hesitance or uncertainty, since her speech is continually characterized by assertiveness, aggressiveness and a tendency not to mince words. (See appendix:III.2). The only cases in which she tries to be polite and rather cautious is either when she takes part in conferences among famous lawyers and feels pretty confused and unequal:
“I’m sorry, I just don’t seem to understand why…”
or when she uses her female coquetry, so as to extract secret information:
“Thank you, you’re such a gentleman!
Oh, I think I could do that on my own!»
Moreover, we can say that Erin embodies the stereotype of woman who finds difficulty in combining her job with motherhood. Although she faces serious problems, she never shows aggressiveness towards her children and especially her eldest son. On the contrary, she addresses him like any ideal mother would do, namely with tenderness, affection and understanding. (See appendix:III.3).
An additional point stemming from our observations is that Erin uses a lot of imperative forms, in order to intervene dynamically and impose her views.  (See appendix:III.4). In general terms, Erin’s language does not seem to be compatible with the theories of female socio-linguistic behavior. Lakoff (1975), in particular, has pointed out that:
“If a little girl talks ‘rough’ like a boy she will normally
Be ostracized, scolded or made fun of. In this way socie-
ty, in the form of a child’s parents and friends keep her in
line , in her place”.
The paradox here is that Erin employs this ‘rough’, non-lady like language in order to claim her rights and assert her position in society; in other words to flesh out her steadfast desire for recognition and justice. Up to a certain extent, she defies the conventions of politeness and uncertainty that characterize women in their social context, but on the other hand, she cannot renounce her role as a mother. Thus, we can conclude that beyond her deviant speech some stereotypical traits are inevitably spotted.

D. CONCLUSION
Now that our research is completed, we have reached some conclusions concerning the stereotypes of women language reflected upon the films studied. Taking our evidence into consideration, we may ascertain that men film directors do have pre-determined images about women’s verbal behaviour, since we observed significant differentiations within distinct contexts. More specifically, women characters in their friendly talk are presented rather liberated, extrovert and without restraints in their expression. Despite their social status, women in “Crush” do not hesitate to use swearing, they are quite impolite and abrupt in their conversations and what’s more, they share a private linguistic code in order to communicate effectively. However, some characteristics of women’s language, such as question tags, empty adjectives and incomplete utterances are an indispensable part of their speech. As far as women in their professional environment are concerned, our initial expectations were fulfilled, since women in “Tootsie” appear to be the weak sex, not allowed to take initiatives and furthermore a passive attitude was demanded by the male characters. For instance, women were constantly interrupted and scolded when they deviated from the norm. To our surprise, in “Erin Brockovich”, the heroine was not at all stereotypically depicted. According to our readings, women in a social environment are less assertive, compromising and underestimated. Nevertheless, Erin was presented very dynamic, assertive and ready to defend her opinion and rights. This can be explained by the fact that this film is based on a true story and therefore, the heroine should reflect the personality of the real Erin Brockovich.
Thus, looking back to our research hypothesis, we can claim that it is partly confirmed, with regard to the professional and personal contexts, while it was rejected by the social one.
As we have mentioned in the introduction, this field offers opportunities for further investigation and from our experience we can affirm that the whole process, although demanding, has proved to be very interesting and challenging.