Brianna Wright
Professor McMillen
English103
05 October 2015
Analysis Essay: “Marked Women, Unmarked Men” Deborah Tannen creates a semiotic setting out of a conference of which included both men and women in order to prove that women are marked by cultural expectations while men are left unmarked. As an eyewitness to this conference, the audience can rely on Tanner to support truthful evidence of her observants. What Tanner was overseeing was the action of mindless conformity committed by the females attendants of the conference to dress in a particular fashion, because women are marked. Tanner defines the term ‘marked’ as “a staple of linguistic theory. [Noting that] it refers to the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding a linguistic particle that has no meaning on its own” (Tannen 392). The authors’ claim in this essay is “to say anything about women and men without marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist for men seems as impossible for a woman as trying to get dressed in the morning without inviting interpretations of her character” (Tannen 394). Examining the dress, presentation and posture of the people in the room allowed Tannen to conclude that women are marked and men are unmarked. Evidence provided by Tannen to her audience is derived from The Sociolinguistic Language written by Ralph Fasold. Tanner uses Fasold’s biological comparison for her term of the ‘marked woman’ to show that “biologically it is the male that is marked. While two X chromosomes make a female, two Y chromosomes make nothing…unless it is attached to…an X chromosome” (Tannen 393). In paraphrasing this excerpt from The Sociolinguistic Language, Tannen aims to hit the logical appeal of her audience. Using genetic biological evidence to contradict her claim and to bring society’s perception of the make up of men and women communicates to the audience that men are marked genetically while women are marked on a social level. While trying to prove her claim, Tannen made some errors in her argument in order to sway her audience to either relate or agree with her. Hasty conclusions were drawn as Tanner states that “each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning” (Tannen 392). It is possible that each woman at the conference put some amount of effort into their appearance, but to conclude that “each decision carried [a particular] meaning” is a judgement made without sufficient evidence (Tannen 392). Tannen probably jumped to this conclusion in order to appeal emotionally with her audience in assuming that her readers take pride in dressing for the day and that each beautification was meant for something or someone. Tannen committed the error of the post hoc fallacy by stating that “if a woman’s clothing is tight or revealing, it sends a message— an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended one of availability. If her clothes are not sexy, that too sends a message, lent meaning by the knowledge that they could have been” (Tannen 393). The error of committing the post hoc fallacy is the failure to realize that one action does not prove a myriad of assumptions. Tannen possibly made this assumption to appeal with her audience in an ethical manner. For most women it is true that they will dress more conservatively in a place of business if they are currently involved romantically. In comparing ‘marked women’ and ‘unmarked men,’ Tannen recognizes that women are expected to make a statement with their appearances and that men are not. She states as she concludes her essay, “some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you’re a woman, you can’t, because there is no unmarked woman” (Tannen 395). However in stating this, Tannen is committing an error of perspective by holding an absolutism point of view. By her tone, the audience can tell that Tannen holds this idea firmly, this statement reveals a weakness in her argument. Having this mindset allows for Tannen to be susceptible to oversimplification just as in her statement that “all married women’s surnames are marked” (Tannen 393). Tannen continues to say that “if a woman takes her husbands’ name, she announces to the world that she is married…it will indicate that she is less herself, more identified by her husbands identity” (Tannen 393). By oversimplifying the concept of marriage and the adoring of a family’s name, it is clear that Tannen is trying to question an ethical appeal. Is it morally correct for a woman to identify herself as her husband before herself? Though Tannen displays some errors in her perspectives and arguments, they provided for relatable material for her audience in the fact that some of her weaknesses were mirrored by strong ties to moral issues. An obvious weakness of this argument was that there was no man’s point of view. While women can feel as they are pressured to look a certain way, and feel that men don’t feel the same pressure is an assumption. Assumptions are opinions and cannot go too much further into discussion.