Gendered Language Use and Its Impact on Identity Among Youth in Benghazi
Keywords:
Gendered Language, Social Identity, Youth, Gender Norms, Sociolinguistics, Benghazi, LibyaAbstract
Language serves not only as a tool for communication but also as a powerful marker of social identity, particularly in societies with strong gender norms. In Libya, a nation navigating post-revolution transformation, the linguistic practices of young adults offer a unique window into evolving gender dynamics.
This study aims to investigate the intersection of language, gender, and identity among young adults in Benghazi, Libya, exploring how linguistic practices reflect and reinforce gendered social norms within a conservative yet rapidly changing society.
The sample population consists of 65 undergraduate students (ages 18‑25) recruited from three major universities in Benghazi: Benghazi University, Libyan International Medical University (LIMU), and Salam University.
A structured questionnaire, distributed digitally via Google Forms, served as the primary quantitative tool. It combined closed‑ended scale items to assess language attitudes and demographic data for statistical cross‑analysis.
Preliminary findings suggest that while traditional gender distinctions persist in formal settings, informal contexts reveal evolving behaviors. Young women increasingly adopt assertive speech styles, while young men navigate between local dialectal prestige and globalized linguistic trends, indicating an active role for youth in reshaping linguistic norms.
References
Alharbi, M., Alqahtani, S., Almutairi, N., & Alshammari, F. (2025). Gender‑based lexical perceptions in Saudi EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 16(2), 345–358.
Al‑Khatib, M., & Hamdan, R. (2026). English and identity in the digital age among Jordanian Gen Z. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 78–97
Badr, A. (2022). The impact of digital communication in social media on linguistic transformation in Egyptian youths: A study on the impact of gender on the Facebook language. International Journal of Sociolinguistics, 45(3), 212–230.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4‑5), 585–614.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Blackwell.
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325–340.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
Sadiqi, F. (2003). Women, gender, and language in Morocco. Brill.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.
