The dichotomy between what lies inside or outside of a dwelling, and its linguistic effects, appear clearly in Jespersen's discussion of language "conflict," a situation in which speakers are bilingual. What he said about German and Scandinavian immigrants in the u.s. and the Basques of the Pyrenées is interesting for its description as well as its substance.
A difference between the language spoken by men and that spoken by women is seen in many countries where two languages are struggling for supremacy in a peaceful way—thus without any question of one nation exterminating the other or the male part of it. Among German and Scandinavian immigrants in America the men mix much more with the English-speaking population, and therefore have better opportunities, and also more occasion, to learn English than their wives, who remain more within doors. It is exactly the same among the Basques, where the school, the military service and daily business relations contribute to the extinction of Basque in favour of French, and where these factors operate much more strongly on the male than on the female population: there are families in which the wife talks Basque, while the husband does not even understand Basque and does not allow his children to learn it. [My emphases] (241)
What is being "exterminated" in such situations is whatever belongs to the women's domain; whatever is locked inside, what is not taken outside—in this case native language and culture—dies, unless extraordinary measures are taken, as in the case of the modern Basque Separatists fighting assimilation. The men who control access to the "outside world" of business and money impose their linguistic supremacy. The imposition of Norman French on the conquered English is a typical example. Within English dwellings—the women's domain—native Germanic words such as ox, sheep, lamb, and eat were used, but Norman French replaced English as the language of "worldly" (read: male) affairs.
How the two experiential domains determine the language or dialect one speaks answers at least one question posed by contemporary psycholinguistic research. On the one hand, some scholars give priority to the mother's language, which children learn and speak during their formative years. This alleged priority then seems to contradict the findings of other researchers, who point to the well-documented fact of male control of standard languages and grammars. If women are the earliest teachers of native speech, and if it is their linguistic patterns that children learn, how can one talk about "male linguistic control"? The answer should be obvious now. As long as male children remain inside, within their mother's sphere of influence, they imitate her speech. As soon as they step outside of the dwelling, however, into the world of the fathers, they must either abandon their "mother tongue" or find themselves consigned to a limited, impoverished existence beyond the home. The "question," then, isn't a question at all, but a consequence of the separate experiential spheres constructed by PUD [Patriarchal Universe of Discourse]. Aspects of the woman's sphere are restricted and contained within the world named by men. The function of language in maintaining and perpetuating patriarchal social structures and assumptions is more complex than it may at first appear, but it is also consistent across cultures.
-Julia Penelope, Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers’ Tongues
