Analysis of Genderlect Style in Communication Theory

Lindsey Jara
COM 3400-001
Stephen Mitchell

Introduction
The way we as humans communicate: the way we talk, carry ourselves in
conversation, and interact with one another is a part of who we are as individuals and
how we indentify ourselves. People often think that they way they speak and participate
in a conversation is something that came naturally to them, and that they are saying and
communicating exactly what they mean and intend. However, our perception of how to
successfully communicate with someone may be based on a number of different
influences from early on in development. Because there are so many ways in which we
all communicate and express our ideas, individuals tend to have a conversational style, a
learned behavior that can be socially, environmentally, or biologically impacted. The
term genderlect is used describe differing styles of discourse, and the term acts as a
theory that suggests that a persons gender can emerge through conversation as a distinct
cultural dialect. Ones conversational style isnt always obvious, and we can be unaware
that aspects of our backgrounds can influence the way we talk to one another.
Conversational styles that exist are reflections of cultural differences in how we
send and receive messages and how we perceive others intentions in conversation, and at
times can lead to misunderstandings and frustrations between people. Errors occur in
communication frequently, historically between masculine and feminine type people and
even more specifically, between men and women. Sometimes, what a person might mean
to say can be interpreted very differently by someone else, causing our intentions to be
misread or overlooked. Errors that can occur in communication are due to different
genderlect styles and linguistic behaviors, especially those among genders. Even small
differences in conversational style can lead to large misinterpretation.

In our desire to be understood by others, I argue that by acknowledging the

connection that exists between gender patterns and language in interaction, we can move
towards obtaining an understanding of how conversational styles can affect relationships
among genders. Awareness of these styles may not reduce misunderstandings that occur
in communication but can help people to realize that they may be perceiving something
in a way that is semantically different from what the communicator intended.
Recognizing characteristics of genderlects in discourse can help develop ones
understanding of how masculine and feminine type people at times communicate in ways
that are distinct and diverse.
Literature Review
In society, a persons identity is made up of many cultural components: ethnicity,
age, interests and group affiliation, etc. Of the many aspects that define us as individuals,
the most imperative to our identification is claiming a gender. Gender constructs are
embedded in facets of social life and are learned at a young age in development. By the
age of four, children have a clear understanding of appropriate attributes of their gender
and aim to abide by these existing roles. (Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2003) To
understand gender roles and patterns, one must understand gender ideology and language.
In a lecture given by Naomi L. Shitemi, she demonstrates that gender ideology is
a system of beliefs by which people explain, account for and justify their behavior. She
further states that gender ideology informs and guides the interpretation and assessment
of the behavior of others while setting the norms that govern, explain, and justify
participation in the gender order. Language is the key instrument and medium by which
gender ideologies are constructed and preserved. How people use language often relates

to instincts and motives of a particular gender they align with. All people in one way or
the other are pervasive images of ideologized male and female differences. Such
dichotomies are not only practiced but are linguistically articulated, and they play a major
role in the construction of gender ideologies that are represented in society. Therefore,
gender ends up being embedded in the actions, beliefs and desires that go along with the
mapping of language use through communication, interaction and establishment of the
social order (Shitemi, 2009). This stance is in support of how language is used to
establish and maintain gender order and is a foreground for that of the relationship
between gender patterns and conversational style. Communication creates and affects
gender, which in turn becomes influential in the way that one communicates.
When it comes to unsuccessful communication among genders, it is believed by
many that men and women may face challenges in communicating with one another
because of differences in characteristics between the binary of being a male or female.
One could argue that biological differences, such as levels of hormones like testosterone
and estrogen, affect how different genders communicate with one another. However,
Deborah Tannen (1990) diverges from this view in her claim that many of the issues and
tensions between these two genders are a result not necessarily of gender differences but
rather differences in conversational styles of each gender. In her book, You Just Dont
Understand, Tannen describes how men and women live in different worlds made of
different words. Her study on conversations held between two different genders identify
differing speech communities that are typical of women and men. Tannen holds that men
and women have different cultural goals, rules, and purposes for communication, as well
as different understandings for how to interpret talk, which lead to problems of

miscommunication. She presents an aspect of communication as achieving a level of

status, and relates it to a struggle between intimacy and independence in that
communication is a continual balancing act, juggling the conflicting needs for both.
Although all people endeavor for an element of both, women tend to focus more on
intimacy and men more on independence, and this difference can give men and women
differing views of the same situation (Tannen, 1990). To ground her claim, within her
book Tannen links gendered communication patterns to early child development and
compares differences in boys and girls communication with their peers and parents.
The act of communicating ultimately is to accomplish something, and being that
the nature of communication is inherently goal oriented, our behaviors are strategic in
communicating with another person. When people talk to one another, not only do they
communicate informationbut also images of themselves. Our communication with one
another portrays not only our ideas and what we speak, but also who we speak as. The
idea of genderlect styles is that there is a variable, or are variables, in how we
communicate in a conversation that correspond with a particular gender that we align
with. A genderlect style conveys itself through conversation and there are multiple ways
in which people use conversational behaviors to accomplish goals. Of the differences in
conversational styles between men and women, the most substantial is the fact that men
and women view the mere purpose of conversation very differently.
Research on gender differences in discourse has shown that men and women use
communication to achieve different kinds of outcomes. While women use
communication as a tool to enhance social connections and create relationships, men use
language to exert dominance to achieve tangible outcomes (Maltz & Borker, 1982).

According to Julia Wood in her work entitled Gendered Interaction: Masculine and
Feminine styles of Verbal communication, women see the purpose of conversation to
create and maintain intimate bonds, and value the process of communication itself. For
feminine people, talk is the essence of relationships. For masculine people, talk is a tool
that is used to complete a purposeful task. (Wood, 1995)
Differences in how men and women view the purpose of conversation breaks
down to different types of talk among these two specific genders. A characteristic of the
feminine style of conversation is known as rapport talk, which is focused on showing
empathy and is the primary means for maintaining relationships. Feminine talk is more
focused on feelings, emotions, and the relationship of the communicators, rather than the
content of the message. To create rapport, communicators use verbal and nonverbal cues
that convey support, affirmation or questions to the receiver in the conversation, and aim
to cooperate and show interest, rather than compete and arrive at a predetermined goal
that is characteristic of report talk that men typically engage in. Wood claims that
tendencies of masculine talk are to establish status and value, and that conversation is an
arena for proving oneself and negotiating prestige. (Wood, 1995).
Wood goes to explain that those who identify with performing a feminine
conversational style tend to have the characteristic of being tentative, and using indirect
communication. A common error in communication that can occur between men and
women often arises from situations where men, in their use of report talk and
conversational nature of using language as a tool to arrive at a point, may misinterpret a
womans message when she communicates indirectly. The difference between using
indirect communication versus direct is illustrated by a persons preference on how they

communicate their wants, needs, or desires, and whether or not they come right out and
say it or express it. When a person speaks directly, there is little room for
misinterpretation of what the speaker is saying. An example of communicating indirectly
would be to say, The drive to work is far rather than more clearly and directly saying,
I want to move so I can be closer to work. The first sentence lacks personal affect of
the subject matter, and does not hit home the point that the communicator intends to
make. Traditional claims that men and women dont understand each other can result
from situations where indirect communication is uttered between persons deviating in
conversational style.
Since the early days of research done on genderlect styles, circa 1973 by linguist
Robin Lakoff, the scope of genderlect has expanded in correlation to the growing fields
of feminist and gender studies. Diverging from the claims made by scholars Deborah
Tannen and Julia Wood that genderlects represent dialects specific to one gender over
another, linguist Heiko Motschenbacher offers a post-modernist re-definition of
genderlect in the journal article entitled Can the Term 'Genderlect' Be Saved? (2007).
Motschenbacher explains that one person may blend various aspects of different
genderlects as applicable to a given situation, and that gendered practices of language use
have to be studied contextually. This outlook allows for genderlects to survive outside of
the binary of man or woman, and exist on more of an all-embracing spectrum that largely
depends on context and is community-based. More contemporary concepts of genderlect
treat it as performative, being an activity that a person does, rather than a characteristic
attribute.

Converging with the framework that genderlects and communication behaviors

are performative, in a research study done on gender-preferential language use
researchers looked at how individuals adjust their conversational style based on the
process of identification with a conversational partner. This study, conducted by Mary
Anne Fitzpatrick, Anthony Mulac and Kathryn Dindia, viewed language features of
masculine and feminine type persons to be gender-preferential rather than sex-exclusive,
in that masculine and feminine type people are equally capable of using the styles of the
opposite sex and may modify their use in particular interaction contexts (Dindia,
Fitzpatrick, & Mulac, 1995). A major assumption held by researchers of this study was
that it is expected for men and women to have shifts in communication patterns, and that
gender-preferential language use across different types of interacting partners can be
accounted for by the context of the relationship of the people in a conversation, rather
than solely the gender style of each communicator.
In looking at dialogues of married couples, the researchers note an existing
tendency for a couple identity to form, a sort of give and take phenomenon that
decreases each partners use of their own individual gender-preferential language when
communicating with each other. The researchers compared married couples to whether or
not their conversational styles were altered or if there was a decreased use of their own
gender-preferential language when communicating to a person outside of their dyad, to
strangers of the same and opposite sex. The results of the study provide evidence for
differences in linguistic use among genders and that men and women make adjustments
to their gender-preferential language when communicating with the opposite sex.
Towards strangers of the opposite sex, the study found that women were more likely to

adjust their style to that of the mens. However, towards married partners of the opposite
sex, husbands adjusted to their wives gender-preferential language substantially more
than wives did to their husbands (Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Mulac, 1995). For same-sex
interactions, the researchers explain that if they had only compared this type of
interaction by itself, they would have strong evidence for the concept of differentiated
speech communities distinct of women and men. However when adding in the
comparisons of conversations with opposite-sex strangers and spouses, they found that
both women and men were efficient at moderating the level of their gender-preferential
style usage . A major finding from this study is that most of the variance in
conversational styles can be accounted for by the context of the relationship between the
communicators in interaction.
On the other hand, Tannen in later work lightens her stance to a less stringent
view of genderlect patterns in her published work entitled The Display of Gendered
Identities in Talk at Work (1999) where she elaborates that the most advantageous
approaches to examining gender and language do not try to link behavior directly to
individuals of one sex or the other but rather begin by asking how interaction is framed
amid the relationship between the speakers; in terms of how the speakers are setting
themselves up with respect to a communication situation, and from there then ask where
women and men tend to fall in this pattern of framing. This captures the display, or
performance aspect of gendered patterns, which is said, by Tannen, to be the aspect
that most truly reflects how verbal and other forms of behavior really work in interaction
(1999).

In support of claims made by all scholars presented in this analysis of genderlect

styles in conversation, what can be concluded is that different expectations about the
outcome of a conversation are held among people communicating in particular ways, and
exhibiting linguistic patterns and behaviors. Obtaining an awareness of the relationship
that stands across genders and conversational styles, including both the similarities and
differences, can help to foster more healthy communication in an effort to better
understand one another.
Research Proposal
Given my analysis of the theory of genderlect styles in communication, I propose
a research study to which ideally this theory will be able to relate to components of it, and
also help give meaning to questions posed.
With an abundance of technological advances, many of those living in todays
American society have become situated in a world where the use of cell phones,
computers, the Internet, and social networking is central to their daily lives. Many people
turn to computer-mediated communication as a way of conversing with others on a
regular basis. What I am interested in researching is how the use of computer-mediated
communication relates to genderlect and conversational styles, and how the latter
becomes apparent in conversations held through the use of an electronic device. I will
focus on emotional affect specifically through demonstrated emotions in electronic
discourse by the amount of emoticons used in conversation. I will relate the frequency of
emoticon use with the context in which the conversation took place to how closely it

might correspond with masculine or feminine genderlect styles that are typical of men
and women.
I will start the research project by determining cause and effect variables, a
hypothesis, and a research question that I would hope to answer through the design and
procedure of the study. The independent and dependent variables of this research study
are: IV1: gender identification of participant. DV: the amount of emoticon use in
electronic discourse. To gage the extent to which emotions are shown, I will create a
survey where questions will be asked about frequency and variation of emoticon use.
The theory about genderlect styles existing among different genders in
conversation will be helpful in answering this research question because notions of the
theory are about how men and women have differences in the way that they
communicate, and a large part of genderlect differences suggest that feminine type people
show more emotion in conversation than do masculine type people. Emoticons
commonly are used to express emotions beyond what text can convey in a computermediated conversation. Computer-mediated communication strips away non-verbal cues
that might make ones gender known otherwise. Based on responses to survey questions,
heavier use of emoticons in certain contexts might suggest that a person performs
communicatively in a way that aligns with someone of a feminine genderlect style.

References:

Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Mulac, A. (1995). Gender-preferential

language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 14, 18-39. doi: 10.1177/0261927X95141002.
Eddleston, K., Veiga, J.F. and Powell, G. (2006). Expanding the traditional view of
managerial career satisfiers: beyond sex differences, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 2, 437-44
Galvin, S. M., Dolly, M. R., & Pula, J. J. (2013). Genderlect and participation in the
college english classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 22-30. Retrieved
from:
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/1265619322?accountid=
14925
Hancock, A. B., & Rubin, B. A. (2014) Influence of communication partner's gender on
language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1-19. doi:
10.1177/0261927X14533197
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female
miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity.
Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Merchant, Karima, (2012). How men and women differ: gender differences in
communication styles, influence tactics, and leadership styles
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/513
Motschenbacher, H. (2007) Can the term "genderlect" be saved? A postmodernist
re-definition. Gender and Language, 1, 255. doi:10.1558/genl.v1i2.255.
Nedashkivska, A. (2009). Gender voices in electronic discourse: A forum in
Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 17(1-2), 217-245. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA252006869&v=2.1&u=lom_way
nesu&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=c4e443543d18bfae496fdb8fe302c3fb
Shitemi, N. L. (Director) (2009, July 5). Language and gender. IUPUI
Fulbright-hays group projects abroad program. Lecture conducted
from Moi University, Eldoret.

Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men in the workplace:

Language, sex, and power. New York: Avon Books.
Tannen, D., Wodak, R., & Kendall, S. (1997). Gender and language in the
workplace. Gender and discourse, 81-105, London: Sage Publications.
Tannen, D., Bucholtz, M. A., Liang, A., & Sutton, L. A. (1999). The display
of gendered identities in talk at work. Reinventing identities the gendered self in
discourse, 221-240, New York: Oxford University Press.
Wood, J. T. (1994). The Study Of Communication, Gender, and Culture. Gendered lives:
communication, gender, and culture, 13-27, Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Pub. Co.
Wood, J. T., & Verderber, K. S. (1995). Gendered interaction: masculine
and feminine style of verbal communication. Voices: a selection of multicultural
readings, 18-28, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub. Co.