Sunteți pe pagina 1din 35

TERM PAPER

Topic The Role of Gender in Communication

Submitted by: BISMAH TAYYAB


(Roll No. F2013-321/Sem III)
B.Sc. (Hons.) Applied Psychology
IP, BNU.

Course: GENDER PSYCHOLOGY


Submitted to: Fatima Nadeem
Submitted on: 15th December, 2015.

THE ROLE OF GENDER IN COMMUNICATION


The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
George Bernard Shaw

1. Introduction
A baby is a linguistic clean slate. Language is learned, not inherited, and a baby will learn
the way people raising him or her speak. Whether the childs caregivers speak English,
Swahili, Japanese, or American Sign Language, her flexible mind will pick up that
language. Gender is similar: when you see a newborn baby, its hard to tell if its a boy or
a girl. At just a few days old, theres not much difference between the two. But the second
someone says Its a boy! or Its a girl! a process of gendering begins that will
continue through the childs entire life. The word gender refers to the social and cultural
traits usually attributed to one sex or the other. For better or worse, society has different
expectations, rules, and standards for men and women. Like language, these rules arent
hard-wiredtheyre learned. Many of these rules relate to language and communication:
appropriate times to speak or remain quiet, taboo topics of conversation, and with whom
its acceptable to discuss certain subjects. What impact does gender have on the way that
we communicate?
Just as societys ideas about gender have changed over time, so has the scientific study of
gender and communication. Early research on the subject focused on the deficit approach.
Researchers who took this approach assumed that the speech of women was inferior to
that of men. They characterized the female voice as weak and lacking in substance. Their
findings asserted that women didnt finish as many thoughts as men because they didnt

plan out what they were going to say. They assumed, without supporting evidence, that
men thought out their words before beginning to speak. Later researchers adopted the
dominance approach, which assumed that men dominated women in conversation.
According to this approach, womens speech was naturally passive, while mens was
naturally assertive.
Both the deficit and dominance approaches developed during a time when women took a
secondary role in society to men. But as women began to take on social roles of greater
importance and influence, linguists took a more complex view of the role of gender in
communication, developing the difference approach. This approach views men and
women as belonging to different subcultures. They may live out the same experiences like
work, parenting, friendships, and love, but they approach those experiences in ways
unique to their gender. This means that men and women think and communicate in
uniquely male and female ways. This approach attempts to explain some common
stereotypes about men and women, such mens reluctance to ask for directions.
The difference approach is popular, but some anthropologists and linguists fear that it
focuses on differences and ignores some very important similarities between men and
women. This isnt to say there arent differences: for instance, women are likely to
discuss doubts, fears and intimate relationships more than men, and men really do talk
more about sports. But the most common topics of conversation are the same for men and
women: work, family, finances, religion, and politics are topics that both genders discuss.
Men and women can choose and change their speech patterns to fit different situations.
Current research takes the dynamic approach. According to this viewpoint, gender isnt
something that one has, but something one does. Gender identity is created by society and
ever changing. Everyone uses a range of speech patterns that can be broadly classified as
male and female. As people challenge social roles and stereotypes, they adopt

different speech patterns. This approach asserts a range of masculinity and femininity,
rather than simple opposition. Overall, the dynamic approach represents a major shift in
societys expectations of men and women.

2. Background & Theories


Robin Lakoff (1975)
Robin Lakoff was a believer in this to some extent. She combined elements of dominance
and deficiency (another theory that claims women's language is weaker because it's
expected to be weaker..."women don't swear" being a common assumption) and created a
set of female characteristics:

Women hedge.
Women use super polite forms: "Would you please...?" "I'd really appreciate it

if..."
Women speak in italics (use more prosodic features): It's soooo nice...
They use empty adjectives: divine, lovely, adorable...
They use modal verbs: should, would...
Overuse qualifiers. "I think that..."
They use mitigated responses and hidden directives.
They have special lexis for things like colours and cloth.
They avoid coarse language and expletives.
Women can't tell jokes.

Many of these, like hedging, hidden directives, overuse of qualifiers, she claimed were
because of the patriarchal society - historically, women had never had any power, and
when faced with opportunities to place their opinion, they grow nervous.
Dominance Theory

This is the theory that in mixed-sex conversations men are more likely to interrupt than
women. It uses a fairly old study of a small sample of conversations, recorded by Don
Zimmerman and Candace West at the Santa Barbara campus of the University of
California in 1975. The subjects of the recording were white, middle class and under 35.
Zimmerman and West produce in evidence 31 segments of conversation. They report that
in 11 conversations between men and women, men used 46 interruptions, but women only
two. As Geoffrey Beattie, of Sheffield University, points out (writing in New
Scientist magazine in 1982): "The problem with this is that you might simply have one
very voluble man in the study which has a disproportionate effect on the total." From their
small (possibly unrepresentative) sample Zimmerman and West conclude that, since men
interrupt more often, then they are dominating or attempting to do so. But this need not
follow, as Beattie goes on to show: "Why do interruptions necessarily reflect dominance?
Can interruptions not arise from other sources? Do some interruptions not reflect interest
and involvement?"
William O'Barr and Bowman Atkins wrote a book called Women's Language Or a
Powerless Language? (1980) in which they studied the language of the courtroom and
found female lawyers to be assertive, interrupt, everything that Pilkington argued for
males. They also found that witnesses of both sexes would use Robin Lakoff's weak
"female" language. They concluded that these weak language traits are actually
a "powerless language" rather than a "female language".
O'Barr and Atkin's research is interesting, and seems to suggest that it is not so much
differences in the sexes' language, more the situations that they face which result in the
difference. This theory is known as the dominance theory: if there is a difference in

language, it is because males have always dominated in both the home and workplace,
and females have had to play the domestic roles.
The feminist Dale Spender also believed the dominance approach. She refers to the work
of Zimmerman and West, to the view of the male as norm and to her own idea of
patriarchal order. She claims that it is especially difficult to challenge this power system,
since the way that we think of the world is part of, and reinforces, this male power. She
once said:
"The crux of our difficulties lies in being able to identify and transform the rules which
govern our behavior and which bring patriarchal order into existence. Yet the tools we
have for doing this are part of that patriarchal order. While we can modify, we must none
the less use the only language, the only classification scheme which is at our disposal. We
must use it in a way that is acceptable and meaningful. But that very language and the
conditions for its use in turn structure a patriarchal order."
So under the dominance theory, in a gender-neutral area, males and females should use
language in the same way.
Pamela Fishman argues in Interaction: the Work Women Do (1983) that conversation
between the sexes sometimes fails, not because of anything inherent in the way women
talk, but because of how men respond, or don't respond. In Conversational
Insecurity (1990) Fishman questions Robin Lakoff's theories. Lakoff suggests that asking
questions shows women's insecurity and hesitancy in communication, whereas Fishman
looks at questions as an attribute of interactions: Women ask questions because of the
power of these, not because of their personality weaknesses. Fishman also claims that in
mixed-sex language interactions, men speak on average for twice as long as women.

Difference Theory
As the title indicates, the difference theory is the idea that males and females really do
converse differently. A big advocate of this approach is Deborah Tannen. She believes
the difference starts in childhood, where parents use more words about feelings to girls
and use more verbs to boys. Males and females belong to difference sub-cultures and
therefore speak differently. Her book, You Just Don't Understand, claims that there are six
main differences between the ways males and females use language:
1. Status vs. Support
Men grow up in a world in which conversation is competitive - they seek to achieve the
upper hand or to prevent others from dominating them. For women, however, talking is
often a way to gain confirmation and support for their ideas. Men see the world as a place
where people try to gain status and keep it. Women see the world as a network of
connections seeking support and consensus.
2. Independence vs. Intimacy
Women often think in terms of closeness and support, and struggle to preserve intimacy.
Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead
women and men to starkly different views of the same situation. Professor Tannen gives
the example of a woman who would check with her husband before inviting a guest to
stay - because she likes telling friends that she has to check with him. The man,
meanwhile, invites a friend without asking his wife first, because to tell the friend he must
check amounts to a loss of status. (Often, of course, the relationship is such that an
annoyed wife will rebuke him later).

3. Advice vs. Understanding


Men see language as problem solving whereas women see it as a means of empathy.
4. Information vs. Feelings
A young man makes a brief phone call. His mother overhears it as a series of grunts. Later
she asks him about it - it emerges that he has arranged to go to a specific place, where he
will play football with various people and he has to take the ball. A young woman makes
a phone call - it lasts half an hour or more. The mother asks about it - it emerges that she
has been talking you know about stuff. The conversation has been mostly groomingtalk and comment on feelings.
Historically, men's concerns were seen as more important than those of women, but today
this situation may be reversed so that the giving of information and brevity of speech are
considered of less value than sharing of emotions and elaboration.
5. Orders vs. Proposals
Women often suggest that people do things in indirect ways - let's, why don't we? or
wouldn't it be good, if we...? Men may use, and prefer to hear, a direct imperative.
6. Conflict vs. Compromise
In trying to prevent fights, writes Professor Tannen some women refuse to oppose the
will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself,
even at the risk of conflict.
This situation is easily observed in work-situations where a management decision seems
unattractive - men will often resist it vocally, while women may appear to accede, but

complain subsequently. Of course, this is a broad generalization - and for every one of
Deborah Tannen's oppositions, we will know of men and women who are exceptions to
the norm.
She also said that women tend to talk too much, they speak in private contexts, they talk
to build relationships, they tend to overlap each other in conversations, and they speak
symmetrically. Where as men get more air time, they prefer speaking in public, there
conversations are focused on negotiating status for themselves and avoiding failure, and
they tend to speak one at a time.
In a male/female conversation, many female researchers found much to support the
difference approach:
Christine Howe found that:

Men have strategies for gaining power.


Men are much more likely to respond to what is being said, keen to put their

views across.
This makes it harder for the listener to participate in the conversation.
Women are more active listeners. They use minor interjections, such as "uh huh"

and "oh really" (back-channeling).


The differences between male and female conversation begins at socialisation
(ages 3-4).

Ann Weatherall found that:

Women's talk is co-operative.


Men's talk is competitive.
Women are more likely to use hedging, "sort of" "kind of"...
Women speak for less time and are less likely to interrupt.

Females use more tag questions:


F: We're seeing Mum later, aren't we?
M: We're going to see Mum today.

Pilkington did research into all female and all male conversation in a bakery over a
period of nine months. He found that:

Women talk to affirm solidarity and maintain social relationships.


Women focus on feelings, personal anecdotes and relationships.
Women support, build on each others' points and complete others' utterances
Women agree frequently.
Men find long pauses (thinking time) acceptable.
Men frequently disagree and challenge others' points.
Their conversation is competitive to a point of verbal abuse. They take part in
verbal sparring, often using mock insults.

Peter Trudgill - Gender, Social Class & Speech Sounds


Peter Trudgill's 1970s research into language and social class showed some interesting
differences between men and women. Trudgill made a detailed study in which subjects
were grouped by social class and sex. He invited them to speak in a variety of situations,
before asking them to read a passage that contained words where the speaker might use
one or other of two speech sounds. An example would be verbs ending in -ing, where
Trudgill wanted to see whether the speaker dropped the final g and pronounced this as in'.
Trudgill found that men were less likely and women more likely to use the prestige
pronunciation of certain speech sounds. In aiming for higher prestige (above that of their
observed social class) the women tended towards hypercorrectness. The men would often

use a low prestige pronunciation - thereby seeking covert (hidden) prestige by appearing
tough or down to earth.
Jennifer Coates & Deborah Jones
Jennifer Coates looks at all-female conversation and builds on Deborah Tannen's ideas.
She returns to tag questions - to which Robin Lakoff drew attention in 1975. Her work
looks in detail at some of the ideas that Lakoff originated and Tannen carried further. She
gives useful comment on Deborah Jones' 1990 study of women's oral culture, which she
(Jones) calls Gossip and categorizes in terms of House Talk, Scandal, Bitching and
Chatting.
1. House Talk - its distinguishing function is the exchange of information and
resources connected with the female role as an occupation.
2. Scandal - a considered judging of the behaviour of others, and women in
particular. It is usually made in terms of the domestic morality, of which women
have been appointed guardians.
3. Bitching - this is the overt expression of womens anger at their restricted role and
inferior status. They express this in private and to other women only. The women
who bitch are not expecting change; they want only to make their complaints in an
environment where their anger will be understood and expected.
4. Chatting - this is the most intimate form of gossip, a mutual self-disclosure, a
transaction where women use to their own advantage the skills they have learned
as part of their job of nurturing others.
Coates sees women's simultaneous talk as supportive and cooperative.
Deborah Cameron - Verbal Hygiene

Deborah Cameron says that wherever and whenever the matter has been investigated,
men and women face normative expectations about the appropriate mode of speech for
their gender. Women's verbal conduct is important in many cultures; women have been
instructed in the proper ways of talking just as they have been instructed in the proper
ways of dressing, in the use of cosmetics, and in other feminine kinds of behaviour.
This acceptance of a proper speech style, Cameron describes (in her 1995 book of the
same name) as verbal hygiene.
Cameron does not condemn verbal hygiene, as misguided. She finds specific examples of
verbal hygiene in the regulation of '"style" by editors, the teaching of English grammar in
schools, politically correct language and the advice to women on how they can speak
more effectively. In each case Deborah Cameron claims that verbal hygiene is a way to
make sense of language, and that it also represents a symbolic attempt to impose order on
the social world.

3. Gender & Communication Styles


According to the dynamic approach and the concept of doing gender, styles of
communication are classified as masculine or feminine. But its important to
remember that, despite those terms, no style of communication is exclusive to one gender
or another; all men and women use both kinds in different situations.
Masculine speech styles are competitive and seek to establish a pecking order or
hierarchy. Examples of this kind of speech include interrupting, competitive banter,
and one-ups. An interruption, which occurs when a second speaker breaks into a first
speakers discourse at a point when transition isnt evident, violates the rules of turn

taking. It can be used to disagree with, establish dominance over, or steal the floor from a
rival speaker. Competitive banter is an exchange of playful, teasing remarks designed to
challenge the status of another individual during conversation. Banter is often used in
apparent jest, but it still creates and enforces an atmosphere of social hierarchy. One-ups
are statements and boasts that are designed to keep a speaker in a higher status ranking
than another individual. A conversation that uses these types of speech suggests a constant
jockeying for position.
Feminine styles of communication seek to find common ground and make connections.
Examples of feminine speech include back channeling, up-talk, tag questions, and
hedges. Back channeling is the use of words or phrases that show agreement, indicate
comprehension, or encourage a speaker to continue. Common interjections like right or
mm-hmm, or even a simple nod of the head, are back channeling. Tag questions are
brief, rhetorical questions placed at the end of declarative sentences. Whenever you add
an isnt it, okay, or werent you to the end of a statement, you are using tag
questions. They can be used to communicate slight uncertainty or to soften the severity of
a request. Up-talk means speaking with a rising intonation at the end of a declarative
sentence. Similar to tag questions, up-talk turns a statement into a question, but without
altering the grammar of the statement. Hedges are modifying words such as like, you
know, or sort of that are used to lessen the impact of what is said. All of these types of
speech serve to find common ground in communication.
The deficit and dominance approaches lumped tags, up-talk, and hedges together as
womens language, using them as proof to womens speech was full of inherent
weakness and therefore powerless. But these types of speech are often used in ways
that have nothing to do with power struggle. Tag questions can be used as a friendly way
to start a conversation. And far from being powerless, tag questions are often used by the

person in power to soften the impact of what is being said. They can often be used to
increase the impact of a statement, as in: Youre not going out dressed like that, are
you? This statement certainly doesnt express uncertainty! Although these types of
speech are classified as feminine, men use them just as often as women.
Cultural & Contextual Influences on Communication Styles
The biggest difference between men and women and their style of communication boils
down to the fact that men and women view the purpose of conversations differently.
Academic research on psychological gender differences has shown that while women use
communication as a tool to enhance social connections and create relationships, men use
language to exert dominance and achieve tangible outcomes (Leaper, 1991; Maltz &
Borker, 1982; Wood, 1996; Mason, 1994). Women are, overall, more expressive,
tentative, and polite in conversation, while men are more assertive, and power-hungry
(Basow & Rubenfield, 2003). Men and women also differ in their relations towards others
in society: while women strive to be more social in their interactions with others, men
value their independence (Chodorow, 1978; Dinnerstein, 1977; Eagly, 1987; Grilligan,
1982; Miller, 1976). On the other had, popular works by John Gray and Deborah Tannen
show that that while men view conversations as a way to establish and maintain status
and dominance in relationships, women see the purpose of conversation to create and
foster an intimate bond with the other party by talking about topical problems and issues
they are communally facing (Gray, 1992; Tannen, 1990).
Academic research has shown many differences in communication styles between men
and women. Overall, women are expected to use communication to enhance social
connections and relationships, while men use language to enhance social dominance
(Leaper, 1991; Mulac, Bradac, & Gibbons, 2001). On average, women use more

expressive, tentative, and polite language than men do, especially in situations of conflict
(Basow & Rubenfield, 2003). Men, on the other hand, are viewed as more likely than
women to offer solutions to problems in order to avoid further seemingly unnecessary
discussions of interpersonal problems (Baslow & Rubenfield, 2003). Research in gender
differences across communication styles has come to the conclusion that men tend to be
self-assertive and view conversations as a means towards a tangible outcomes, such as
obtaining power or dominance (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Wood, 1996; Mason, 1994).
Women, on the other hand, value cooperation, this communal orientation involves a
concern with others, selflessness, and a desire to be at one with others (Mason, 1994).
Females are also typically known to have a less clear focus on where the boundaries of
their relationships end and their individual identities, defined in terms of relational bonds,
begin. Females value talk for the relationships it creates; for females, the process of
communication itself is valued (Chodorow, 1989; Hartmann, 1991; Statham, 1987;
Surrey, 1983).
Other academic research argues that women use less powerful speech: they tend to swear
less, speak more politely, and use more tag questions and intensifiers (Lakoff, 1975).
Women also tend to interrupt less than men do; researchers have hypothesized that this is
possibly because of their perceived lower status to men (Thorne & Henley, 1975). This
could be due to societal norms that enforce this gender status hierarchy. Pearson (1985)
also found that women often weaken their statements. One explanation of this could be
due to their lower self-confidence in what they are saying and their fear of being wrong,
which can be contributed to their perceived inferior status to male managers in the
workplace. Overall, research has showed that, in general, women are more social
emotional in their interactions with others, whereas men are more independent and
unemotional or attached in conversations (Chodorow, 1978; Dinnerstein, 1977; Eagly,

1987; Grilligan, 1982; Miller, 1976). Theorists have suggested that these gender
differences in communication styles put women at a disadvantage when interacting with
others because they speak more tentatively than men, who are known to speak more
assertively, thus leaving the impression that men are more confident and capable as
leaders (Lakoff, 1975). Many of these gender differences in communication styles
outlined make women appear subordinate to men, suggesting they should be viewed as
second-class to men. This also has implications for gender differences in leadership styles
because women are seen to second-class to men in this arena as well, making them appear
unfit for a leadership or managerial position.
In John Grays popular book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: a Practical
Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in a Relationship, he
outlines the underlying differences in communication styles between men and women.
Grays book is one of the most important benchmark pieces of literature on
communication differences across gender of the twentieth century. He suggests that men
and women are so different in their approaches to communicating that they are from
different planets: they have different needs, goals, and values in the way they
communicate (Gray, 1992). Understanding these differences is key to creating and
maintaining successful relationships by being aware of how other genders communicate
and thus adapting ones style accordingly.
Like John Gray, Deborah Tannen is also famous for her literature on differences in
communication styles across gender. In 1990, Tannen wrote the book, You Just Dont
Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, to explain the gender differences in
communication styles between men and women. She found that these differences across
gender start at a young age. Tannen noticed that boys create relationships with each other
by doing things together; activities are central to their friendship. Girls, on the other hand,

create close relationships with each other by simply talking, talk is the essence of
intimacy (Tannen, 1990).
Tannen continues to outline the differences between men and women at the basic level,
For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way
of establishing and negotiating relationshipsFor most men, talk is primarily a means to
preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order
(Tannen, 1990).
The main source of disconnect between men and women that Tannen highlights occurs
when women and men hit a barrier when talking about conflict. Women talk about their
problems with other women to foster a bond with them and to create and maintain
intimate relationships and they expect men to react in the same fashion (Tannen, 1990).
However, when men hear women talking about problems, they offer solutions and quickly
move to dismiss the problem (Tannen, 1990). This is the greatest observed gender
difference in communication styles and has implications in the workforce as well as
women are seen, overall, as better communicators. In sectors such as service jobs that
heavily rely on direct communication and contact with customers, communication skills
are highly valued and extremely important. Therefore, women are more likely to be hired
in these positions because they are, by nature of their communication style, more
qualified than men for these jobs. So while men have to prove they have the necessary
skills for such positions that require direct contact with customers, women are assumed to
possess these skills because of the communication styles associated with their gender,
giving them an advantage over men in the hiring process.
Despite the increase in freedom to display non-typical body language, there are still some
general differences between men and women. The two most common are:

Differences in receiving messages Women tend to be better at receiving body


language messages, especially when it comes to noticing inconsistencies between
body language and verbal language.

Differences in sending messages Men tend to be less skilled at using subtle body
language to influence communication without seeming to be doing so at all.

There are actual physical reasons for these differences. For example, women process
messages using up to 16 different parts of their brain at once, while men process messages
using about six or 7 different parts of their brain at once. Neither is better than the other is,
but each processing pattern does influence the receiving and sending of messages based on
gender.

4. Gender & Verbal Communication


All participants in a normal conversation practice speech acts: words, phrases, and statements
that serve to move the relationship of the participants forward in some way. Common speech
acts include greetings, invitations, commands, requests, apologies, complaints, insults, and
compliments. Each of these kinds of speech acts invites a reaction or relational change. A
speech act can be something minor, like the acceptance of a dinner invitation or a first hello
to a stranger, or something of major consequence, like a judges declaration of guilt or
innocence in a court of law.
Gender plays a role in speech acts. Some research has suggested that polite speech acts,
such as giving compliments or apologizing, are more commonly attributed to women than
men. This research supports the stereotype that men rarely apologize: giving an apology
means putting oneself one down rather than one up. Gender variations in language are

very important to consider when considering communication, and two key factors that are
known to vary by gender are affiliative and assertive language use. Affiliative language
affirms or positively engages the other person, for example by showing support or expressing
agreement. In contrast, assertive language includes directive statements and criticism. Women
tend to use affiliative language more and men tend to use assertive language more (Graddol
& Swann, 1989; Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Leaper & Smith, 2004). This is in broad agreement
with other research that suggests that women more often focus on the social or affective
function of talk, while men tend to orientate to its referential function (Holmes, 1995, p. 30).
In order to partially explain findings like these, Maltz and Borker (1982) have suggested that
girls learn to use language to create and maintain closeness with others through supportive
and inclusive forms of speech. In contrast, boys learn to use words to assert dominance
through commands and challenging statements. Of the two categories, affiliative language
seems most likely to contain positive emotions and assertive language seems most likely to
contain negative emotions.
Gender differences in communication have received a lot of attention due to the popularity of
best-selling books such as Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (Gray 1992) and You
Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (Tannen 1990). However, many of
the differences in gender communication advocated by these authors have not been supported
by empirical research (Smith 2007, Brannon 2008).
In a meta-analysis of 30 empirical studies of verbal differences between males and females,
Mulac, Widmann, Widenmann, et al. (1988) identified the linguistic features that men and
women prefer to use. Hyde (2004) also studied many of these differences and developed a
number of classifications of these gender differences. Combining the key findings of both of
these studies, the key factors that influence gender differences appear to be: tentativeness,

intensifiers, interruptions, directives, politeness, quantity, back channels, rising intonation,


and talking time.
1. Tentativeness
Tentativeness implies that the speaker lacks the strength of their convictions about the
statements and assertions they have made or are about to make. Women are more likely to
exhibit tentativeness in their communication patterns by using tag questions, disclaimers, and
hedges (Hyde 2005). A tag question occurs when a question is added, or 'tagged' onto the end
of a statement (e.g., "This product would really be the best solution for your needs, wouldn't
it?''). Women are also more likely to use disclaimers (phrases such as "I might be wrong
but. .. '') and hedges ("I'm pretty sure this would be the best product for you''); whereas men
are use more directive statements (''This is the best product for your needs because ... '').
While some may interpret this tentativeness as uncertainty, others would see it as an attempt
to foster interpersonal communication, to gain additional information, or to build a better
understanding with their communication partner.
2. Intensifiers
Intensifiers are adjectives or adverbs that are used by a speaker to emphasize a particular
aspect of their statement or in an attempt to add credibility for that statement. A number of
studies have also found that women use intensifier adverbs - words like very, really, and
vastly - more than men do (Aries 1996, Mulac 1998). As stated above, women may use
intensifiers more than males, perhaps to better express emotion and power (Brannon 2007).
3. Interruptions
Research has shown that men interrupt women in conversation considerably more than
women interrupt men (McMillian et al., 1977, West and Zimmerman 1983, Leaper and Ayers
2007). Earlier researchers have suggested that these interruptions are an expression of male

power or dominance. By interrupting, the interrupter gains control of the conversation and
thus gains a position of interpersonal power. Putting this in a gender-specific context, this
interpretation suggests that men are expressing dominance over women, which also in turn
reinforces the traditional role of a subordinate women (Hyde 2005). However, later
researchers have suggested that interruptions can mean more than simply expressing power
and dominance. Aries (1996) found that most interruptions tend to be agreements or requests
for clarification and have nothing to do with dominance. Also, women often engage in more
supportive interrupting, especially when they are in all-female groups (Aries 1996).
4. Directives, Politeness, Quantity, & Connectors
Men are more likely to use directives in communication (e.g., "Do this now ... ") and specific
quantity (e.g., " ... and get all ten done by two o'clock',). Women, however, are more likely to
use incomplete sentences (e.g., "Let me see ... I think I have to ...'') and indirect statements
(e.g., "Have you thought about doing this now?") (Quina, Wingard and Bates, 1987). Women
are also more likely to use politeness (e.g., "May I have that report this afternoon?'') , while
men, as indicated above, are more likely to state directives (e.g., "I need the report by the end
of the day") (Mulac, Winemann, and Widenmann et al. 1988). Women also use more logical
connectors (e.g., ''We did additional product testing to enhance the quality of the product and
now it's better'') than men do (e.g., ''We did some more testing. The product is now better.',).
5. Back channels
Women are also more likely to use back channels, which are usually expressed in the form of
minimal agreements during the course of a conversation (e.g., "un-huh", "yeah", "okay'') than
men are (Hall et al. 1994). In a study of physicians and their patients, Hall et al. (1994) found
that female physicians used backchannels more than male physicians did. However, another

interesting finding of this study was that male physicians used backchannels more with their
female patients than with their male patients.
6. Rising Intonation
Women will often raise the tone of their voice in response to a question, usually at the end of
a sentence, perhaps to indicate support or a desire for the other person not to suffer any
inconvenience (e.g., Man: ''What would you like to eat?"; Woman: "A pizza?''), said with a
rising tone in a question-like statement (Hyde 2005). Using such intonation can also
contribute to the linguistic tentativeness noted above.
7. Talking time
Contrary to stereotypes regarding women's chattiness, men actually talk more than women in
business conversations, with these increased talking times being linked to who is perceived as
having the power in the communication situation (Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz, 1994).
Generally speaking, people in positions of higher status will likely talk more. In absence of
any clear status indicators, men may presume that they have status over women in the group,
and thus speak more often in an attempt to control the tone and direction of the conversation
(Leaper and Ayres 2007).

5. Gender & Non-verbal Communication


The differences in communication are not just identified in verbal interaction. Research on
non-verbal behaviors and gestures also demonstrate variation by sex. In chapter six of
Gendered Lives (2011), Wood concentrates on the use of nonverbal communication by males
and females and how techniques may differ between the two sexes. Wood believes these
nonverbal behaviors are learned based on gender and culture. Woods main concern is

nonverbal communication and the reflection and expression of sex: [C]ompared to women,
men tend to use greater volume and stronger inflection to highlight their ideas and add to the
force of the positions (p.142).
The importance of non-verbal communication has been well-documented as academics and
practitioners alike increasingly have come to realize the important role it has in the
communication process. Some have even proposed that the nonverbal cues a person gives off
may even be more important than the verbal responses that person gives (Goffman 1959,
Arnold 2003).
Non-verbal communications can generally be classified into the following categories:
Kinesics - the interpretation of body language such as facial expressions, gestures, and
movement of any part of the body or the body as a whole.
Oculesics - the use of eye contact in a communication setting.
Proximities - the study of how an individual uses and perceives the interpersonal space
around them and between themselves and another individual.
Object language - the physical appearance of the individual, with clothing being the most
prevalent, but also including personal grooming, jewelry, and body piercings and markings
(Mehrabian 2007).
Each one of these will be considered separately.
1. Kinesics
The term 'kinesics' refers to how people communicate through facial expressions, gestures,
posture, and movements - what is called 'body language' in the modern-day vernacular. Of the
gender differences in kinesics that have been studied, perhaps the most research that has been
done has been in the area of smiling. One of the more definitive research findings is that

women smile more than men in social situations (Hall 1984, 1998). Smiling is considered
part of the feminine role and is often considered something a woman 'should do' rather than
indicating happiness or friendliness. Men tend to smile when happy or amused; women on
the other hand will smile even though they may not feel any positive emotions.
A related area to this topic is that smiling is sometimes seen as a status indicator, with
dominant people smiling less and subordinates smiling more. Thus, women's smiling could
be interpreted by some to be reflective of perceived subordinate status (Henley 1977).
However, other studies contradict this status interpretation. Hall et al. (2001) and Hall and
Friedman (1999), for example, found that although women consistendy smile more than men,
those of lower status in a company do not smile more than those of higher status.
In another related area of kinesics, women will also nod in agreement more than men do
(Helweg-Larsen, Cunningham, Carrico, & Pergram, 2004). Hall (1984) points out that men
typically use more gestures while speaking, but will display less emotion through smiling due
to 'socialized rules' to remain emotionally neutral. Hall (1984) also argues that men are less
likely to display facial expressions in an effort to maintain that neutrality.
2. Oculesics
Establishing and maintaining eye contact has been shown in a large number of studies to
initiate and foster trust (Gueguen and Jacob 2002), create favourable evaluations in
nonthreatening interactions (Knackstedt and Kleinke 1991), as well as to create and display a
transparency of understanding in interpersonal transactions (Ucok 2006). While stereotypical
male dominance in the sales field might suggest that women would assume a subordinate role
and thus not establish much eye contact, research would indicate otherwise. Dovidio, et al.
(1988) coined the term visual dominance, which is defined as the ratio of the percentage of
the time maintaining eye contact while speaking relative to the percentage of the time

maintaining eye contact while listening. In a research study designed to examine visual
dominance when women were given the role with higher status, women did indeed make
more eye contact than men while speaking and men made more eye contact while listening,
supporting the status interpretation of differences in visual dominance (Dovidio et al., 1988).
3. Proximities
This term refers to people's use of the personal space around themselves. Interpersonal space
is typically divided into four 'zones': Intimate zone (0 - 18''); Personal zone (18" - 4 ft.) ;
Social zone (4 ft. - 12 ft.) ; and Public zone ( > 12 ft.) (Pease and Pease 2004).
Research findings indicate that in our culture men prefer a greater distance between
themselves and others, whereas women are more comfortable with a smaller distance
between themselves and others (Hyde 2004). A related study found that women typically
have a small interpersonal distance between themselves and others as a result of or in order to
express warmth or friendliness (Wittig and Skolnick 1978). It was also found that women are
more comfortable than men with side-by-side interaction (Kalbfleisch, 1993).
4. Object language
Object language is defined as the way people present themselves through their outward
appearance including clothing, style of dress, personal grooming, and body piercings or
markings. A long-standing finding is that individuals who exhibit positive body language
(i.e., proper grooming, dressing appropriately to fit the situation) are viewed more positively
that those who exhibit object language that could be considered inappropriate for the situation
(Kwon, 1994; Solomon and Schopler, 1982). In the field of business communication object
language has been shown to take on importance when combined with other verbal and nonverbal factors. Past research has shown that a woman who maintains her feminine appearance
and combines it with a more decisive, stereotypically masculine communication style is

perceived as being more competent than a woman with a more masculine appearance who
exhibits the same decisive communication style (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Forsyth, Heiney and
Wright, 1997).
One other major difference between men and women in regard to reading nonverbal cues is
that females exceed males in the capacity to decode nonverbal behaviors and more
accurately discern many emotions that others may feel (p. 153).
Body language reading is of immense importance for adaptive social behavior and non-verbal
communication. This ability constitutes a central component of social competence. Healthy
perceivers are able to infer emotions and dispositions of others represented by point-light
body movements that minimize availability of other cues (Pollick et al., 2001; Atkinson et
al., 2004; Heberlein et al., 2004; Clarke et al.,2005; Ikeda and Watanabe, 2009; Rose and
Clarke, 2009). Such judgments are vital to social interaction, and men and women appear to
show profound differences in cues attended to.
In accordance with widespread beliefs, females exhibit higher sensitivity to non-verbal cues:
they better discriminate friendliness from sexual interest (Farris et al., 2008) and are more
proficient in recognition of facial emotions (Montagne et al., 2005). Females without and
with Asperger syndrome are better at recognizing emotions from dynamic faces than males
(Golan et al., 2006). Moreover, females tend to better recognize emotions from faces than
from voices, whereas males exhibit the opposite tendency.
Prinsen and Punyanunt-Carter (2010), focused on the differences in nonverbal
communication within intimate relationships. The authors argue that a significant difference
in specific nonverbal behaviors between men and women exists in relationships. These nonverbal cues all lead back to the purpose of the communication.

6. Gender & Other Modes Of Communication


In terms of different forms of computer-mediated communication, it seems that offline
patterns of emotion use are similar to online patterns in a variety of environments (Derks,
Fischer, & Bos, 2008). Of particular relevance is that women only discussion groups seemed
to involve more emotion-related communication, with male only groups using less, with the
latter groups apparently suffering as a result (Savicki & Kelley, 2000; Victor Savicki,
Lingenfelter, & Kelley, 1996). Another study of internet discussion groups found women to
conform to offline patterns of relatively high levels of supportive positive communication,
although men were more likely to post negative comments (Guiller & Durndella, 2007).
Research for blogs has given different results, however, with similarity rather than gender
difference being the norm (Herring & Paolillo, 2006; Huffaker & Calvert, 2005), and with
teenage males using more emoticons than females (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005). As a result,
whilst the default assumption for a study of any new form of computer-mediated
communication, such as social network site comments, should be that gender differences can
occur, it should not be assumed.
Many researches yielded that positive emotion is present in about two thirds of U.S. social
communication site (such as MySpace) comments and that women are its nexus, in the sense
of giving and receiving disproportionately many. The increased female use of positive
emotion aligns with the belief that females tend to use positive emotion more than males
(especially in prosocial contexts). It also fits with the finding for Internet discussion forums
(but not blogs) that online gendered emotion patterns often reflect offline patterns. Since
emotion expression and emotional reinforcement can be important in friendship, this may be
a reason why both men and women prefer female MySpace friends (Thelwall, 2008),

although cause-and-effect has not been shown here. This perhaps reflects the dysfunctional
theory of mens emotional repression and the social effectiveness theory for womens use of
positive (prosocial) emotions: women are simply more competent users of MySpace because
they are better able to express positive emotion, probably mainly in a broadly supportive
context.

7. Conclusion
In the book, Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus, John Gray (2004) wrote:
Men mistakenly expect women to think, communicate, and react the way men do; women
mistakenly expect men to feel, communicate, and respond the way women do. We have
forgotten that men and women are supposed to be different. As a result our relationships are
filled with unnecessary friction and conflict. (p. 4)
The saying men are from Mars and women are from Venus correctly denotes that males and
females are different. Men and women are from the same planet, but often communication
between the sexes, called cross-sex communication, displays otherwise.
Inter-sex communication can make interacting complicated because of differences in
communication styles. Whether the cross-sex relationship shared is romantic, a friendship, or
a co-worker, the manners of communication will most likely differ in numerous ways. Men
and women develop differently, both biologically and socially during early childhood,
causing divergent actions.
But in the 19th century, gender theorist Margaret Fuller wrote:

Male and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism. But in fact they are
perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no
wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman.
Although its true that there are differences between men and women, but everyone is able to
go against linguistic stereotypes. Though we continue to label types of speech masculine
and feminine, everyone uses both, regardless of gender. And as the role of men and women
in society changes, so do our perceptions of gender in communication.
So despite the above mentioned dissimilarities, numerous studies confirm that the two
genders are more alike than different in their communication styles (Andersen, 2004:306;
Canary & Dindia, 1998:2; Wood & Dindia, 1998:23). The only area regarding body language
where women and men differ to a great extent is in sensitivity and detection of body
language. According to a number of investigations, women detect and interpret body
language better than men (Andersen, 2004:306; Bull, 2002:81). Various researchers argue
that women have female intuition: an innate ability which allows them to read body
language better than men.

References
Andersen, P.A. (1998). Researching sex differences within sex similarities: The evolutionary
consequences of reproductive differences. In Canary et al. (eds.), 83-100.
Andersen, P.A. (2004). The complete idiots guide to body language. Indianapolis: Alpha/Penguin
Group.
Aries, E. (1996). Men and Women in interaction: Reconsidering the Differences. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Arnold, M. (2003). Selling with Emotional Intelligence. Chicago: Dearborn Press.
Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). Troubles talk: Effects of gender and gender typing.
Brannon, L. (2007). Gender: Psychological perspectives (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 32, 79(12). Retrieved November 5, 2008, from Expanded Academic
ASAP Database
Bull, P. (2002). Communication under the microscope: The theory and practice of microanalysis. New
York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Macmillan.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. Routledge.
Cameron, D. (Ed.) (1998). The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. Routledge.
Canary, D.J. & Kathryn, D. (1998). Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays
and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum associates.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and sociology of gender.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT; Yale University Press.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language. Longman.
Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation Between Women Friends. Blackwell.
Coates, J. (1998). Language and Gender: A Reader. London: Blackwell.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eagly, A., & Karau, R. (2002). "Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders."
Psychological Review 109(3), pp. 573-598.
Eckert, P. & McConnell, G. S. (1995). Constructing Meaning, Constructing Selves: Snapshots of
Language, Gender and Class from Belten High. In: Hall and Bucholtz (Eds.) Gender Articulated:
Language and the Socially Constructed Self. London: Routledge, pp. 469-508.
Elgin, S. H. (1993). Genderspeak, Men, Women, and the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. John
Wiley & Sons.
Forsyth, D. R., Heiney, M.M. & Wright, S.S. (1997). ''Biases in Appraisals of Women Leaders."
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, pp.98-103.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Oxford, England: Doubleday.
Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: a Practical Guide for Improving
Communication and Getting What You Want in a Relationship. HarperCollins, New York
Hall, A. (1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, A. (1998). "How Big are Nonverbal Sex Differences? The Case of Smiling and Sensitivity to
Nonverbal Cues". In D. Canary and K. Dindia (Eds.). Sex Differences and Similarities in
Communication (pp. 155-178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, A., & Friedman, G. (1999). "Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior: A Study of Structured
Interactions between Employees of a Company". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, pp.
1082-1091.
Hall, A., LeBeau, L.B., Gordon, & Thayer, F. (2001). "Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior in
Candid and Posed Photographs: A study of Conversations between University Employees". Sex Roles,
44, pp. 677-692.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychology Bulletin, 85, 845-857.
Hall, K. & O'Donovan, V. (1997). Shifting Gender Positions among Hindi-speaking Hijras. In:
Bergvall, Victoria, et al, (Eds.) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice.
London: Longman.

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York; Basic
Books.
Helweg-Larsen, M., Cunningham, S., Carrico, A., & Pergram, A. (2004). To nod or not to nod: An
observational study of nonverbal communication and status in female and male college students.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 358-361.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). 'The Gender Similarities Hypothesis", American Psychologist, 60, pp. 581592.
Hyde, J. S. (2004). Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women (6th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Johnson, S. & Meinhof, U.H.(1997). Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, D. (1990) Gossip: notes on womens oral culture. The Feminist Critique of Language: A
reader. London: Routledge, (pp. 242-51).
Kalbfleisch, C. (1993). Interpersonal Communications: Evolving Interpersonal Relationships.
Hillsdale, N J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kendon, A. (1981). Introduction: Current issues in the study of 'nonverbal communication'. In Adam
Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture: Selections from Semiotica. The
Hague: Mouton, 1-53.
Knackstedt, G. & Kleinke, C. (1991)."Eye Contact, Gender, and Personality Judgements", Journal of
Social Psychology, 131,4 (April) pp. 303-304.
Knapp, M. L. & Hall, J.A. (2006). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Sixth edition.
Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1994). The Judgment of Equity in Intimate Relationships."
Social P.rychology Quarterly, 57 (4), pp. 340-351.
Kramer, C. (1977). Perceptions of male and female speech. Language and Speech, 20, 151-161.
Kwon, Y. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception of
occupational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(3), 33-37.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and womans place. New York: Harper & Row.

Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children's discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects.
Child Development, 62,797-811.
Leaper, C., & Ayers, M.M. (2007). A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Variations in Adults Language
Use: Talkativeness, Affiliative Speech, and Assertive Speech. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11(4), pp. 328-263.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J.
Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
Mason, E. S. (1994). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Joumal of Social Psychology,135,
143-151.
McElhinny, B. (1995). Challenging Hegemonic Masculinities: Female and Male Police Officers
Handling Domestic Violence. In: Hall and Bucholtz (Eds.) Gender Articulated: Language and the
Socially Constructed Self. London: Routledge, pp. 217-244.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A.K., McGrath, D. & Gale, W. (1977). ''Women1s Language: Uncertainty or
Interpersonal Sensitivity and Emotionality?" Sex Roles, 3, pp. 545-560.
Mehrabian, A. (2007). Nonverbal Communication. Piscataway, N.J.: Aldine Transaction.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mills, S. (1995). Feminist Stylistics. Routledge.
Mulac, A. (1998). '''The Gender-Linked Language Effect: Do Language Differences Really Make a
Difference?" In D. Canary and K Dindia (Eds.). Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication
(pp. 127-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mulac. A.. Bradac. J. J. & Gibbons. P (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as culture hypothesis:
An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research. 27.
121-152
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J., Widenmann, S., & Gibson, T. (1988). Male/Female Language Differences
and Effects in Same-Sex and Mixed-Sex Dyads: The Gender-Linked Language Effect.
Communication Monolffaphs, 55, pp. 315-335.
Nelson, M.W. (1998). Womens Ways : Interactive Patterns in Predominantly Female Research
Teams. In: Coates, J. 1998. Language and Gender: A Reader. London: Blackwell, pp. 354-373.
OBarr, W. M. & Atkins, B. K. (1998). Womens Language or Powerless Language? In: Coates
J. 1998. Language and Gender: A Reader. London: Blackwell, pp. 377-388.
Pearson, J. C. (1985). Gender and communication. Dubuque, I A: William C. Brown.

Pearson (1995). Gender & communication. (3rd Edition). Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
Pease, A. & Pease, B. (2004 & 2006). The Definitive Book of Body Language. Bantam: New York
Quina, K., Wingard, J. A. & Bates, H.G.(1987). "Language Style and Gender Stereotypes in Person
Perception", Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, pp. 111-122.
Smith, B. (2007). The Psychology of Sex and Gender. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Solomon, M., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508-514.
Statham, A. (1987). The gender model revisited; Differences in the management styles of men and
women. Sex Roles, 16, 409-429.
Surrey, J. L. (1983). The relational self in women; Clinical implications. In J. V Jordan, J. L. Surrey,
& A. G. Kaplan (Speakers), Women and empathy: Implications for psychological development and
psychotherapy. Wellesley, MA; Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Ballantine Books.
New York: William Morrow
Tannen, D. (1998). Ill explain it to you: Lecturing and listening. In Virginia P. Clark, Paul A.
Eschholz & Alfred F. Rosa (eds.), Language: Readings in language and culture. (6th Edition). Boston,
New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 365-378.
Thorne, B, & Henley, N. (1975). Difference and dominance: An overview of language, gender, and
society. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House Publishers, 5-42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIX.
Tyson, L. (2006). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. (2 nd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Ucok, O. (2006). "Transparency, Communication and Mindfulness." Journal of Management
Development, 25(10), pp. 1024-1028.
Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. (2000). "Sales Call Anxiety: Exploring What it Means When Fear Rules a
Sales Encounter." Journal of Marketing, 64(3), pp. 88-101.
Vrugt, A. & Luyerink, M.(2000). The contribution of bodily posture to gender stereotypical
impressions. Social behavior and personality. 28 (1): 91-104.
Weitz, B., Castelberry, S. & Tanner, J. (2009). Selling: Building Partnerships. 6th. Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill

West, C. (1998). When the Doctor is a Lady: Power, Status and Gender in Physician-Patient
Encounters. In: Coates J. 1998. Language and Gender: A Reader. London: Blackwell, pp. 396-413.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1983). "Small Insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex
Conversations Between Unacquainted Persons,". In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (Eds.),
Language, gender and society (pp. 102-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wheelan, S. A., & Verdi, A. F. (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of
communication in groups: A methodological artifact? Sex Roles, 27(1/2), 1-15.
Wood, J. T (1996). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (2nd ed). Belmont,
CA;Wadsworth.
Wood, J. T. (2005). Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities and
divergences. Women & Language, 28(2), 61-64.
Wood, J.T. (2007). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (7th Edition). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Wood, J. T. (2011). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth Cenage Learning.
Wood, J.T. & Kathryn, D. (1998). Whats the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities
between women and men. In Canary et al. (eds.), 19-39.

S-ar putea să vă placă și