CHAPTER 31
GENDERLECT STYLES
Outline
I. Introduction.
A. Deborah Tannen argues that male-female communication is cross-cultural.
B. Miscommunication between men and women is both common and insidious
because the parties usually don’t realize that the encounters are cross-cultural.
C. Tannen’s writing underscores the mutually alien nature of male and female
conversation styles.
D. Tannen’s approach departs from much feminist scholarship that claims that
conversations between men and women reflect male domination.
2. The term genderlect suggests that masculine and feminine styles of discourse
are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or
superior ways of speaking.
E. At the risk of reinforcing a reductive biological determinism, Tannen insists that there
are gender differences in the ways we speak.
II. Women’s desire for connection versus men’s desire for status.
A. More than anything else, women seek human connection.
B. Men are concerned mainly with status.
III. Rapport talk versus report talk.
A. Tannen scrutinizes the conversation of representative speakers from the feminine
culture and the masculine culture to determine their core values.
B. These linguistic differences give her confidence that the connection/status
distinction structures verbal contact between women and men.
C. Julia Wood thinks that Tannen’s observations have merit and that the
connection/status distinction is evident even in childhood.
D. Each of these speech forms shows that women value rapport talk, while men value
report talk.
1. Public speaking versus private speaking.
a. Folk wisdom suggests that women talk more than men.
b. Women talk more than do men in private conversations.
c. In the public arena, men vie for ascendancy and speak much more than do
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
e. Men assume a lecture style to establish a “one–up” position, command
attention, convey information, and insist on agreement.
f. Men’s monologue style is appropriate for report, but not for rapport.
g. Girls learn to involve others in conversations while boys learn to use
communication to assert their own ideas and draw attention to themselves.
2. Telling a story.
1) Telling jokes is a masculine way to negotiate status.
3. Listening.
a. Women show attentiveness through verbal and nonverbal cues.
4. Asking questions.
a. Tannen thinks that men and women also annoy each other with their
5. Conflict.
a. Since they see life as a contest, many men are more comfortable with
6. Nonverbal communication.
a. Curiously, Tannen doesn’t extend the connection/status distinction to the
ways in which men and women communicate nonverbally.
b. Susan Pease Gadoua, a licensed marriage counselor with a column in
IV. Men and women grow up in different speech communities
A. Tannen concluded that the origins of speaking in different genderlects must be
traced back to early childhood.
V. “Now you’re beginning to understand.”
A. Tannen believes that both men and women need to learn how to adopt the other’s
voice.
VI. Ethical reflection: Gilligan’s different voice.
A. Gilligan claims that women tend to think and speak in an ethical voice different from
men.
B. She believes men seek autonomy and think in terms of justice; women desire
linkage and think in terms of care.
VII. Critique: Is Tannen soft on research–and men?
A. Tannen suggests we use the “aha factor”—a subjective standard of validity—to test
her truth claims.
B. Tannen’s analysis of common misunderstandings between men and women has
struck a chord with millions of readers and mental health care professionals.
C. Critics suggest that selective data may be the only way to support a reductionist
claim that women are one way and men another.
D. Tannen’s intimacy/independence dichotomy echoes one of Baxter and Bakhtin’s
tensions, but it suggests none of the ongoing complexity of human existence that
relational dialectics theory describes.
G. Senta Troemel-Ploetz accuses Tannen of ignoring issues of male dominance, control,
Key Names and Terms
Deborah Tannen
A linguist at Georgetown University who has pioneered research in genderlect styles.
Genderlect
A term that suggests that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed
as two distinct cultural dialects and not inferior or superior ways of speaking.
You Just Don’t Understand
Tannen’s best-selling book, which presents genderlect styles to a popular audience.
Cooperative overlap
A supportive interruption often meant to show agreement and solidarity with the
speaker.
Tag question
A short question at the end of a declarative statement, often used by women to soften
the sting of potential disagreement or invite open, friendly dialogue.
Speech community
A community of people who share understandings about goals of communication,
strategies for enacting those goals, and ways of interpreting communication.
Louise Cherry Wilkinson and Michael Lewis
Professors of Education, Psychology, and Communication at Syracuse who examined
the speech communities of mothers and children, concluded that parents speak
differently to their children and, in doing so, socialize boys and girls differently when it
comes to communication.
Aha factor
A subjective standard ascribing validity to an idea when it resonates with one’s personal
experience.
Adrianne Kunkel and Brant Burleson
Communication scholars from the University of Kansas and (late) Purdue University,
respectively, who challenge the different cultures perspective based on results from
their research on comforting.
Principal Changes
Through the chapter, the material has been edited for clarity and readability. The
chapter also presents a bit more on the psychological research that serves as further empirical
evidence supporting Tannen’s claims. Pennebaker’s work is included, which suggests that, in
terms of quantity (words spoken/daily), women and men are similar.
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• Who taught you to communication as a member of your gender?
• Do boys and girls inherently communicate differently or are they trained to be different?
• What is the biggest similarity between men and women as communicators? How about
their most profound difference? Which matters more?
• Do we just need to understand the other gender’s communication style—or do we have
to appreciate it?
Suggestions for Discussion
Of all the theorists featured in A First Look at Communication Theory, Deborah Tannen
and Marshall McLuhan are the only ones who qualify as genuine celebrities in contemporary
Sex and gender: a very important distinction
Although they are often used synonymously, sex and gender are not the same and it is
a point worth making at the onset of the discussion of the gender theories. As pointed out in
the introduction to this section, sex is based on biological criteria while gender is a social,
symbolic creation learned through cultural training. Thus, to say that a true sex difference
exists is to imply that a difference between men and women is somehow linked to biological or
chromosomal differences. For example, there is a true sex difference between men and
When to diverge (from the book’s layout)?
As you create your syllabus, you might be tempted to just follow the order laid out the
book, but as mentioned in the preface material, you might at least consider working the
gender chapters in earlier. For example, you might cover the theories of gender and culture
before the chapters on public discourse and media; this could allow you to suggest that the
overarching concepts of a gendered and culture-laden outlook may influence who we are in
public and how we consume media.
Macro-claims and micro-data
Tannen’s work can sound to some averse students like wild generalizations (“men are
like this… and women are like this…”). If you (or your students) are familiar with John Grey’s
writings (Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus), you might want to unpack how
Tannen’s work is based on evidence rather than his claims, which are based on generalities.
Tannen is a linguist; her evidence or proof is the everyday talk patterns of men and women. By
examining how men and women operate in ordinary conversations (the micro-level data), she
How much of a difference is this difference?
As with any claim that any single factor makes an enormous difference, the
conscientious student of communication theory must ask how much of the variability is
explained or predicted by sex (or gender) alone. In her theory, Tannen claims that gender
differences make all the difference, a point you may want to discuss with your students. To
use Julia Woods’ terminology, is Tannen “essentializing” or implying that all members of a sex
are essentially the same? But as noted in the section introduction, other researchers differ
from Tannen. They suggest that great variability exists within the members of each sex (i.e.,
where we diverge. In popular culture, much more is made of how men and women have
communicative differences, and you will likely have to debunk some of these perceptions to
get students thinking about sex differences and similarities.
The missing metamessage
Tannen’s books are filled with many interesting ideas, many more than could be
included in the chapter. One of the most important excluded concepts is the “metamessage.”
are more sensitive to the communicative power of context, whereas men tend to focus more
narrowly on messages in isolation from situational factors. When misunderstandings arise
over metamessages, women accuse men of being “insensitive” and men blame women for
“reading things into” what they say. (One could argue, in fact, that interpretative differences
concerning metamessages correspond to the different communicative styles of collectivistic
Unappreciated empathy
At the beginning of the Critique section, the basic point is made that women are more
likely to desire understanding than advice in conversation, but this section doesn’t include
Tannen’s important counterpoint that men may not appreciate displays of empathy because
Bateson’s “complementary schismogenesis”: A worsening spiral
One of Tannen’s most useful concepts (featured in That’s Not What I Meant! You Just
Don’t Understand, and You’re Not Wearing That) has been borrowed from Gregory Bateson—
“complementary schismogenesis.” This notion aptly describes the worsening spiral of
miscommunication that often frustrates men and women. A behavior by Person A triggers an
High involvement conversational style
Perhaps the most underrated and provocative section of You Just Don’t Understand is
Tannen’s discussion of the “high considerateness”/”high involvement” dichotomy in
conversation (196-202). She suggests that some people who interrupt and overlap frequently
aren’t being rude; they’re simply operating under the conversational norms of high
involvement. What is particularly interesting here is that Tannen attributes differences in
communicative style to culture and geographical region, rather than gender, thus complicating
her approach to conversational styles considerably. Students, particularly the males, might
take objection to Tannen’s argument claiming that they are highly involved even if less
things to say. Do you buy their argument or is it just a way to buy themselves out of having to
do the work of discussion in the classroom, a cheap excuse akin to social loafing?
Genderlect as a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Be sure your students understand the point that Tannen’s theory could function as self-
fulfilling prophecy. If self and gender are socially constructed, then the work of celebrity
theorists such as Tannen can have a terrific impact on actual human development. In this
sense, books that claim to reveal the “truth” about male or female patterns have the potential
to become normative. If influential writers such as Tannen and John Gray—author of Men are
From Mars, Women are From Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and
Getting What You Want in Your Relationships (New York: HarperCollins, 1992) and several
sequels—tell us that men and women invariably act in certain ways, then it is but a small step
When Andrew discusses sex difference in class, he proceeds with caution. Students
may feel uncomfortable if they feel the theory is prescriptive, yet doesn’t describe how they
communicate. At the beginning of Andrew’s relationship with Jessica, who is now his wife,
Andrew tried to listen empathetically and offer support, avoiding simply giving advice—the
approach Tannen suggests and Em affirms at the beginning of the critique section. But for
Andrew, this backfired—Jessica normally wanted his practical advice more than his empathy
(and when Andrew said, “but that’s not what the research says you should want!” – well, let’s
just say that that was one of his less communicatively competent moments!). If Tannen is right,
Andrew’s wife is the exception rather than the rule, but Andrew uses this anecdote to remind
his students that in a romantic relationship (or family relationship, or friendship, or co-worker
relationship, etc.), we aren’t interacting with manhood or womanhood as a whole, but with a
Is genderlect theory ethnocentric?
Does Tannen give a better, more positive impression of female conversation styles than
its male counterpart? It’s a point worth considering. Another way to approach the issue would
be to ask the following question: “What would You Just Don’t Understand be like if it had been
written by a man?” Some researchers take the position that intimacy, as it is often
operationalized within social science literature, is a feminine construction. In other words, it is
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
not surprising that women’s relationships would be evaluated as more intimate when the traits
more common in these bonds (such as high levels of disclosure and interconnectedness) are
used as the evaluation standards rather than competing measures of intimacy (such as
tolerance of difference and inclusiveness), which are more characteristic of men’s
relationships.
Sample Application Log
Karen
My best girlfriend and I will talk and talk for hours with many interruptions of each other, yet we
have both agreed that the interruptions never bother us. Just as Tannen explains in her idea
of cooperative overlap, we see the interruptions as positive and supportive cues signaling the
fact that we are listening to each other. I would even go so far as to say that I need
interruption in order to know that my friend is listening and involved in my story. Talking to one
Exercises and Activities
Our latitude of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment
Working through Tannen’s material provides an excellent opportunity to revisit Sherif’s
social judgment theory (ch. 14). You might consider constructing 10 statements regarding
gender differences (e.g. “women and men have more differences than commonalities” or
“Tannen is wrong: women’s communication style is weak and men’s is a more powerful style”)
interactions. You might push it one step further by asking if there are classroom practices that
favor one gender over the other. For example, if Tannen’s position is accepted, then women
might feel less inclined to share their opinions in class (public, report talk) and opt instead for
small group work or out-of-classroom conversational spaces (private talk where rapport is
more the norm). Conversely, men might feel less inclined to ask clarifying questions based on
a perceived threat to status. How might our educational practices need to be adjusted in order
to accommodate not just different learning styles, something rather in vogue these days, but
also gender styles?
Bem’s Sex Role Inventory
Before covering genderlect theory in class, consider asking your students to complete
Sharon Lipsitz Bem’s sex role inventory that is discussed in the gender section’s introduction.
The inventory is based on evaluating how aptly or characteristically 60 adjectives are of one’s
self and the tallied score indicates a person’s degree of masculinity and femininity, or amount
of identification with a particular sex role. While some students may find themselves a perfect
Is that the right word choice?
You might debate a few of Tannen’s terms with your students, chiefly the terms “status”
and “connect.” First off, be sure students understand the point she’s trying to make. I have
found students particularly turned off by the term “status” which for some sounds patronizing,
condescending, or power-hungry. They argue that status is too self-centered or egotistic a term
to cover the bulk of male communication patterns. However, Tannen’s contention is that men
want to make an impact, to stand out, or make a difference. Status or distinction is achieved
overly social or too relational. Again, Tannen’s point is that women seek harmony more than
stature; women seek to identify more with the other person rather than stand apart from them.
When we seek connection, there is a focus on how we have things in common. Is “connection”
the best word choice or does a different term capture the point? Other options—intersection,
affiliation, overlap?
Connecting genderlect styles with other theories
Depending on when you choose to cover Tannen’s theory and the other theories you’ve
already addressed, it might be a good opportunity to draw some parallels between them. I
have found this especially usefully if you’ll proceed on to Standpoint (ch. 32) and Muted Group
(ch. 33) Theories. Compared with those critical theories, genderlect styles looks quite different,
with her celebration of both masculine and feminine speaking styles, minimal discussion of
through interactions. This matches well with Mead’s “meanings are in people, not things.”
Tannen might reply that gender is in people; it too is a construction. Moving past these rather
easy points of overlap, you might push students to consider some questions that are more
difficult to answer. Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory contends that we reduce uncertainty
because we strive to explain and predict our partner. Could you argue that he (Berger)
proposes a masculine style of relating, where status might come from knowing what your
partner will do? As a counterpoint, is the connection-oriented explanation offered by social
penetration theory more akin to a feminine style of communication in keeping with Tannen?
Ask the same questions of Deetz (critical theory of communication in organizations, ch. 21) or
Bormann (symbolic convergence theory, ch. 18)—are status and connection at the heart there,
all orators must connect with their audience via identification if they are to have any impact? If
you believe that Fisher’s narrative paradigm (ch. 24) offers a valid counterpoint to the rational
worldview, you might need to rethink how masculine or feminine speakers tell stories. As noted
in the chapter, Tannen’s belief is that telling stories is one of the points of demarcation.
significant common ground. If you (or your students) are perceptive, you might notice that
flows with Tannen’s status and connection junction.
Feature film examples
Gender differences are an extremely popular theme for contemporary television shows
and movies, and you’ll have no trouble finding recent clips that illustrate ostensible differences
between the ways males and females communicate. Beyond When Harry Met Sally, which is
forth between the three women sharing all the details over wine while the three men, over
pizza and beer, cut to the highlights and keep it simple. As an alternative, you might use a
segment from The Big Bang Theory. Typically, the female characters (Penny, Bernadette, and
Amy) seek connection while their respective partners (Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon) seek
status. You’ll find ample source material in almost any episode. For a reversal of the trend, let
me suggest, “The Indecision Amalgamation” (episode 7.19). Sheldon is having trouble deciding
which video game system to buy, but this isn’t Amy’s idea of good date night conversation.
Further Resources
A good general collection of essays on related issues is Linda A. M. Perry, Lynn H. Turner, and
Helen M. Sterk (eds.), Constructing and Reconstructing Gender: The Links Among
Communication, Language, and Gender, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.
Particularly relevant is Nancy Hoar’s piece, “Genderlect, Powerlect, and Politeness” (pp. 127–
36).
William Rawlins’ books have much of interest to say about the ways males and females
communicate with their friends and romantic partners.
For a critical assessment of the male genderlect, see Peter F. Murphy, Studs, Tools, and the
Family Jewels: Metaphors Men Live By, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 2001.
Other texts by Tannen
Deborah Tannen (ed.), Framing and Discourse, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.
Deborah Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1993.
Her books on families include:
• Deborah Tannen, You Were Always Mom’s Favorite!: Sisters in Conversation
Throughout Their Lives, Random House, New York, 2009.
She addresses women’s friendships in You’re the Only One I Can Tell: Inside the Language of
Women’s Friendships, Ballantine Books, New York, 2017.
argument when it is conducted rationally, fairly, and productively—it takes on the discourse of
contentiousness that may be too prevalent in our society.
Critiques of Tannen
Theoretical considerations
Kathryn Heath, Jill Flynn, and Mary Davis Holt, “Women, Find Your Voice,” Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 92, 2014, pp. 118–121.
Anthony Mulac, James J. Bradac, and Pamela Gibbons, ”Empirical Support for the Gender–as–
Culture Hypothesis: An Intercultural Analysis of Male/Female Language Differences,”
Human Communication Research, Vol. 27, 2001, pp. 121-152.
Anthony Mulac, Howard Giles, James J. Bradac, and Nicholas A. Palomares, ”The Gender-
Linked Language Effect: An Empirical Test of a General Process Model,” Language
Sciences, Vol. 38, 2013, pp. 22-31.
Language differences
Patricia Easteal, Lorana Bartels, and Sally Bradford, “Language, Gender and ‘Reality’: Violence
Against Women,” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Vol. 40, 2012, pp.
324-337.
Albert N. Katz and Jonathan A. R. Woodbury, “Gender Differences in Being Thanked for
Performing a Favor,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 46, 2017, pp. 481-496.
Malka Muchnik and Anat Stavans, “Telling the Same Story to Your Child: Mothers’ versus
Fathers’ Storytelling Interactions,” Women & Language, Vol. 32, 2009, pp. 60–69.
Applied contexts
Nina Haferkamp, Sabrina C. Eimler, Anna-Margarita Papadakis, and Jana Vanessa Kruck, “Men
Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? Examining Gender Differences in Self-
Rose Helens-Hart, “Females’ (Non)Disclosure of Minority Sexual Identities in the Workplace
From a Communication Privacy Management Perspective,” Communication Studies,
Vol. 68, 2017, pp. 607-623.
Kent Kaiser, “Sports Reporters in the Twittersphere: Challenging and Breaking Down
Traditional Conceptualizations of Genderlect,” Online Information Review, Vol. 40,
2016, pp. 761-784.