Reductionist explanations for gender differences in language use continue to occupy much research attention. However, such approaches cannot explain when or why people might change their gender-marked language use. This article reviews and critiques several of these approaches and tests an alternative from the perspective of self-categorization theory. Male-female dyads (N = 42) discussed a gender-neutral controversial issue under conditions of low or high gender salience. When a shared student identity was salient, males and females used tentative language with equal frequency; but when gender was salient, women used more tentative language than men and held the floor longer. Furthermore, women who used more tentative language were more influential with men, but only when student identity was salient. The article suggests that women's tentative language use is influential with men when it serves to unconsciously confirm men's wider, socialstructural advantages over women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bales, R. F. (1956). Task status and likeability as a function of talking and listening in decisionmaking groups. In L. D. White (Ed.), The state of the social sciences (pp. 148-161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461-468.
5.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 172-193.
6.
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136-140.
7.
Bradac, J. J., Mulac, A., & Thompson, S. A. (1995). Men's and women's use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 93-116.
8.
Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565-576.
9.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
10.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030-1041.
11.
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differences in language. London: Longman.
12.
Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580-587.
13.
Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
14.
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
15.
Fishman, P. M. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 127-132). New York: Pergamon.
16.
Giles, H. (1973). Communicative effectiveness as a function of accented speech. Speech Monographs, 40, 330-331.
17.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Context and consequences. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.
20.
Henley, J. M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), “Miscommuication” and problematic talk (pp. 18-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Hogg, M. A. (1985). Masculine and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech style and gender salience. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 99-112.
22.
Johnson, C., Funk, S. J., & Clay-Warner, J. (1998). Organizational contexts and conversation patterns. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 361-371.
23.
Kramarae, C. (1990). Changing the complexion of gender in language research. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 345-361). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
24.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45-80.
25.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.
26.
Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Lind, E. A., & O'Barr, W. M. (1979). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 66-87). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
28.
Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (1994). Interruptions revisited: Affiliative vs. disaffiliative intervention. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 401-426.
29.
Maltz, D. J., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
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.
32.
Ng, S. H., Bell, D., & Brooke, M. (1993). Gaining turns and achieving high influence ranking in small conversational groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 265-275.
33.
Ng, S. H., Brooke, M., & Dunne, M. (1995). Interruption and influence in discussion groups. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 369-381.
34.
O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic.
35.
Palomares, N. A., Reid, S. A., & Bradac, J. J. (in press). A self-categorization perspective on gender and communication: Reconciling the gender-as-culture and dominance explanations. In S. H. Ng, C. Y. Chiu, & C. Candlin (Eds.), Current Research on Language and Social Psychology. Hong Kong, China: City University of Hong Kong Press.
36.
Pearson, J. C., West, R. L., & Turner, L. H. (1995). Gender and communication. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
37.
Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (1999). Language, power, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 119-139.
38.
Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (2000). Conversation as a resource for influence: Evidence for prototypical arguments and social identification processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 83-100.
39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
40.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
41.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell, Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42-67). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
42.
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105-129). Newbury, MA: Rowley House.
