Some studies have found characteristics of written texts that vary with author gender, echoing popular beliefs about essential gender differences that are reinforced in popular works of some scholarly authors. This article reports a study examining texts (N = 193) written in the same genre—a legal memorandum—by women and men with similar training in production of this type of discourse—the first year of U.S. law school—and finds no difference between them on the involved–informational dimension of linguistic register developed by Biber. These findings provide quantitative data opposing essentialist narratives of gender difference in communication. This essay considers relevance theory as a framework for understanding the interaction, exhibited in this and previous studies, of genre knowledge and gendered communicative performances.
AustinJ. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
BazermanC. (2013). A theory of literate action: Literate action. Vol. 2. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
5.
BerkenkotterC.HuckinT. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BiberD. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BiberD. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BiberD.ConradS.ReppenR. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BirdS.KleinE.LoperE. (2009). Natural language processing with Python (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly Media.
10.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
CameronD. (2003). Gender and language ideologies. In HolmesJ.MeyerhoffM. (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 447-467). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
ClaryB. G.LysaghtP. (2010). Successful legal analysis and writing: The fundamentals (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
14.
DascalM.GrossA. G. (1999). The marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 32, 107-130.
15.
DeFranciscoV. P.PalczewskiC. H.McGeoughD. D. (2014). Gender in communication: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
EckertP.McConnell-GinetS. (2011). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In CoatesJ.PichlerP. (Eds.), Language and gender: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 573-582). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1992)
17.
FritzC. O.MorrisP. E.RichlerJ. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2-18.
18.
GrayJ. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication & getting what you want in your relationships. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
19.
GriceH. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
KoppelM.ArgamonS.ShimoniA. R. (2002). Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17, 401-412.
LarsonB. N. (In press). Corpus of first-year law students’ court memoranda assignments. Linguistic Data Consortium. Manuscript in preparation.
23.
LiuY.ZhuC. (2011). Rhetoric as the antistrophos of pragmatics: Toward a “competition of cooperation” in the study of language use. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3403-3415.
24.
MaltzD. N.BorkerR. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In GumperzJ. J. (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
27.
Palander-CollinM. (1999). Male and female styles in 17th century correspondence: I THINK. Language Variation and Change, 11, 123-141.
28.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
29.
RaoD.YarowskyD.ShreevatsA.GuptaM. (2010, October). Classifying latent user attributes in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-generated Contents (pp. 37-44). Toronto, ON, Canada: ACM.
30.
ReymannM. (2002, June). The textual dimension involved-informational: A corpus-based study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
SchmedemannD. A.KunzC. L. (2007). Synthesis: Legal reading, reasoning, and writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen.
33.
SearleJ. R. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
SearleJ. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SkuseD. H.JamesR. S.BishopD. V. M.CoppinB.DaltonP.Aamodt-LeeperG.. . . JacobsP. A. (1997, June12). Evidence from turner’s syndrome of an imprinted x-linked locus affecting cognitive function. Nature, 387 (6634), 705-708.
36.
SmeltzerL. R.WerbelJ. D. (1986). Gender differences in managerial communication: Fact or folk-linguistics?Journal of Business Communication, 23, 41-50.
37.
SperberD.WilsonD. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
SterkelK. S. (1988). The relationship between gender and writing style in business communications. Journal of Business Communication, 25, 17-38.
39.
StraßheimJ. (2010). Relevance theories of communication: Alfred Schutz in dialogue with Sperber and Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1412-1441.
40.
TannenD. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation (1st ed.). New York, NY: William Morrow. (Original work published 1991)
41.
TebeauxE. (1990). Toward an understanding of gender differences in written business communications: A suggested perspective for future research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4, 25-43.
42.
UttsJ. M.HeckardR. F. (2006). Statistical ideas and methods. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
43.
WaltersS. J. (2009, June). Consultant’s forum: Should post hoc sample size calculations be done?Pharmaceutical Statistics, 8, 163-169.
44.
WilsonD.SperberD. (2006). Relevance theory. In HornL.WardG. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
45.
WilsonD.SperberD. (Eds.). (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
YanX.YanL. (2006). Gender classification of weblog authors. In AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs (pp. 228-230). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
