Marcia Hanson

Comm-2050-401-Sp17
Genderlect Theory
Final Paper

Introduction:
This paper will analyze one of the most universally applicable theories Ive understood so far, the
Genderlect Theory, created by Deborah Tannen. The paper will summarize the theory with
definition and approaches, will give its current status and whether it is still applicable in modern
times, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory and who uses the theory, and will
show if the theory could be improved or expanded, and close with the conclusion of my analysis.
Definition and Approaches:
The theory analyzes the phenomena that occurs when men and women try to communicate and
come away with completely different feelings and understanding of the facts not only during
emotive situations but even when just having a normal conversation about life. There are three
key components to this theory. First, theres a difference in why we communicate in the first
place. Next, men and women have differences in the style and method of communicating.
Lastly, even though we speak the same language its as if men and women are speaking different
dialects of the same language. Deborah Tannen is a well-known professor of Linguistics at
Georgetown University, who specializes in the conversational rituals of men and women in the
US. Her first bestseller You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversations launched
the Genderlect theory in 1990. She believes that the best way to describe communication
between the genders is in a cross-cultural format. Women use rapport talk to establish
meaningful connection with others, while men use report talk to gain status in relation to others.
Because women and men use language differently, Tannen suggests they are speaking different
dialects, or Genderlect. The goal of Genderlect theory is to acknowledge and appreciate the
language of the opposite sex and achieve mutual respect and understanding. (Semiotic and socio-
cultural traditions) The approach of Tannens experiments was first empirical and scientific
because she measured conversational rituals and then interpretive because the meaning from
conversations was not always predictable and was unique to each conversation and person.
(Hansen-Huntington, H.) If we learn from this theory to have mutual respect for the opposite sex
and to try to understand or at least accept the differences in the communicative culture of each
gender then this goal has been achieved.
Current Status:
Like Hansen mentions in the basics tab of the information on Genderlects theory, this theory has
found the sweet spot between being popular with the public and with being scholarly. The
general public studies this theory and it resonates with us as we immediately identify with
examples of conversations ripe with misunderstandings and frustrations galore when we attempt
to communicate with our significant other. A majority of the population stumbles in their cross-
gender communication efforts because we try to give the opposite sex what we want because we
imagine what would satisfy us will also make them happy. The current status of this theory
would appear to be valid and applicable because it continues to be an accurate summary of
communications between very young male and female children to adolescents of different gender
and all through adulthood. The cross-cultural format is still valid because our communication
still reflects our gender even when we dont intend to and even when we have been educated in
our strengths and weaknesses of communicating. Our culture is a part of us like the air we
breathe. Its transparent. We cant separate our culture from ourselves; it is as much a part of us as
our experiences, environment and our physiologic makeup. Its not as though we intentionally try
to make it hard for the other gender to understand us. Theres not a right or wrong way but there
certainly are 2 very distinct cultures related to each gender and this theory has presented those
differences in a very plausible and practical way. Thankfully, the longer we remain in a
relationship with one person the more adept we become at considering their point of reference
and their methods of communication just like we become more adept at understanding other
cultures we immerse ourselves in the longer we remain involved with that other culture.
Theory Evaluation:
Applying the criteria for evaluating communication theories, the Genderlect theorys scope has
been criticized because Tannen does not clearly differentiate sex and gender. (Dainton, Zelley)
However, the logical consistency is clearly consistent and parsimony is definitely present. The
simplistic and practical presentation and demonstration with real life examples that resonate with
the reader proves parsimony as well as utility. This theory is one of only a few that a newby
theorist like myself can actually find useful in improving our communication methods. The
theory has stood the test of time for a relatively short time, since 1990, however, it has stimulated
new ways of thinking and constant research into explaining the differences of communication
between men and women.
Several analysts of this theory have mentioned the way students experience an Ah-ha moment
when they read this theory because it resonates with such a large portion of the public. Tannen
said even with the dangers of offending feminists, I am joining the growing dialogue on gender
and language because the risk of ignoring differences is greater than the danger of naming them.
(Tannen, D) Although popular with the general public, Tannens view of men and women in
interaction is controversial among communication scholars. Her research methods have been
widely criticized for using very small samples to make very large generalizations (Wood &
Dindia, 1998). Additionally, she doesnt clearly differentiate sex and gender-is there something
about a womans biology that makes her more interested in building relationships? Or is it the
way men are taught to behave that makes them more content focused (Dainton, and Zelley
193)?
Carol Gilligan, Different Voice, is convinced that most men seek autonomy and think of moral
maturity in terms of justice. Shes equally certain that women desire to be linked with others and
that they regard their ultimate ethical responsibility as one of care. (Gilligan,C) This analogy
doesnt make our different communication techniques wrong or right, just unique either because
of sex (biology) or gender (the way weve been taught that our sex should behave).
There is a feminist section of the population that feels strongly about a perceived imbalance of
power in favor of men in communication and other aspects of society. These critics point out
that this theory doesnt take the power inequality into account. One of these critics, Em Griffin,
reports that feminists criticize Tannen for not considering power issues in her discussion. He
quotes German linguist Senta Troemel-Ploetz, "If you leave out power, you do not understand
talk" (439). Curriculum within the university reinforces that argument, since power seems to be
the issue in Women's Studies, Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology courses. (Griffin,
Em) The feminist population doesnt necessarily read this theory and find the satisfaction or
resolution of the confusion in cross-gender communication as does the general population who is
less concerned about the perceived power struggle of men vs. women and more concerned with
respectful and meaningful communication and trying to understand each other in our differences
instead of trying to change each other.
Improvement/Expansion of Theory:
Assuming Tannen is right and most conversation between men and women needs to be
understood as cross-cultural communication, then I agree with her opinion that Genderlect can be
taught like any other foreign language. Tannen would suggest sensitivity training to teach men
how to speak in a feminine style, with assertiveness training to teach women how to speak with
more masculine traits. Like other cross culture communication, its our ethnocentric tendency to
think its the other culture or person who needs fixing. Those of us who regard ourselves as
culturally sensitive and educated, certainly not prejudiced, still have a human tendency to think
the way we communicate because of our culture, our stuff, is the preferred method. We dont
say it in so many words, that the culture were comparing ourselves to is inferior, we just
intrinsically understand that the culture we know works best for us. Tannen doesnt necessarily
believe that either gender should change their linguistic styles, she just understands and has
confidence in the benefits of multicultural understanding. She believes that understanding each
others style, and the motives behind it, is the first step in overcoming destructive responses.
Expansion of this theory or improvement perhaps could be accomplished just by more exposure
to the public. If men and women could both see themselves as they are seen and find the humor
and want to understand the motivation behind each genders communication tendencys, then
communication could be more effective across the gender-culture which is a definite culture in
and of itself. Since the research shows that the gender-specific communication trends start so
young and are very apparent in adolescence, perhaps this theory could even be taught in high-
school when dating and cross-gender communication is just becoming important to young lives.
Conclusion:
This theory is still very applicable for modern day and for every culture that has both men and
women who want to communicate well. The theory and its examples should be shown and
taught to adolescents in high schools when young adults are learning to date and communicate
with the opposite sex. This would not necessarily expand the theory itself but it would improve
the effect and increase the benefits of creating the theory. Cross-culture Genderlect is certainly
more about understanding and learning to hear communications styles and appreciate them for a
completely different culture rather than trying to manipulate the communication into patterns that
are only conducive to one gender. Understanding style differences for what they are takes the
sting out of miscommunications and helps us appreciate the strengths and weaknesses about each
genders culture.
References:

Holly Hansen-Huntington,https://slcc.instructure.com/courses/398556/pages/genderlect-theory?
module_item_id=5206962
Tannen, Deborah, gri23925_50 ch34_432-443.indd
Gilligan, Carol, Different Voice, www.afirstlook.com Theory Resources.archive
Griffin, Em, www.ohio.edu/people/dalesand/genderlect.html
Dainton, Marianne, and Elaine D. Zelley. Applying Communication Theory for Professional
Life: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc, 2010. 193.