Running head: VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 1

Men and Women in Discourse:

Variations in Behavior Due to Authority and Responsibility

Libby Lussenhop

Michigan State University

VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 2

Abstract

This paper explores Deborah Tannen’s (2001) analyses of men and women in

conversation—as detailed in You Just Don’t Understand—and notes the difference in discourse

styles when a woman is specifically placed in a position of authority or control. I will use

examples from my transcription of a student organization to acknowledge the validity in

Tannen’s arguments as well as reveal some exceptions to her gender typifications. I recorded the

meeting of this student group due to one female student’s clear dominance, hoping to create a

foundation upon which to bring some of Tannen’s ideas into question. I will refer to different

lines in the transcription as “measures,” which represent rich dialogue followed by interjections

and additions of other group members. Tannen’s book lists and describes conversational qualities

as they correspond to a certain gender, whereas I believe that the qualities are too generalized

and merit some critical investigation. I will examine changes in gender roles when the traditional

roles are reversed, as well as a shift in the traditional conversational relationship between men

and women.
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 3

Men and Women in Discourse:

Variations in Behavior Due to Authority and Responsibility

In You Just Don’t Understand by Deborah Tannen (2001), the author compares,

contrasts, and juxtaposes the styles of conversation of men and women. Tannen utilizes her own

transcriptions of real conversations in order to unpack what the average person would view as

casual dialogue—revealing messages more meaningful than the words themselves. In her

studies of men and women in conversation, Tannen illustrates concepts that she finds to be

prevalent in her research. However, Deborah Tannen’s framework, although accurate to many

extents, may be questionable under circumstances in which the traditional gender roles are

reversed. When a woman is placed in charge of a group of mixed genders, she appears to

assume Tannen’s male typification while supplementing this with female qualities in discourse.

My question, upon observing this shift in power, is thus: does the dynamic between men and

women in conversation change when a woman is in a position of authority?

My field notes describe the conversation between eleven members of a student

organization meeting in the Union main lounge: six women and four men. It is seven o’clock on

a Sunday night. It is early in the semester, so not all the new members have been fully integrated

into the friendly atmosphere of the more senior group members; this is evident in the more

formal postures of the younger members in contrast to the comfortable slouches of the others, as

well as in the style of participation of each individual member. The meeting is led by a

designated leader, a woman who will be referred to as 1F. The lounge already has chairs and

sofas set up in groupings, so the students orient themselves around one another as best as they

can. The discourse I will be assessing in this paper is made up of the beginning introductions

and casual side conversations of the students.

VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 4

The orientation of the group from this transcription illustrates why the roles may have

been reversed in accordance with Deborah Tannen’s framework. In this conversation, the

primary speaker was a woman (1F) who used her comments and directions to further the

conversation and give the group direction; her every comment may be justified thus, while other

members in the group may have had fewer reasons to interject and monologue. Additionally, 1F

frequently contributes to the conversation so as to direct the group’s attention in her direction.

Tannen (2001) states that “many men are more comfortable than most women in using talk to

claim attention” (p. 88), but my research illustrates that in this situation, it is the female tendency

to use talk to generate interest in the speaker. In measure 31 of the transcription, for example, 1F

redirects a group member’s introduction.

8F Um I’m T___ :: I’m a sophomore communications major :: umm my weekend

actually kinda sucked BUT my exciting news is that on Friday I have an interview for a
summer internship for 96.3 the radio station if anyone’s from Detroit … so yeah I’m
really excited 8F Yeah
[“Yeah.” “Whoa.”]
1F Is that a reallyy popularrradio station?
2M Yeah

While other students offer congratulatory, simplistic supplements to 8F’s announcement, 1F asks

a drawling question that may be interpreted as a request for attention—attention that was focused

on 8F. On the other hand, this may be a demonstration of a concept Tannen refers to as

“onedownmanship,” a conversational style generally found in women in which one shares a

comment or question that implies one’s own inadequacy. It may have been that 1F’s motivation

behind her question was not attention-seeking, but demonstrating her own inferiority and

therefore her appreciation for 8F’s knowledge of a foreign subject. Additionally, Tannen (2001)

shows that “high-involvement speakers [chime] in to show support and participation” (p.196).
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 5

She describes the idea of “cooperative overlapping,” most commonly found among women,

which serves not as interruption, but as supplementation. While a female is clearly the driving

force in the conversation, there is a large amount of this “cooperative overlapping” throughout

the transcribed meeting. This is especially evident in measure 7:

3F: You should have been like..

1F: I know that’s what I said in my message I was

like “Hey E___ usually you pick up and you’re like ‘Hey T___ how’s it goin’ :: ‘if you
don’t call me back right now I’m really worried that you’re dead, so’ ::

2F Maybe he was just..

Haha no we were texting

since like – oh come on, how are you already dead? {To phone.}

While Tannen’s generalizations concerning the dominance of conversation may be questionable

under these circumstances, her principles about women’s cooperative style of discourse appear

relatively accurate.

Although Tannen (2001) describes men as having the largest input in public discourse,

women are the dominant aspects when placed in a group situation organized by a female

authority figure. Although there was almost an even ratio of male to female (5:6) students

involved in the transcribed conversation, 27 of 40 measures were dominated by females—19 of

those 27 having been led by 1F, the designated group leader. Often, 1F led the conversation by

controlling topics and pushing the conversation forward. According to Tannen (2001), “raising a

topic is a sign of dominance in a conversation” (p. 278). While she introduces this idea of topic-

raising as being a prominent feature among male conversationalists, the transcription of this

student group yields different results. Measures 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 25, 38, and 40 are
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 6

all examples of 1F steering the conversation so as to maintain flow and direction. Measure five

provides a specific effort of 1F to begin and support her own topic.

1F Okay so we’re still waiting on J___ :: B___ :: P___ … Is P___ at home?

Okay so
3F Yeah
2M B___’s coming back … yeah just talked
to P___

Here, the female group leader opens a subject up for conversation, asking questions and allowing

for interruptions, while still guiding the group members and remaining the dominant voice.

Another pattern in this transcription is the unique overlapping between members that is not

characteristic on Tannen’s “cooperative overlapping,” but rather an effort to fill blank spots in a

conversation. In You Just Don’t Understand, Tannen (2001) describes “high involvement

speakers” (p.196) who are characterized by their tendency to “[fill] in [pauses] to avoid an

uncomfortable silence” (p. 196). The student group at the Union was comprised of quiet new

members and a number of “high-involvement” senior members. Two of the most vocal members

demonstrate “high-involvement” in measure ten, when the group is organizing their various

chairs and couches into a circle.

2M Yeah just scoot around there … come in a little tighter … there

we go
1F Yeah we all know each other we’re
all friends

Both 1F and 2M are “high-involvement speakers,” resulting in a chaotic and awkwardly

juxtaposed style of commentary. This situation is repeated soon after this in measure 15, when

yet another “high-involvement” member chimes into the commentary.

VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 7

1F We’re failures at :: making circles we’re failures I love it

2M We’re like :: crushing this
3F: We don’t need to

These examples adhere to Tannen’s observations concerning dominance in discourse, but stray

from her depictions of men as the prominent members of conversation. In the example from

measure fifteen, the two females play a greater part in overlapping than the one male; also, this

1:2 gender ratio does not reflect the almost 1:1 gender ratio of the group as a whole. One could

infer from this trend that 1F’s dominance in the group as a whole is reflected in the large amount

of female participation, in spite of the fact that males in the group are still aggressive

conversationalists.

Rather than following Tannen’s description of female discourse and merely offering

supplemental arguments, 1F is the dominant voice in the conversation, fueling/maintaining its

direction. However, even 1F illustrates the tendency to play a supporting role in the

conversation—even when she had introduced and maintained the topic of discussion. After

giving an animated account of her asthma attack, 1F takes on a more subdued disposition when

2M interjects.

1F (cont) :: ..I mean I was dying … yeah … yeah!

2M You could’ve..injury :: ..been hospitalized

This is an example of what Tannen (2001) refers to as “backchanneling,” a female tendency to

show support, understanding, and participation in the conversation. Although 1F is the subject of

this conversation, she still allows 2M to take over and merely supports his statements detailing

her story. On the other hand, the women in this student group escape Tannen’s typifications on a

different way. Tannen states that “study after study finds that it is men who talk more—at

meetings, in mixed-group discussions, and in classrooms where girls or young women sit next to
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 8

boys or young men” (p. 75). However, in spite of the fact that they were surrounded by as many

men as women, the longest comments in the student group transcription were all made by female

members. A particularly lengthy comment is made by 10F in measure 34.

10F Um I’m B___ :: I’m a fifth year senior _trying to figure out what I’m doing_ with
communications
{laughter}
and psychology :: and :: okay so this weekend I had to go in for a dress appointment ::
aaand myyy friend was there and we were hanging out and got bored so I gave her my
engagement ring :: so :: the consultant spent like two hours with her thinking she was the
bride :: and their most expensive gowns in the store :: and she was being really picky
about it she was like undressing :: you know :: in the dressing room with one of them and
like theheadmanagercomesoutandislike whispering frantically ‘oh my..how much is her
budget’ and the consultant was like “oh she doesn’t have any budget’ and the manager
went ‘HOney, even OPRAH has a budget!!’
{all laugh}

Not only does this comment illustrate lengthy dialogue, but it also incorporates a huge aspect of

conversation: storytelling. Tannen (2001) claims that “more men than women are comfortable

holding forth to a crowd” (p. 133) when it comes to sharing anecdotes and telling jokes, but this

quote from 10F utilizes both storytelling and a punch line to maintain the focus of her audience.

Similarly, 1F uses storytelling technique in measures 6, 7, 25, 26, and 27 as a means to reveal her

own cleverness, but also to reveal her vulnerabilities (such as her health and her almost maternal

worry for her classmates). This combines the masculine habit of using jokes and stories to appear

powerful and the feminine tendency of “onedownmanship,” as previously discussed:

1F Right ‘cause E___’s not coming..at a basketball game :: and I called him :: and left a
message like I was
2M [Lame.]

a worried mother (.7) I’ll always pick something fun when I call..s’always like ‘Hey
T___’..or when people call they’re like ‘Hello?’ :: I mean they have caller ID so they
know who it is :: aaand the past two times that I’ve called him :: he’s ignored.. (1.5) I
mean he texted me so..
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 9

1F discusses how she will “always pick something fun” when she calls her friend, but she also

makes it sound as though her friend doesn’t like to talk to her, indicating the mixed motives of

this style of discourse.

This portion of the transcription and 10F’s lengthy anecdote are both important for

another reason as well: the use of dialogue in the stories is a telling factor in their conversational

styles. In You Just Don’t Understand, Tannen (2001) says, “because girls and women are

concerned with conveying the emotional impact of what happened between people, they use

dialogue to dramatize events” (p. 262). This principle was indubitably evident throughout my

field research, especially in the most recently-discussed comments. While the women in the

group dominated the conversation with anecdotes and jokes—a quality Tannen reserves for men

—they still fit the female typifications of storytelling style.

When it comes to men and women in conversation, it is nearly impossible to come to any

conclusion that suits every possible exception and condition. Therefore, my aim in this study was

not to refute Deborah Tannen’s (2001) every study, but to counter some of her generalizations

with some exceptions that I discovered in the field. Tannen’s gender roles and rules, for the most

part, reflect standard males and females in standard situations speaking about standard subjects.

It is not entirely justifiable to use a series of typifications in order to generate a new series of

typifications, as was apparently done in You Just Don’t Understand. On the other hand, Tannen

performed much more in-depth, varied research—while I based my conclusions solely on one

transcription. Future research on the subject should include transcriptions of a similar meeting

conducted by a man rather than a woman. Additionally, the gender ratio of the group itself

should be changed around to test the effect of group gender dominance on the leader of the

meeting. Overall, there should be more attention given to the reversal of traditional gender roles,
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 10

as this is the only way to modernize a ten-year-old study to suit a more modernized society and

culture.
VARIATIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN IN DISCOURSE 11

References

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation.

New York, NY: Ballentine.