Philomena Hansen

Theory Analysis
Communication 2050
April 2, 2017

Genderlect Theory Analysis

Introduction

This paper is about Genderlect Theory Analyzing (GTA) which will include: current
status Theory, and by pointing out where the theory stands today. I will define
Genderlect Theory, I will analyze it and I will introduce the main theorist and the way she
developed the theory, I will write and give an overview and contrasts their work about
who the major players are. I will also evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the
theory by using the 7 theory evaluation criteria and also I will write about how to improve
it. I will conclude with what I learned with Genderlect Theory as well as find similarities.

Theory Definition and Approach (es)

Genderlect theory refers to the different ways in which men and women communicate or
miscommunicate. The main theorist Dr. Deborah Tannen sees this theory as a culture
dialects rather than lower power or higher power ways of talking, these two gender style
of communication are viewed as two different language (McKay, 2017, p. 32).
This theory is empirical because Tannen uses experiments to identify the different style
of conversation between the two genders, she took eleven year old boys and girls. In
her observation the boys seemed distract, they were touching their nose, hair and they
were not looking in their eyes. The girls felt very comfortable. They were facing each
one and smiling, they seemed very focus. The girls were using more connection,
Tannen said women use conversation to make connections, they see autonomy as a
threat to connection (McKay, 2017, p. 32). The boys in their conversation are seeking
more status, Tannen said, masculine use conversation as a way to establish status
(McKay, 2017, p. 32). It is also interpretive because each individual conversation is
unique and hard to predict, she also talk about sounds certain when men state their
opinion straightforward versus sound tentative when women use question tag and
hedgers to make their opinions, they invite inputs (McKay, 2017, p. 33).This approach
falls in today because several studies that have been made to improve the
communication style in almost the same way as Dr. Tannen, with some exception
details, some theories will sometimes focus on only one gender instead of both as Dr.
Tannen did.

Current Theory Status

Today there has been a lot of topics, researches in many fields such as sociolinguistic,
psychology, films and literary. Some examples of writings from different authors are:
The gender of the speaker or the addressee within any type of sentence is often
considered as sociolinguistic variation rather than as a gender-exclusive rule (Brendler,
2014, p. 230). Brendler uses survey of male and female way of talking rather than
statistical or even an experiment as did Dr. Tannen. Brendler point out the differences of
gender discourse in a phonological, morphological and grammatical level. I think once
again this comes back to what Dr. Tannen said about these two gender way of talking is
like linguistic and so it make sense to me when Brendler studies is about phonetic and
grammar.
The people who contributed to this theory have many different ideas on how
communication in between language and culture barriers where the translator has the
main rule. Their writings go into details about how gender affects translation (Cronin,
Oggero, Federici, & Coppola, 2011).

Rose look at the readers perspective, the writers perspective and the publisher
perspective in regards to gender. Further in the writings, I found out the state of writings
is involving the male and female differences in the language and specially in sentences
style (ROSE, F. 2015, p. 495-537).

These authors really concentrate on genderlect. This word was made popular by
Deborah Tannen focusing mainly on a dialects that tend to be strong gender influencing.
Also to address the struggles of communication between men and women and how to
mend it (Galvin, Dolly, & Pula, 2012, p. 22-30).

This author goes into detailed comparing gender and their literacy. This results are from
years of research (1974-2002) in mostly college level language Arts teachers and how
they made assumptions and set expectations that were different for different sexes
(Faktorovich, A. 2015).

Today this theory Genderlect, is not only interpretive and empirical because researchers
gives us the practical approach and critical to help both Gender get along better.

There are new Approaches and modifications in this theory, Writers, movie producers,
psychologies are using their efforts to understand and bring new ideas and help both
Genders to better communicate. When used practical approach, the theory seems more
valuable and understood.

Theory Evaluation

There are strengths in this theory when the 7 Theory Evaluation Criteria are used. We
can use Utility (West &Turner, 2010). It leads to a deeper understanding and it
promotes mutual respect when the theory is used. It is also strong when we use
Heurism (West &Turner, 2010). By it new thinking stimulated by the theory. The
theory has it weaknesses too when using the 7 Theory Evaluation Criteria, it has
Parsimony (West &Turner, 2010). By its simplicity explication of the theory.

Improvements to the Theory

I will recommend the practical approach and readers should read more about the
different writings because there are so many of them. The theory applies in everyday life
with our opposite sex, and maybe we can help our opposite sex learn or understand our
own language too. The authors should do more studies with married couple, or a family
with both genders living together in the same house. They can also use more approach
like critical to help both gender learn and understand each one. By doing this our
interaction might help us reach a good way of cooperating more in our society.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper analyze Genderlect Theory. The analysis include the main
theorist view as well as other major players in that field of Gender and communication.
Because this theory reveals how men and women subconsciously communicate in
different ways, Tannen and the other major players shows us how easy it is for all of us
to misjudge the words and actions of others (Brendler, 2014, p. 240). This paper made
recommendations on how to improve this communication theory by emphasizing the
practical aspect and by giving more guidelines to follow, the few guidelines I am aware
of will encourage open awareness of the different conversational styles and a chance to
acknowledge the strengths of each. Previously I had not realized the importance of
understanding communication styles of conversing, at least to this level. I understood
that these two styles of conversion are like a second language, which means we can
practice for example using Direct vs Indirect (Mckay, 2017, p. 32). Instead of only
men to be direct in their talk women can be direct too, and men can be indirect too
especially when feelings are expressed, and learn how to understand and maybe how
to express it, if we manage good on this then both gender can reach harmony in their
interacting. I learned how this theory promotes mutual respect and understanding by
showing that communicators should appreciate and respect the style of communication
of both genders as respecting different cultures.
References

Brendler, B, M. (2014). Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations.

Journal of education for library & information Science, 55(3), 223-240.

Cronin, M. Oggero, R, Federici, E. & Coppola, M. (2011). Translating Gender. Bern:

Peter Lang AG.

Faktorovich, A. (2015). Gender Bias in Mystery & Romance Novel Publishing: Mimicking
Masculinity and Femininity. Atlanta, Georgia: Anaphora Literary Press.

Galvin, S, M. Dolly, M. R., & Pula, J. J. (2012). Genderlect & Participation in the
College English Classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 22-30.

Mckay, S. (2017) Perspective in communication, Unlock the mysteries of

communication, slcc, 32-34.

Rose, F. (2015). On male & female speech & more: categorical gender indexicality in
indigenous South American languages. International Journal of American
Linguistics, 81(4), 495-537.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand: Women & men in conversation. New
York, NY: Ballantine Books.

West, R, L. & Turner, L, H. (2010). Introducing communication theory: analysis &

application (4th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
.