VOICESA Selection of Multicultural Readings

Kathleen S. VerderberNorthern Kentuclcy University

\xr_ Wadsworth Publishing Company

t@p " An Intemational Thomsor,"publirh^ing to-puny

Belmont 'A lbany 'Bonn.Boston .C inc innat i .Det ro i t .London.Madr id .Me lboume

Mex icoc i ty .NewYork .Par is .sanFranc isco .s ingapore .Tokyo.Toronto .wash ing ton

COPYRIGHT @ 1995 by Wadvorth Publishing CompanyA Division of Intemational Thomson Publishing lnc.I(DP The ITP logo is a trademrk under licerei.

Printed in the United Sutes of Amenca| 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lHl 00 99 98 97 96 95

For more infomation, contact:Wadswonh Publishing Companyl0 Davis DriveBelmont, Califomia 94002 USA

lntemarional Thomson Publishing EuropeBerkshire House 168-173High Holbomlondon, WCIV 7M England

Thomas Nelson AmtraliaI02 Dodds StreetSouth Melboume 3205Victoria, Austmlia

Nelson CamdalI20 Birchmount RoadSerborough, OntarioCanada MIK 5G,l

lntematioml Thomon EditoresCampos Eli*os 385, Piso 7Col Polanco11560 M€xico D.F. Mexico

lntemational Thomson Publishing GmbHKdnigswinterer Strasse'11853227 Bonn, Gemany

Intemational Thoruon Publishing fuia221 Hendenon Road#05- l0 Henderson BuildingSingapore 0315

Intemational Thomon Publishing JapanHinkawacho Kyowa Building, 3F2-2-I HirakawachoChiyoda-ku, Tokyo I 02 Japan

All rights resewed. lmtructors of clases adopting Inter-Act: llsinglnterpersoul Communication Shills, Seventh Edition, by Rudolph E Vederber andKathleen S Verderber as a required text my reproduce roterials for clresroom use Othemise, no part of this work covered by the copyright hereon mybe reproduced or used in any fom or by any means--€raphic, electronic, or mechmical, including photocopflng, recording, taping, or infomadon storageand retrieval system*without the witten pemission of the publisher.

rsBN 0-534-19563-6

SELECTION THREE

In American society, the games that boys have traditionally played and the gamesthat girls have traditionally played have had different goals, rules, and roles. As aresult the interaction that is necessary to be successful in each of these distinctspeech communities is different. According toJulia T. wood, professor ofCommunicarion ar University of North carolina chapel Hill, from childhood menand women are conditioned to have differing communication styles, to talk differ-ently In this selection from her book GenderedLiyes: Communication, Gende4 andculture, the origins, behaviors, and motives for each style are discussed. Throughunderstanding both masculine and feminine styles, we should be better equippedto interpret the verbal communication behaviors of both men and women.

G en dere d lnter action: M as culine andFeminine Styles of Verbal Communication

Julia T. Wood

I anguage not only expresses cultural views ofI-gender but also constitutes individuals' gen-der identit ies. The communication practices weuse define us as masculine or feminine, in largemeasure, we create our own gender through talk.Because language constitutes masculinity andfemininity, we should find generalizable differ-ences in how women and men communicate. Re-search bears out this expectation by documentingrather systematic differences in the ways men andwomen typically use language. You probablydon't need a textbook to tell you this, since yourown interactions may have given you ample evi-dence of differences in how women and men talk.

What may not be clear from your own experi-ences, however, is exactly what those differences

From Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and. Cul-ture,by lulia T. Wood (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.,1994) 137-148. Reprinted by permission of WadsworthPublishing Company.

1 8

are and what they imply. If you are like mosr peo-ple, you've sometimes felt uncomfortable or mis-understood or mystified in communication withmembers of the other sex, but you've not beenable to put your finger on whar was causing thedifficulty. In the pages that follow, we'll try ro gaingreater insight into masculine and feminine stylesof speech and some of the confusion that resultsfrom differences between them. We want to un-derstand how each style evolves, what it involves,and how to interpret verbal communication inways that honor the morives of those using it.

Gendered Speech ComrnunitiesWriting in the I940s, Suzanne Langer introducedthe idea of "discourse communities." Like GeorgeHerbert Mead, she asserted that culture. or col-lective l ife, is possible only to the extent that agroup of people share a symbol sysrem and themeanings encapsulated in it. This theme recurred

in Langer's philosophical writ ings over thecourse of her life (1953, 1979). Her germinal in-sights into discourse communiries prefiguredlater interest in the ways in which language cre-ates individual identity and sustains cultural life.Since the early 1970s, scholars have studiedspeech communities, or cultures. William Labov(1972, p. I2l) extended Langer's ideas by defin-ing a speech community as existing when a groupof people share a set of norms regarding commu-nicative practices. By this he meant that a com-munication culture exists when people share un-derstandings about goals of communication,strategies for enacting those goals, and ways ofinterpreting communication.

It's obvious we have entered a different com-munication culture when we travel to non-Eng-lish-speaking countries, because the language dif-fers from our own. Distinct speech communitiesare less apparent when they use the same lan-guage that we do, but use it in different ways andto achieve different goals. The communicationculture of African-Americans who have notadopted the dominant pattern of North Americanspeech, for instance, relies on English yet departsin interesting and patterned ways from the com-munication of middle- class white North Ameri-cans. The fact that diverse groups of people de-velop distinctive communication patternsreminds us again of the constant interaction ofcommunication and culture. As we have alreadyseen, the standpoint we occupy in society influ-ences what we know and how we act. We now seethat this basic tenet of standpoint theory also im-plies that communication styles evolve out of dif-ferent standpoints.

Studies of gen{er and communication (Camp-

bel l , 1973; Coates, 1986; Coates & Cameron,1989; Hall6r Langell ier. 1988; Kramarae, I98I;Lakoff, 1975;-tannen, 1990a, 1990b) have con-vincingly shown that in many ways women andmen operate from dissimilar assumptions aboutthe goals and strategies of communication. F. L.

Johnson (1989), in fact, asserts that men and

Julia T. Wood t9

women live in rwo different worlds and that thisis evident in the disparate forms of communica-tion they use. Given this, it seems appropriate toconsider masculine and feminine styles of com-municating as embodying two distinct speechcommunities. To understand these different com-munities and the validity of each, we wil l f irstconsider how we are socialized into feminine andmasculine speech communities. After this, we willexplore divergencies in how women and men t1p-ically communicate. Please note the importanceof the word typically and others that indicare weare discussing generalizable differences, not ab-solute ones. Some women are not socialized intofeminine speech, or they are and Iater reject it;Iikewise, some men do not learn or choose not toadopt a masculine style of communication. Whatfollows describes gendered speech communitiesinto which mosf women and men are socializeo.

The Lessons of Childplay

We've seen that socialization is a gendered processin which boys and girls are encouraged to developmasculine and feminine identities. Extending thatunderstanding, we now explore how socializationcreates gendered speech communities. One way togain insight into how boys and girls learn normsof communication is to observe young children atplay. ln interactions with peers, boys and girlslearn how to talk and how to interpret what eachother says; they discover how to signal their inten-tions with words and how to respond approprl-ately to others' communication; and they learncodes to demonstrate involvement and interest(Tannen, 1990a). In short, interacting with peersteaches children rules o[ communication.

lnitial insight into the importance of children'splay in shaping patterns of communication camefrom a classic study by D. N. Maltz and R. Borker(1982). As they watched young children engagedin recreation, the researchers were struck by twoobservations: Young children almost always play

20 Genclered lnteraction: Masculine qnd Feminine Styles of Verbal Communication

in sex-segregated groups, and girls and boys tendto play different kinds of games. Malu and Borkerfound that boys'games (football, baseball) andgirls' games (school, house, jumprope) cultivatedistinct understandings of communication andthe rules by which it operares.

Boys 'Games

Boys'games usually involve fairly large groups-nine individuals for each baseball team, for in-stance. Most boys' games are competit ive, haveclear goals, and are organized by rules and rolesthat specify who does what and how to play. Be-cause these games are structured by goals, rules,and roles, there is l i tt le need to discuss how toplay, although there may be talk about strategiesto reach goals. Maltz and Borker realized that inboys' games, an individual's status depends onstanding out, being better, and often dominatingother players. From these games, boys learn howto interact in their communities. Specifically,boys' games cultivate three communication rules:

l. Use communication to assert yourself andyour ideas; use talk to achieve something.

2. Use communication to attract and maintainan audience.

3. Use communication to compete with othersfor the "talk stage," so that they don't gainmore attention than you; learn to wrest thefocus from others and onto yourself.

These communication rules are consistentwith other aspects of masculine socialization thatwe have already discussed. For instance, noticethe emphasis on individuality and competition.AIso, we see that these rules accent achieve-ment- doing something, accomplishing a goal.Boys learn they must do things to be valued mem-bers of the team It 's also the case that intenselyclose, personal relationships are unlikely to beformed in large groups. Finally, we see the under-

current of masculinity's emphasis on being invul-nerable and guarded: lf others are the competi-tion from whom you must seize center stage, thenyou cannot let them know too much about your-self and your weaknesses.

Girls'Games

Turning now to girls' games, we find that quitedifferent patterns exist, and they lead to distinc-tive understandings of communication. Girls tendto play in pairs or in very small groups rather thanlarge ones. Also, games like house and school donot have preset, clear-cut goals, rules, and roles.There is no analogy for the touchdown in playinghouse. Because girls' games are not structured ex-ternally, players have to talk among themselves todecide what they're doing and what roles they

have. Playing house, for insrance, typically beginswith a discussion about who is going to be thedaddy and who the mommy. This is typical of thepatterns girls use to generate rules and roles lortheir games. The lack of stipulated goals for thegames is also important, since it tends to cultivatein girls an interest in the process of interactionmore than its products. For their games to work,girls have to cooperate and work out problems bytalking: No external rules exist to settle disputes.From these games, Maltz and Borker noted, girlsIearn normative communication patterns of theirspeech communities. Specifically, girls' gamesteach three basic rules for communication:

l. Use collaborative, cooperative talk to createand maintain relationships. The process of.communication, not its content, is the heartof relationships.

2. Avoid criticizing, outdoing, or putting othersdown; i[ criticism is necessary, make it gen-tle: never exclude others.

3. Pay attention to others and to relationships;interpret and respond to others' leelingssensitively.

These basic understandings of communicationecho and reinforce other aspects of feminine so-cialization. Girls' games stress cooperation, col-laboration, and sensitivity to others'feelings. Alsonotice the focus on process encouraged in girls'games. Rather than interacting to achieve someoutcome, girls learn that communication itself isthe goal. Whereas boys Iearn they have to dosomething to be valuable, the lesson for girls is tobe. Their worth depends on being good people,which is defined by being cooperative, inclusive,and sensitive. The lessons of child's play are car-ried forward. In fact, the basic rules of communi-cation that adult women and men employ turnout to be only refined and elaborated versions ofthe very same ones evident in girls' and boys'childhood games.

lulia T. Wood, 21

Gendered CommunicationPractices

ln her popular book, You Just Dotr't lJnderstand:Women and Men in Communication, linguist Debo-rah Tannen (1990b, p. 42) declares that 'commu-

nication between men and women can be l ikecross cultural communication, prey to a clash ofconversational styles." Her study of men's andwomen's talk led her to identify distinctions be-tween the speech communities typical of womenand men. Not surprisingly, Tannen traces gen-dered communication patterns to differences inboys' and girls' communication with parents andpeers. Like other scholars (Bate, 1988; Hall &Langell ier, 1988; Kramarae, l98l; Treichler &Kramarae, 1983; Wood, I993a), Tannen believesthat women and men typically engage in dis-tinctive styles of communication with differentpurposes, rules, and understandings of how tointerpret talk. We will consider features of wom-en's and men's speech identif ied by a number ofresearchers. As we do, we wil l discover some ofthe complications that arise when men andwomen operate by different rules in conversationswith each other.

Women's Speech

For most women, communication is a primaryway to establish and maintain relationships withothers. They engage in conversation to sharethemselves and to learn about others. This is animportant point: For women, talk is the essenceof relationships. Consistent with this primarygoal, women's speech tends to display identifiablefeatures that foster connections, support, close-ness, and understanding.

Equality between people is generally importantin women's communication (Aries, 1987). Toachieve symmetry, women often match experi-ences to indicate "You're not alone in how you

22 Gendered Interaction: Masculine and Feminine styles oJ verbal communication

feel." Typical ways to communicate equalitywould be saying, "l've done the same thing manytimes," "l 've felt the same way," or "somethingIike that happened to me too and 1 felt l ike youdo." Growing out of the quest for equality is a par-ticipatory mode of interaction in which commu-nicators respond to and build on each other'sideas in the process of conversing (Hall 6l L-angel-lier, 1988). Rather than a rigid you-tell-your-ideas-then-l ' l l-tell-mine sequence, women's speechmore characteristically follows an interactive pat-tern in which different voices weave together tocreate conversatrons.

Also important in women's speech is showingsupport for others. To demonstrate support,women often express understanding and sympa-thy with a friend's situation or feelings. "Oh, youmust feel terrible," "I really hear what you are say-ing," or "I think you did the right thing" are com-municative clues that we understand and supporthow another feels. Related to these first two fea-tures is women's typical attention to the relation-ship level of communication (Wood, I993a,f 993b; Wood & Inman, 1993). You wil l recallthat the relationship level of talk focuses on feel-ings and the relationship between communicatorsrather than on the content of messages. In con-versations between women, it is common to heara number of questions that probe for greater un-derstanding of feelings and perceptions surround-ing the subject oftalk (Beck, 1988, p. 104; Tannen,1990b). "Tell me more about what happened,""How did you feel when it occurred?" "Do youthink it was deliberate?" "How does this fit intothe overall relationship?" are probes that help alistener understand a speaker's perspective. Thecontent of talk is dealt with, but usually not with-out serious attention to the feelings involved.

A fourth feature of women's speech style isconversational "maintenance work" (Beck, I988;Fishman. 1978). This involves efforts to sustainconversation by inviting others to speak and byprompting them to elaborate their experiences.

Women, for instance, ask a number of questionsthat initiate topics for others: "How was yourday?" "Tell me about your meeting," "Did any-thing interesting happen on your trip?" "What doyou think of the candidates this year?" Commu-nication of this sort opens the conversational doorto others and maintains interaction.

lnclusivity also surfaces in a fifth quality ofwomen's talk, which is responsiveness (Beck,1988; Tannen, 1990a, 1990b; Wood, 7993a).Women usually respond in some fashion to whatothers say. A woman might say "Tell me more" or"That's interesting"; perhaps she will nod and useeye contact to signal she is engaged; perhaps shewill ask a question such as "Can you explain whatyou mean?" Responsiveness reflects learned ten-dencies to care about others and to make themfeel valued and included (Kemper, 1984; Lakoff,I975). It affirms another person and encourageselaboration by showing interest in what was said.

A sixth quality of women's talk is personal, con-crete style (Campbell, 1973; Hall & Langell ier,1988; Tannen, I990b). Typicalof women's conver-sation are details, personal disclosures, anecdotes,and concrete reasoning. These features cultivate apersonal tone in women's communication, andthey facilitate feelings of closeness by connectingcommunicators' lives. The detailed. concrete em-phasis prevalent in women's talk also clarilies is-sues and feelings so that communicators are ableto understand and idendfy with each other. Thus,the personal character of much of women's inter-action sustains interpersonal closeness.

A final feature of women's speech is tentative-ness. This may be expressed in a number of florms.Sometimes women use verbal hedges such as "Ikind of feel you may be overreacting. " In othersituations they qualify statements by saying "I'mprobably not the best judge of this, but . . ." An-other way to keep talk provisional is to tag a ques-tion onto a statement in a way that invites anotherto respond: "That was a pretty good movie, wasn'tit?" "We should get out this weekend, don't you

think?" Tentative communication leaves open thedoor for others to respond and express their opin-10ns.

There has been controversy about tentative-ness in women's speech. R. Lakoff (1975), whofirst noted that women use more hedges, quali-fiers, and tag questions than men, claimed theserepresent lack of confidence and uncertainty.Calling women's speech powerless, Lakoff arguedthat it reflects women's socialization into subordi-nate roles and low self-esteem. Since Lakoffswork, however, other scholars (Bate, 1988; Wood6c Lenze, I99lb) have suggested different expla-nations of women's tentative style of speaking.Dale Spender (1984a), in particular, points outthat lakoffs judgments of the inferiority of wom-en's speech were based on using male speech as

the standard, which does not recognize the dis-tinctive validity of different speech communities.Rather than reflecting powerlessness, the use ofhedges, qualifiers, and tag questions may expresswomen's desires to keep conversation open and

to include others. lt is much easier to jump into a

conversation that has not been sealed with ab-

solute, firm statements. A tentative style of speak-ing supports women's general desire to createequality and include others. It is important to re-

alize, however, that people outside of women's

speech community may misinterpret women's in-

tentions in using tentative communication.

Men\ Speech

Masculine speech communities define the goalsof talk as exerting control, preserving indepen-dence, and enhancing status. Conversation is an

arena for proving oneself and negotiating prestige.This leads to two general tendencies in men's

communication. First, men often use talk to es-

tablish and defend their personal status and theirideas, by asserting themselves and/or by challeng-ing others. Second, when they wish to comfort or

support another, they typically do so by respect-

JuliaT. Wood 23

ing the other's independence and avoiding com-munication they regard as condescending (Tan-nen, I990b). These tendencies will be more clearas we review specific features of masculine talk.

To establish their own status and value, menoften speak to exhibit knowledge, skill, or ability.Equally typical is the tendency to avoid disclosingpersonal information that might make a man ap-pear weak or vulnerable (Derlega 6c Chaiken,1976; Lewis & McCarthy, I988; Saurer 6t Eisler,1990). For instance, ifsomeone expresses concernabout a relationship with a boyfriend, a man mightsay "The way you should handle that is . . . ""Don't let him get to you," or "You orrght to iurttell him . . ." This illustrates the tendency to giveadvice that Tannen reports is common in men'sspeech. On the relationship level of communica-tion, giving advice does two things. First, it fo-cuses on instrumental activity-what anothershould do or be-and does not acknowledge feel-ings. Second, it expresses superiority and main-tains control. It says "I know what you should do"or "l would know how to handle that." The mes-sage may be perceived as implying the speaker is

superior to the other person. Between men, ad-vice giving seems understood as a give-and-take,but it may be interpreted as unfeeling and conde-scending by women whose rules for communicat-ing differ.

A second prominent feature of men's talk is in-

strumentality-the use of speech to accomplishinstrumental objectives. As we have seen, men aresocialized to do things, achieve goals (Bellinger &Gleason, f 982). ln conversation, this is often ex-pressed through problem-solving efforts that focuson getting information, discovering facs, and sug-gesting solutions. Again, between men this is usu-ally a comfortable orientation, since both speakershave typically been socialized to value instrumen-tality. However, conversations between womenand men are often derailed by the lack of agree-ment on what this informational, instrumentalfocus means. To manv women it feels as if men

24 Gendered Interaction: Masculine and Feminine Styles of Verbal Communication

don't care abour their feelings. When a man fo-cuses on the content level of meaning afrcr awoman has disclosed a problem, she may feel heis disregarding her emotions and concerns. He, onthe other hand, may well be trying to support herin the way that he has learned to show support-suggesting ways to solve the problem.

A third feature of men's communication is con-versational dominance. Despite jokes about wom-en's talkativeness, research indicates that in mostcontexts, men not only hold their own but domi-nate the conversation. This tendency, althoughnot present in infancy, is evident in preschoolers(Austin, Salehi, & Leffler, 1987). Compared withgirls and women, boys and men talk more fre-quently (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Thorne &Henley, I975) and for longer periods of t ime(Aries, I987, Eakins & Eakins, I976;Kramarae,l98l;Thorne & Henley, 1975). Further, men en-gage in other verbal behaviors that sustain con-versational dominance. They may reroute conver-sations by using what another said as a jump-offpoint for their own topic, or they may interrupt.While both sexes engage in interruptions, mostresearch suggests that men do it more frequently(Beck, 1988' Mulac, Wiemann, Widenmann, &Gibson, 1988;West & Zimmerman, 1983). Notonly do men seem to intenupt more than women,but they do so for different reasons. L. P. Stewartand her colleagues (1990, p. 5I) suggest that menuse interruptions to control conversation by chal-lenging other speakers or wresting the talk stagefrom them, while women interrupt to indicate in-terest and to respond. This interpretation isshared by a number of scholars who note thatwomen use interruptions to show support, en-courage elaboration, and affirm others (Aleguire,1978; Aries, 1987; Mulac et al., 1988).

Fourth, men tend to express themselves infairly absolute, assertive ways. Compared withwomen, their language is typically more forceful,direct, and authoritative (Beck, I988; Eakins 6rEakins, I978; Stewart et al., 1990; Tannen, I990a,1990b). Tentative speech such as hedges and dis-

claimers is used less frequently by men than bywomen. This is consistent with gender socializa-tion in which men learn to use talk to assert them-selves and to take and hold positions. However,when another person does not share that under-standing of communication, speech that is ab-solute and directive may seem to close off conver-sation and Ieave no room for others to speak.

Fifth, compared with women, men communi-cate more abstractly. They frequently speak ingeneral terms that are removed from concrete ex-periences and distanced from personal feelings(Schaef, l98 l ; Treichler & Kramarae, 1983). Theabstract style typical of men's speech reflects thepublic and impersonal contexts in which theyoften operate and the less personal emphasis intheir speech communities. Within public environ-ments, norms for speaking call for theoretical,conceptual, and general thought and communica-tion. Yet, within more personal relationships, ab-stract talk sometimes creates barriers to knowinganother intimately.

Finally, men's speech tends not to be highly re-sponsive, especially not on the relationship Ievelof communication (Beck, 1988; Wood, 1993a).Men, more than women, give what are called"minimal response cues" (Parlee, I979), whichareverbalizations such as "yeah" or "umhmm."In interaction with women, who have learned todemonstrate interest more vigorously, minimalresponse cues generally inhibit conversation be-cause they are perceived as indicating lack of in-volvement (Fishman, 1978; Stewart et al., 1990).Another way in which men's conversation is gen-erally less relationally responsive than women's isIack of expressed sympathy and understandingand lack of self-disclosures (Saurer 6t Eisler,1990). Within the rules of men's speech commu-nities, sympathy is a sign of condescension, andrevealing personal problems is seen as makingone vulnerable. Yet women's speech rules countsympathy and disclosure as demonstrations ofequality and support. This creates potential formisunderstanding between women and men.

Misinterpretations BetweenWomen and MenIn this final section, we explore what happenswhen men and women talk, each operating out ofa distinctive speech community. In describing fea-tures typical o[each gender's talk, we already havenoted differences that provide fertile ground formisunderstandings. We now consider several ex-amples of recurrent misreadings between womenand men.

Showirrg Support

The scene is a private conversation betweenMartha and George. She tells him she is worriedabout her friend. George gives a minimum re-sponse cue, saying only "Oh." To Martha thissuggests he isn't interested, since women makeand expect more of what D. Tannen (1986) calls"l istening noises" to signal interest. Yet, as Tan-nen ( I986,1990b) and A. Beck (1988) note,George is probably thinking if she wants to tellhim something she will, since his rules of speechemphasize using talk to assert oneself (Bellinger

& Gleason, f 982). Even without much encour-agement, Martha continues by describing the ten-sion in her friend's marriage and her own con-cern about how she can help. She says, "I feel sobad for Barbara, and I want to help her, but Idon't know what to do." George then says, "It 's

their problem, not yours. Just butt out and letthem settle their own relationship." At this,Martha explodes: "Who asked for your advice?"George is now completely frustrated and con-fused. He thought Martha wanted advice, so hegave it. She is hurt that George didn't tune intoher feelings and comfort her about her worries.Each is annoyed and unhappy.

The problem here is not so much what Georgeand Martha say and don't say. Rather, it's how theyinterpret each other's communication-actually,how they misinterpret it, because each relies onrules that are not familiar to the other. They fail to

JuliaT. Wood 25

understand that each is operating by differentrules of talk. George is respecting Martha's inde-pendence by not pushing her to talk. When hethinks she directly requests advice, he offers it inan effort to help. Martha, on the other hand, wantscomfort and a connection with George-that isher purpose in talking with him. She finds his ad-vice unwelcome and dismissive of her feelings. Hedoesn't offer syrnpathy, because his rules for com-munication define this as condescending. Yetwithin Martha's speech community, not to showsympathy is to be unfeeling and unresponsive.

"Troubles Talh"

Tannen (1990b) identifies talk about troubles, orpersonal problems, as a kind of interaction inwhich hurt feelings may result from the contrastbetween most men's and women's rules of com-munication. A woman might tell her partner thatshe is feeling down because she did not get a job

she wanted. ln an effort to be supportive, he

26 Gendered lnteraction: Masculine ond Feminine Styles of Verbal Communication

might respond by saying, "You shouldn't feel bad.Lots of people don't get jobs they want." To herthis seems to dismiss her feelings-to belittlethem by saying lots of people experience her situ-ation. Yet within masculine speech communities,this is a way of showing respect for another by notassuming that she or he needs syrnpathy.

Now let's turn the tables and see what happenswhen a man feels roubled. When he meetsNancy, Craig is unusually quiet because he feelsdown about not getting a job offer. Sensing thatsomething is wrong, Nancy tries to show interestby asking, "Are you okay? What's botheringyou?" Craig feels she is imposing and trying to gethim to show a vulnerability he prefers to keep tohimself. Nancy probes further to show she cares.As a result, he feels intruded on and withdrawsfurther. Then Nancy feels shut out.

But perhaps Craig does decide to tell Nancywhy he feels down. After hearing about his rejec-tion letter, Nancy says, "I know how you feel. Ifelt so low when I didn't get that position atDatanet." She is matching experiences to showCraig that she understands his feelings and thathe's not alone. Within his communication rules,however, this is demeaning his situation by fo-cusing on her, not him. When Nancy mentionsher own experience, Craig thinks she is trying tosteal the center stage for herself. Within hisspeech community, that is one way men vie fordominance and attention. Yet Nancy has learnedto share similar experiences as a way to buildconnections with others.

The Point of the Story

Another instance in which feminine and mascu-line communication rules often clash and causeproblems is in relating experiences. Typically, menhave learned to speak in a linear manner in whichthey move sequentially through major points in astory to get to the climax. Their talk tends to bestraightforward without a great many details. Therules of feminine speech. however. call for more

detailed and less l inear storytell ing. Whereas aman is likely to provide rather bare informationabout what happened, a woman is more likely toembed the information within a larger context ofthe people involved and other things going on.Women include details not because all of thespecifics are important in themselves but becauserecounting them shows involvement and allows aconversational partner to be more fully part of thesituation being described.

Because feminine and masculine rules aboutdetails differ, men often find women's way oftell ing stories wandering and unfocused. Con-versely, men's style of storytell ing may strikewomen as leaving out all of the interesting details.Many a discussion between women and men hasended either with his exasperated demand, "Can'tyou get to the point?" or with her frustrated ques-tion, "Why don't you tell me how you were feel-ing and what else was going on?" She wants moredetails than his rules call for; he is interested infewer details than she has Iearned to supply.

Relationship Talh

"Can we talk about us?" is the opening of innu-merable conversations that end in misunderstand-ing and hurt. As Tannen (1986) noted in ^near-l ier book, That's Not What I Meant, men andwomen tend to have very different ideas aboutwhat it means to talk about relationships. ln gen-eral, men are inclined to think a relationship isgoing fine as long as there is no need to talk aboutit. They are interested in discussing the relation-ship only if there are particular problems to be ad-dressed. In contrast, women generally think a re-lationship is working well as long as they can talkabout it with partners. The difference here growsout of the fact that men tend to use communicationto do things and solve problems, while womengenerally regard the process of communicating asa primary way to create and sustain relationshipswith others. For many women, conversation is a

way to be with another person-to affirm and en-hance closeness. Men's different rules stipulatethat communication is to achieve some goal or fixsome problem. No wonder men often duck whentheir partners want to "discuss the relationship,"and women often feel a relationship is in troublewhen their partners are unwilling to talk about it.

These are only four o[ many situations inwhich feminine and masculine rules of communi-cation may collide and cause problems. Womenlearn to use talk to build and sustain connectionswith others. Men Iearn that talk is to convey in-formation and establish status. Given these dis-tinct starting points, it 's not surprising thatwomen and men often find themselves lockedinto misunderstandings.

Interestingly, research (Sollie 6z Fischer, 1985)suggests that women and men who are androgy-nous are more flexible communicators, who areable to engage comfortably in both masculine andfeminine styles of speech. The breadth of theircommunicative competence enhances the rangeof situations in which they can be effective inachieving various goals. On learning about differ-ent speech rules, many couples find they canimprove their communication. Each partner hasbecome bilingual, and so communication be-tween them is smoother and more satisfying.When partners understand how to interpret eachother's rules, they are less likely to misread mo-tives. In addition, they learn how to speak theother's language, which means women and menbecome more gratifying conversational partnersfor each other, and they can enhance the qualityof their relationships.

JuliaT. Wood 27

ReferencesAleguire, D. G. (f 978). Intenuptions as turn-tahing.

Paper presented at the International SociologicalAssociation Ninth World Congress of Sociology,Uppsala University, Sweden.

Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P.Shaver & C. Hendricks (Eds.),Sex and gender(PP 149-176) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Austin, A M. B., Salehi, M , & Leffler, A. (1987). Gen-der and developmental differences in children'sconversations. Sex Roles, 16, 497 -510.

Bate, B (l9BB). Communicationbetween the sexes. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Beck, A. T. (1988). Loyeisnever enough. NewYork:Harper and Row.

Bellinger, D. C , 6r Gleason,J. B. (1982) Sex differ-ences in parentai directives to young childrenSex Roles. 8. I 123-I 139.

Campbell, K K. (1973), The rhetoric of women's liber-ation: An oxymoron. Quarterly Journal oJ Speech,59,74-86.

Coates, J. (1986). Women, men, andlanguage: Studies inlanguage and, linguistics. London: Longman.

Coates,J., & Cameron, D. (1989). Women in theirspeech communities: New perspectiyes on languageand sex. London: Longman.

Derlega, V.J , & Chaiken, A. L. (1976) Norms affect-ing self-disclosure in men and women.Journal oJC onsulting and Clinical P sy cholo gy, 44, 37 6-380.

Eakins, B , & Eakins, G. (1976). Verbal turn-takingand exchanges in faculty dialogue. In B. L. DuBois 6t I. Crouch (Eds.), Papers in southwestEnglish: IY. Proceedings of the conJerence on thesociology of the languages of American women(pp. 53-62). San Antonio, TX: Trinity UniversityPress.

Eakins, B. W,6s Eakins, R. c. (1978). Sexdffer-ences in human communication Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work womendo. S o cial Pr oblems, 25, 397 --406.

Hall, D., & Langellier, K. (1988). Story-telling strate-gies in mother-daughter communication. In BBate & A Taylor (Eds.), Women communicatingStudies oJ women's talh (pp 197-226). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

28 Partll Ethical Issues

Johnson, F. L. (1989). Women's culture and commu-nication: An analytical perspecrive. In C. M. Lont& 5. A. Friedley (Eds.) , Beyond Boundaries: Sexand gender ditersity in communication (pp. 301-316). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.

Kemper, S. (1984). When to speak like alady. SexRoles, 10,435--4+3.

Kramarae, C. (I98i) Women anil men speahing: Frame-worhs Jor analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Labov, W (197 2). Sociolingtistic patterns.Philadelphia, PA: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language anil woman's place . NewYork: Harper and Row.

Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling andJorm: A theory oJ art.New York: Scribner's

Langer, S. K. (1979). Philosophy in anew hey: A studyin the symbolism oJ reasory ite and art (3rd ed.).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Lewis, E. T., & McCarthy, P. R. (1988). Perceptions ofself-disclosure as a function of gender-linked vari-ables. Sex Roles, 19, 47-56.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approachto male-female miscommunication. InJ. J.Gumpertz (Ed. ), Language dnd social identity(pp. f 96-216). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., &Gibson, T. W. (1988). Maldfemale language dif-ferences and effecs in same-sex and mixed-sexdyads: The gender-Iinked language effect.Communication Mono graphs, 55, 3 f 5-335.

Parlee, M B. (1979, May). Conversational politics.P sy cholog T oday, pp. 4V56.

Saurer, M. K , & Eisler, R. M. (1990). The role ofmasculine gender roles stress in expressivity andsocial support network factors. SexRoles,23,26t-27t.

Schaef,A. W. (I9Bl). Women'sreal i ty.St. Paul, MN:Winston Press.

Sollie, D. L, & Fischer,J. L. (1985). Sex-role orienta-tion, intimacy of topic, and target persondifferences in self-disclosure among women.SexRoles, 12,917-929.

Spender, D. ( I 984a). Man made language. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul

Stewart, L. P., Stewart, A. D., Friedley, S. A., &Cooper, P. J. (1990) Communication betw een thesexes: Sex dffirences, and. sex role stereotypes (2nded ). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Tannen, D. (1986). That's notwhat I meant! Howconyersational style mahes or breahs relationships.New York: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (I990a). Gender differences in conver-sational coherence: Physical alignment and topi-cal cohesion. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conyersationalorganization and its detelopment. (Yol. XXXUII,pp. 167-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. ( I 990b). Y ou just ilon' t under stanCt W omenand mrn in cony ersdtion New York: William Mor-row.

Thorne, B , & Henley, N. (1975). Language andsex:Dilference and dominance. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Treichler, P. A., & Kramarae, C. (1983). Women's talkin the ivory tower. Communication Qudrterly,3l,I I8-132.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Smallinsults: A study of intemrptions in cross-sexconversations between unacquainted persons.In B. Thome, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.),Language, gender and society (pp. f02-II7).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Wood,J. T. (1993a). Engendered relationships: Inter-action, caring, power, and responsibiliry in closerelationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Processes in closer elationships: Contexts of close r elationships(Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wood,J. T. (f993b). Engendered identities: Shapingvoice and mind through gender. ln D. Vocare(Ed,.), lntraper sondl communication: Dilferentt,oices, ilifJerent minils. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Wood,J. T., & Inman, C. (1993, August). In a differ-ent mode: Recognizing male modes of closeness.Journal of Applied Communication Research.

Wood,J T., 6z Lenze, L. F. (f99lb). Gender and thedevelopment of sell Inclusive pedagogy in inter-personal communication. Women's Studies inC ommunic ation, 1 4, I-23.

Chapter3 Egoism 29

Questions for Reflection

t. Observe and reflect on your own speech patternsTo what extent is your speech scyle reflective ofthat which is typical for your gender?

2. Do the primary games you played in your child-hood match those suggesred by the authors forpersons of your sex?

3. To what extent do your childhood socializationexperiences explain your current speech style?

4. Ifyour current speech style is not explained byyour childhood experiences, to what do you at-tribute your style?