GENDERLECT THEORY

Ravinandan Puri

Roll no: 20140121132

PGP-1 B

The Theory

Genderlect theory by Dr. Deborah Tannen states that there exist inherent differences in the

ways different genders communicate with each other. In fact the differences are such that she

goes on to say that genders differ in their communication style as if they belonged to different

cultures or planets.

According to Dr. Tannen, women use conversation as a tool to build and nurture

relationships. More than expression, they use it to establish connections and share

experiences. A deep drive to seek connection is the fundamental force in women

conversation. This drive is partly inherent and partly is a manifestation of the way girls have

been traditionally brought up across most cultures. For a girl is perfectly right to fall and start

crying. The traditional culture encourages her to express her feelings to connect and seek

connection.

On the other hand, men communicate and use conversation to establish their status. They are

inherently competitive and are driven by the desire to establish their hierarchical status. For

this they use conversation as a weapon. The society and most cultures have also supported

and reinforced their styles of communicating. For example, if a boy has a minor injury, he is

advised against crying and asked to be tough. Hence girls develop a relational style of

interaction whereas boys develop a competitive style of interaction. (Prof. Vinita Mohindra,

Dr. Azhar, Gender Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Communicational

Approaches of Men and Women at Workplaces, Sep-Oct. 2012)

Viewing the conversations in the social life of an Indian through the prism of

Genderlect theory.

The Indian culture broadly has been patriarchal in nature where women have always played

the secondary role in most schemes of social interactions and events. Men who have always

dominated the social sphere have been using language to further reinforce their ‘superior’

status. This patriarchal bias is evident in the languages that have developed across culture

over time. An example of words generally attributed to men is –

Parmeshwar - meaning ‘God’

Pran Nath – meaning ‘Lord of Life’

Himmatwala – meaning ‘One who has strength’

Rakhwala – meaning ‘The Protector’

Karta Dharta – meaning ‘the one who takes care and nurtures the family’

The very notion of manhood is equated in the Indian culture with supremacy and status. This

is completely in line with the Genderlect theory and the conversations that pervade the Indian

social sphere are in complete agreement with it. Not only is the male supremacy taken for

granted but any dialogue between the two genders usually ends with the male having the final

word. Any dissent on the part of the female is seen as treachery and even blasphemy. If a

woman tries to voice her concerns or goes against the patriarchal norms in the traditional

cultural setting, she is branded as branded as a “kulta” meaning ‘one who has brought

ignominy to the family and has blacked her face.

The Indian cultural setting itself provides a conducive environment for women to be

submissive, seek affiliation and connection, and try to avoid confrontation. They talk more in

private and very less in public. They tend to listen to empathize and seek connect better to

that other person. They naturally use rapport talk by maintaining appearance of equality,

being submissive, apologizing and downplaying their authority.

Men on the other hand, in Indian culture are encouraged to use rough abusive language and to

be rambunctious. They try to establish their status in most social settings and their language is

an important tool to accomplish this goal. Men try to be competitive and use abusive

language to show each other their hierarchal status. Most curse words are a result of the

inherent desire of men to seek status and relegate others to lower status.

In Corporate setting

Earlier working women used to less in number and used to be quiet and passive in their

demeanour. With passage of time and advent of modernism more and more women have

started working and have begun assuming positions of power.

However, in corporate settings to women more often tend to be polite, soft spoken and try to

take along everybody on the team. Their conversation is more inclined to towards consensus

building, and developing team spirit. They want to be respected, to help others, to be cared

about and be a part of a community. Even when they try to be assertive, they do with a

humane touch. Women use expressive style of communication with deeper awareness about

how others might feel and react to their words. The communication behaviours women tend

to possess are as follows:

feeling

empathy

harmony

closeness

relationships

sharing

(Prof. Vinita Mohindra, Dr. Azhar, Gender Communication: A Comparative Analysis

of Communicational Approaches of Men and Women at Workplaces, Sep-Oct. 2012)

On the other hand Men in corporate settings, talk to convey information and solve

problems. They focus on identifying goals, solving problems and do not shy away from

confrontation if their stand is threatened. They are usually assertive in most of their

conversations. They tend to interrupt others, have lesser inclination for listening to others.

They have clear ambitions of climbing the corporate ladder and make no qualms about that

in their conversational style.

My Critique of Tannen’s theory

According to Tannen, Conversations among girls and women focus on the connection dimension

and that among boys and men focus on the status dimension. It doesn’t mean that it is an either or

thing. It doesn’t mean that boys/men pay no attention to attention or that girls are not bothered

about their hierarchal status.

Connection and status are viewed as two axes; Connection along the horizontal direction and the

other one along the vertical direction. So if one thinks of the connection dimension as being a

continuum between close and distance, then that’s a horizontal axes, there’s also a vertical axis of

equality and hierarchy. Equality that the bottom and hierarchy at the top you can be anywhere on

the grid.

One need not be purely on an axis. One can be anywhere on the axes with a dominant attribute

relating to ones gender.

While Tannen’s theory takes the risk of stereotyping, one should try to look upon it as a framework

that can be used to learn and understand more about the opposite sex and thereby promote

positive change in cross cultural relationships. Relationships can be improved upon though better

understanding creating a better world to live in.

Bibliography:

Prof Vinita Mohindra, Dr. Samina Azhar , Gender Communication: A Comparative Analysis

of Communicational Approaches of Men and Women at Workplaces, Sep-Oct. 2012, PP 18-

27

Chrissy Coughlin, A Critique of the Genderlect Theory,

Retrieved from

http://www.modlinguistics.com/sociolinguistics/gender/Critique%20of%20Genderlect%20Th

eory.htm