Chapter Outline 9th Edition
- Introduction.
- Deborah Tannen argues that male-female communication is cross-cultural.
- Miscommunication between men and women is both common and insidious because the parties usually don’t realize that the encounters are cross-cultural.
- Tannen’s writing underscores the mutually alien nature of male and female conversation styles.
- Tannen’s approach departs from much feminist scholarship that claims that conversations between men and women reflect male domination.
- She assumes that male and female conversational styles are equally valid.
- The term genderlect suggests that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking.
- At the risk of reinforcing a reductive biological determinism, Tannen insists that there are gender differences in the ways we speak.
- Women’s desire for connection versus men’s desire for status.
- More than anything else, women seek human connection.
- Men are concerned mainly with status.
- Tannen does not believe that men and women seek only status and connection, respectively, but these are their primary goals.
- Rapport talk versus report talk.
- Julia Wood thinks that Tannen’s observations have merit and that the connection-status distinction is evident even in childhood.
- Public speaking versus private speaking.
- Women talk more than men in private conversations.
- In the public arena, men vie for ascendancy and speak much more than women.
- Men assume a lecture style to establish a “one-up” position, command attention, convey information, and insist on agreement.
- Men’s monologue style is appropriate for report, but not for rapport.
- Girls learn to involve others in conversations while boys learn to use communication to assert their own ideas and draw attention to themselves.
- Telling a story.
- Men tell more stories and jokes than do women.
- Telling jokes is a masculine way to negotiate status.
- Men are the heroes in their own stories.
- When women tell stories, they downplay themselves.
- Listening.
- Women show attentiveness through verbal and nonverbal cues.
- Men may avoid these cues to keep from appearing “one-down.”
- A woman interrupts to show agreement, to give support, or to supply what she thinks the speaker will say (a cooperative overlap).
- Men regard any interruption as a power move.
- Asking questions.
- Tannen thinks that men and women also annoy each other with their different ways of asking questions—or of not asking them.
- Men don’t ask for help because it exposes their ignorance.
- Women ask questions to establish a connection with others.
- When women state their opinions, they often use tag questions to soften the sting of potential disagreement and to invite participation in open, friendly dialogue.
- Conflict.
- Men usually initiate and are more comfortable with conflict.
- To women, conflict is a threat to connection to be avoided at all costs.
- Men are extremely wary about being told what to do.
- Nonverbal communication.
- Curiously, Tannen doesn’t extend the connection-status distinction to the ways in which men and women communicate nonverbally.
- Susan Pease Gadoua, a licensed marriage counselor with a column in Psychology Today magazine, finds it difficult to analyze the way men and women talk to each other without also including the nonverbal component.
- Men and women grow up in different speech communities
- Tannen concluded that the origins of speaking in genderlect must be traced back to early childhood.
- Linguists and communication scholars refer to the segregated groups to which boys and girls belong as speech communities.
- The differences that Tannen sees between the speech between adult males and females have their roots in the early socialization of children.
- “Now you’re beginning to understand.”
- Tannen believes that both men and women need to learn how to adopt the other’s voice.
- However, she expresses only guarded hope that men and women will alter their linguistic styles.
- She has more confidence in the benefits of multicultural understanding between men and women.
- Ethical reflection: Gilligan’s different voice.
- Gilligan claims that women tend to think and speak in an ethical voice different from men.
- She believes men seek autonomy and think in terms of justice; women desire linkage and think in terms of care.
- Men’s justice is impersonal; women’s is contextual.
- Though more descriptive than prescriptive, the underlying assumption is that the way things are reflects the way things ought to be.
- Gilligan’s theory suggests different ethics for different groups.
- Critique: Is Tannen soft on research and men?
- Tannen suggests we use the “aha factor”—a subjective standard of validity—to test her truth claims.
- Tannen’s analysis of common misunderstandings between men and women has struck a chord with millions of readers and mental health care professionals.
- Critics suggest that selective data may be the only way to support a reductionist claim that women are one way and men another.
- Tannen’s intimacy/independence dichotomy echoes one of Baxter and Montgomery’s tensions, but it suggests none of the ongoing complexity of human existence that relational dialectics describes.
- Tannen’s assertions about male and female styles run the risk of becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.
- Adrianne Kunkel and Brant Burleson challenge the different cultures perspective that is at the heart of Tannen’s genderlect theory, citing their work on comforting as equally valuable to both sexes.
- Senta Troemel-Ploetz accuses Tannen of ignoring issues of male dominance, control, power, sexism, discrimination, sexual harassment, and verbal insults.
- You cannot omit issues of power from communication.
- Men understand what women want but give it only when it suits them.
- Tannen’s theory should be tested to see if men who read her book talk more empathetically with their wives.
>