genderlect theory

1. 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 –

2. 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

3.  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.

4. 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