A pilot study on gender differences in conversational speech on lexical in richness measures

Abstract

Recent research on gender differences in language has mostly addressed cognitive differences. These differences have been observed on different cognitive verbal and nonverbal tasks and conclusions on the variability in language production and comprehension have been drawn from their results. In this paper, a different approach is presented. This pilot study examines lexical richness measures in conversational speech across a total of thirty subjects. All subjects were recorded and transcribed in a conversational setting. Their transcribed speech was analyzed using a set of lexical richness measures based on word-frequencies. On the basis of these measurements, statistical discriminant analysis is able to classify the two groups with 90% (74% with leave-one-out cross-validation) correct prediction rate at a statistically significant level (p = .03). The results are discussed in detail including correlation and principal components analysis. The paper concludes that there are interesting differences across the two groups on the measures studied and further research in this area is needed. 1. Gender differences Research on gender differences related to language has mainly focused on cognitive functions. For example, recent papers have studied a variety of differences as for young school children (

Core-Lexicon and Main-Concept Production During Picture-Sequence Description in Adults Without Brain Damage and Adults With Aphasia

“…However, these CoreLex results should be interpreted with caution-no attempts were made in this analysis to match for age, gender, or education across groups. It is possible that these person variables could lead to differences in lemma selection (e.g., Kavé, Samuel-Enoch, & Adiv, 2009;Singh, 2001) and could thus be a potential contributor to these group differences. A strength of this study is that we used a picture-description task that is highly constrained, and therefore lexical selection is also likely constrained across person variables (E. Armstrong, 2000;Capilouto et al, 2005;Newman, Groom, Handelman, & Pennebaker, 2008;Ulatowska et al, 2003).…”

Gender and discourse, gender and categorization: current developments in language and gender research

“…See, for example, Bayard and Krishnayya (2001); Beeching (2002); Colley and Todd (2002); Singh (2001).…”

Classifying latent user attributes in twitter

“…Early computational models for detecting gender from text were primarily interested in formal text (E.g., Singh [13] and Herring and Paolillo [8]) although standard-prose blogs were considered in later works (Burger and Henderson [3]; Nowson and Oberlander [12]). …”