Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis. An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences

Abstract

This investigation provided a test of the gender-as-culture, or "two cultures," hypothesis proposed by Maltz and Borker (1982) to explain male/female differences in language use. Analysis of previous empirical investigations located 16 language features that had consistently been shown to indicate communicator gender and these were tested within the framework of the four dimensions of intercultural style proposed by Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988): direct versus indirect, succinct versus elaborate, personal versus contextual, and instrumental versus affective. Study 1 provided preliminary evidence supporting the hypothesized language-feature-by-dimension relationships (e.g., male directives were rated more direct and female uncertainty verbs more indirect). In Study 2, respondents rated multiple exemplars of the 16 language features, as well as 16 contrasting foil sentences, on all four dimensions, finding that nearly all of the variables fell on the hypothesized intercultural dimensions. In Study 3, respondents rated four sets of naturally occurring target sentences and matching foil sentences, representing all language variables, on their appropriate intercultural dimensions in order to establish dimensional polarity. Results across the three studies supported the hypothesized language feature-by-stylistic dimension relationships for 15 of the 16 variables: The 6 male language features were rated as more direct, succinct, personal, and instrumental, whereas 9 of the 10 female features were perceived as more indirect, elaborate, and affective. The findings demonstrate that gender preferences for language use function in ways that are consistent with stylistic preferences that distinguish national cultures.

The Use of Interactional Metadiscourse in the Construction of Gender Identities among Malaysian ESL Learners

“…Male learners' preference for the pronoun you, seems to position them higher than the reader; evoking a sense of authority and dominance. This is a communication style often associated with men, who, according to researchers, use language to enhance social dominance (Leaper 1991, Mulac, Bradac & Gibbons 2001. On the contrary, female writers' preference for the inclusive we builds a rapport with the reader and puts them at one with the reader.…”

“…The former has the tendency to transmit a sense of togetherness and cooperation by equating themselves in their arguments (Mason 1994), while the latter seems to project an aura of dominance and authority by separating themselves from the reader (Leaper 1991, Mulac, Bradac & Gibbons 2001 As summarised in Table 5, only four key hedges were most often employed by learners, and they include should, would, may and most. Asian learners in general are very cautious and indirect in expressing their opinions (Ahmad 1995); thus, modals such as should, would and may would be common occurrences in their writing.…”

Power, Dominance and Homosocial Solidarity in Young Men’s Cyber Talk

“…Mehl and Pennebaker (2003) found that men use a lot of articles in their language, they employ a lot of swear words, prefer to use large and long words (6 characters and above) and prefer to show their anger instead of hiding it. Mulac, Bradac, and Gibbons (2001) reviewed and analysed more than 30 studies, and proposed a list of systematic ways of distinguishing language features according to gender preferences. Some details are given as follows:…”

“…Sample 6 and 11 turned out as sarcastic jokes. Some elements of directive language (Mulac, Bradac & Gibbons 2001) were traced in Sample 3 (in Table 8) and Sample 8. In Sample 3, Participant 9 (P9) insisted on getting the information from his friend while Sample 8 shows how Participant 20 (P20) insisted his friend to trust his decision and action.…”

Gender differences in the language of the Map Task dialogues

“…That the context of the data source can influence gender discriminability is not evidence against the "gender as culture" hypothesis (see [5]); however, this depends on the granularity of context circumscription. Where reversal of a gender effect is conditioned on context, it could be that the context has culturally salient properties.…”