Language, Gender Salience, and Social Influence

Reid, Scott A.; Keerie, Natasha; Palomares, Nicholas A.

doi:10.1177/0261927x03022002004

Cited by 67 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Carli (1990) found that tentative speakers, regardless of their gender, received lower ratings on power, competence, and intelligence than direct individuals. On the other hand, tentative language can be beneficial for communicators: Reid et al (2003), for example, showed that under certain conditions tentative women were more persuasive with men than direct women were, even though men judged tentative women less favorably. Tentative language is particularly significant in computer-mediated communication (CMC), such as e-mail, wherein social cues are limited (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Are Sort of More Tentative Than Men, Aren't They?

Palomares

2009

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on self-categorization theory's explanation for gender-based language use, male and female participants sent e-mail on a masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral topic to an ostensible male or female recipient (i.e., intergroup or intragroup dyads). As predicted, the topic affected if and how men and women used tentative language differently: For masculine topics, traditional gender differences emerged (i.e., women were more tentative than men) in intergroup, but not intragroup, contexts; for feminine topics, differences were counterstereotypical (i.e., men were more tentative than women) in intergroup contexts only; and for a gender-neutral topic, no differences resulted in either intra-or intergroup contexts. Moreover, gender salience partially mediated these effects in intergroup interactions only: Topic affected tentative language through gender salience in the mixed-sex condition (i.e., a conditional indirect effect).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Are Sort of More Tentative Than Men, Aren't They?

Palomares

2009

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of witnesses speaking in a typically female or male, rich or poor, or educated or uneducated style, they might use a common courtroom style. This was observed by Reid et al (2003) who found that women used more ten tative language in discussions where gender had been made salient compared to low gender salience discussions where instead student identity was salient. In the latter situations, men and women used about the same amount of tentative language.…”

Section: Support For the Main Hypotheses?mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…In these contexts, the institutional roles, in this case the role of witness, are so powerful and standardised and include so many requirements and expectations that they overrule gender roles. Therefore, following Reid et al (2003), these contexts do not produce any gender-based language differences or at least very subtle ones requir ing a large material to detect them. An infl uential factor therefore in stead becomes whether a witness has previous experience from testifying or otherwise is familiar with the courtroom context, i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Male and Female Witnesses' Speech in Swedish Criminal Trials

Waara¹,

Shaw

2017

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present quantitative study focuses on witnesses' speech in Swedish criminal trials, more specifi cally on potential differences between men's and women's language styles. Since the 1970s, research on language and gender has been divided into three main approaches towards the relationship between men's and women's language use: the defi cit approach, the dominance approach and the cultural approach. The present study uses the more recent dynamic approach to show how gender is acted out in each situation taking into account a number of factors, e.g. context. The aim of our work is fi rst and foremost to study the possible correlation between the witnesses' gender and language in the courtroom context and then to investigate if income and/or level of education provide better explanations for possible variation by looking at a broad range of linguistic variables. The results show no statistically signifi cant gender or social status differences in the witnesses' speech. However, when comparing the results of the testifying police offi cers accidentally included in the study with the rest of the witnesses, the differences turned out to be signifi cant. This shows that, in this case, factors such as previous courtroom experience and familiarity with the context were probably more infl uential on the speech of the informants than gender, income and education, in conformity with the assumptions of the dynamic approach.

show abstract

“…Examinations of apologies-which some have construed as an indicator of politeness and a feminine language style (Herring, 1993;Lakoff, 1975)-have yielded a similarly diverse array of differences and similarities between men and women (O'Neill & Colley, 2006;Savicki, Lingenfelter, Kelley, 1996;Tannen, 1990;Thomson, 2006). Tentative language signals uncertainty, is typically associated with women (Herring, 1993;Lakoff, 1975), and like apologies and references to emotion is contextually dependent (Brouwer, Gerritsen, & De Haan, 1979;Carli, 1990;Palomares, 2008Palomares, , 2009S. A. Reid, Keerie, & Palomares, 2003;Tannen, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Homeopathic Characters Violate Cooperative Principles Differently

Darighgoftar

Ghaffari²

2012

IJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alongside differences from language to language, there are so many diversities in use of a single language by its speakers. This study was designed to determine whether there is any difference between speakers' ways of violating Gricean maxims according to homeopathy classifications. Pragmatics studies of a language deals with these variations. Considering human being complexities reflected in behavior and language, these kinds of study can be so variable. Discourse analysis is one of the ways to illustrate the differences both in language use and ideologies of speakers, and it is claimed that gender is a significant factor in talking differently. Cooperative Priciples introduced by Grice (1975) are used to analyze the data in the present research to illustrate the human different ways to use language. Data of the research is transcription of patients' talk in consulting sessions, who are under homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy as a new method of treatment is a whole medical system in which disorder or disturbance of the dynamis is called sickness. There are 15 widespread homeopathic characters, from which Natrum Muraticum and Sulfur are chosen for the sake of this research. After analyzing their language by means of Gricean Maxims it is concluded that the differenciating element in violating the maxims is being different homeopathic characters, not gender differences.

show abstract

Language, Gender Salience, and Social Influence

Cited by 67 publications

References 28 publications

Women Are Sort of More Tentative Than Men, Aren't They?

Women Are Sort of More Tentative Than Men, Aren't They?

Male and Female Witnesses' Speech in Swedish Criminal Trials

Different Homeopathic Characters Violate Cooperative Principles Differently

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About