In a well-organized essay of 4-6 pages, respond to the statements and questions listed below. Be sure to provide references and examples from the assigned readings (see below). You are responsible for the entirety of On the War for Greek Freedom and The Art of War. Since this is a take-home assignment, grammar, spelling, and the like will carry more weight in the computation of the final grade than is the case for an exam.Discuss the role conflict and warfare play in the two texts mentioned above. Your essay should present a definitive point-of-view (i.e. you should have a thesis argument). It is not acceptable to say that the texts are “similar and different”; rather, present a firm conclusion and demonstrate that it is a reasonable one based on your reading of the texts.In making your arguments, you must provide examples from the texts for support. Rather than using formal footnotes/endnotes, follow these instructions. At the end of a citation–either a complete quotation or a paraphrase (putting the author’s ideas into your own words)–place the author’s name and the page numbers in parentheses. For example, a quotation: “I really like to teach history.” (Beirich, 21); a paraphrase: Some people like to teach history. (Beirich, 21) These methods are used to teach you about the issue of plagiarism, and to show you that historians always try to attribute properly their sources. This is the idea: You cannot claim another’s ideas as your own. In addition, avoid quoting from the Introductions of the three works. The information contained in them is provided as background material only. Make your arguments from the texts themselves–there is more than enough information present for you to make realistic conclusions about the works. In addition, you are required to submit your paper electronically to turnitin.com by the deadline list on the course syllabus. Failure to do so will result in serious consequences at the instructor’s discretion, up to and including a grade of “F” for the assignment.Your essay should use a standard format: 12 font, double spaced, one inch margin. Be sure to proofread your paper carefully; spelling, grammar, and other issues related to proper presentation and usage are a significant part of this assignment. In addition, your paper must be presented to me as a hard copy, in class, on the day it is due, and you must submit it electronically to a turnitin assignment drop box on Moodle. Failure to follow both of these instructions will result in the paper grade not being recorded until they are completed. If you have any questions regarding topic, thesis argument, paper format, and/or presentation, please do not hesitate to ask. In most cases I can alleviate a concern before it becomes a problem, but you have to ask for help or make me aware of the situation ahead of time. Informing me of any and all issues near to or on the day the paper is due makes it extremely difficult for me to help you.
Gendered Interaction: Masculine and Feminine Styles
of Verbal Communication – by Julia T. Wood
Originally published in 1995.
Wood, Julia T. Gendered Interaction: Masculine and Feminine Styles of Verbal Communication.
20 May, 2009, personal.tcu.edu/pwitt/Wood.pdf.
Edited and revised by Dr. Dennis Given (12/19) for instructional purposes.
Introduction
Paragraph 1
Language not only expresses cultural views of gender, but it also constitutes gender identities; in other words, if the communication practices we use in our culture define us as masculine or feminine, then they also create differences between these gender identities. What may not be clear, however, is exactly what those differences are and what they imply. In the pages that follow, we will consider how we are socialized into feminine and masculine speech communities, how women and men typically communicate, the misinterpretations that can result, and finally, a few suggestions on how the problems that result can be solved.
Paragraph 2
Before doing so, it is important to offer the following caveat: in exploring the topic of gender, it is important to note the significance of the word typically and others that indicate we are discussing generalizable differences, not absolute ones. In other words, socialization can be rejected or even adapted by either gender.
The Lessons of Child-Play
Paragraph 3
We know that socialization is a process in which boys and girls are encouraged to develop masculine or feminine identities. Extending that understanding, we now explore how socialization creates gendered speech communities. One way to gain insight into how boys and girls learn norms of communication is to observe young children at play. In interactions with peers (boys with boys and girls with girls), boys and girls learn how to talk and how to interpret what their peers say; they discover how to signal their intentions with words and how to respond “appropriately” to their peers’. In short, interacting within their own speech community teaches children rules of communication – but only for their own genders.
Paragraph 4
Initial insight into the importance of children’s play in shaping patterns of communication came from a classic study by D.N. Maltz and R. Borker (1982). As they watched young children engaged in recreation, the researchers were struck by two observations: young children almost always play in sex-segregated groups, and girls and boys tend to play different kinds of games. Maltz and Borker found that boys’ games (football, baseball) and girls’ games (school, house, jump-rope) cultivate distinct understandings of communication and the rules by which each gender operates.
Boys’ Games
Paragraph 5
Boys’ games usually involve fairly large groups – nine individuals for each baseball team, for instance. Most boys’ games are competitive, have clear goals, and are organized by rules and roles that specify who does what and how to play. Because these games are structured by goals, rules, and roles, there is little need to discuss how to play, although there may be talk about strategies to reach goals. Maltz and Borker realized that in boys’ games, an individual’s status depends on standing out, being better, and often dominating other players. From these games, boys learn how to interact in their own communities. Specifically, boys’ games cultivate three communication rules:
Paragraph 6
These communication rules are consistent with other aspects of masculine socialization. For instance, notice the emphasis on individuality and competition. Also, we see that these rules accent achievement – doing something, accomplishing a goal. Boys learn they must do things to be valued members of the team. It’s also the case that intensely close, personal relationships are unlikely to be formed in large groups. Finally, we see the undercurrent of masculinity’s emphasis on being invulnerable and guarded: if others are the competition from whom we must seize center stage, then we cannot let them know too much about ourselves and our weaknesses.
Girls’ Games
Paragraph 7
Turning now to girls’ games, we find that quite different patterns exist, and they lead to distinctive understandings of communication. Girls tend to play in pairs or in very small groups rather than large ones. Also, games like house and school do not have preset, clear-cut goals, rules, and roles. There is no analogy for the touchdown in playing house; in other words, [there is no competition and nothing to win]. Because girls’ games are not structured externally, players have to talk among themselves to decide what they’re doing and what roles they have. Playing house, for instance, typically begins with a discussion about who is going to be the daddy and who the mommy. This is typical of the patterns girls use to generate rules and roles for their games. The lack of stipulated goals for the game is also important, since it tends to cultivate in girls an interest in the process of interaction more than its products. For their games to work, girls have to cooperate and work out problems by talking. No external rules exist to settle disputes. From these games, Maltz and Borker noted, girls learn normative communication patterns of their speech communities. Specifically, girls’ games teach three basic rules of communication:
Paragraph 8
These basic understandings of communication echo and reinforce other aspects of feminine socialization. Girls’ games stress cooperation, collaboration, and sensitivity to others’ feelings. Also notice the focus on process encouraged in girls’ games. Rather than interacting to achieve some outcome, girls learn that communication itself is the goal. Whereas boys learn they have to do something to be valuable, the lesson for girls is to be. Their worth depends on being good people, which is defined by being cooperative, inclusive, and sensitive. The lessons of child’s play are carried forward. In fact, the basic rules of communication that adult women and men employ turn out to be only refined and elaborated versions of the very same ones evident in girls’ and boys’ childhood games.
Gendered Communication Practices
Paragraph 9
In her popular book, You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Communication, linguist Deborah Tannen (1990b p. 42) declares that “communication between men and women can be like cross-cultural communication, [it often falls] prey to a clash of conversational styles.” Her study of men’s and women’s talk led her to identify distinctions between the speech communities typical of women and men. Like other scholars (Bate 1988; Hall & Langellier 1988; Kramarae 1981; Treichler & Kramarae 1983; Wood 1993a), Tannen believes that women and men typically engage in distinctive styles of communication with different purposes, rules, and understandings of how to interpret talk. We will consider features of women’s and men’s speech identified by a number of researchers. As we do, we will discover some of the complications that arise when women and men operate by different rules in conversations with each other.
Women’s Speech
Paragraph 10
For most women, communication is a primary way to establish and maintain relationships with others. They engage in conversation to share themselves and to learn about others. This is an important point: for women, talk is the essence of relationships. Consistent with this primary goal, women’s speech tends to display identifiable features that foster connections, support, closeness, and understanding.
Paragraph 11
Equality between people is generally important in women’s communication (Aries 1987). To achieve symmetry, women often match experiences to indicate “You’re not alone in how you feel.” Typical ways to communicate equality would be saying, “I’ve done the same things many times,” “Something like that happened to me too and I felt like you do.” Growing out of the quest for equality is a participatory mode of interaction in which communicators respond to and build on each other’s ideas in the process of conversing (Hall & Langellier 1988). Rather than a rigid you-tell-your-ideas-then-I’ll-tell-mine sequence, women’s speech more characteristically follows an interactive pattern in which different voices weave together to create conversations.
Paragraph 12
Also important in women’s speech is showing support for others. To demonstrate support, women often express understanding and sympathy with a friend’s situation or feelings. “Oh, you must feel terrible,” “I really hear what you are saying,” or “I think you did the right thing” are communicative clues that we understand and support how another feels. Related to these first two features is women’s typical attention to the relationship between communicators rather than on the content of messages. In conversations between women, it is common to hear a number of questions that probe for greater understanding of feelings and perceptions surrounding the subject of talk (Beck 1988 p. 104; Tannen 1990b). “Tell me more about what happened,” “How did you feel when it occurred?” “Do you think it was deliberate?” “How does this fit into the overall relationship?” are probes that help a listener understand a speaker’s perspective. The content of talk is dealt with, but usually not without serious attention to the feelings involved.
Paragraph 13
A fourth feature of women’s speech style is conversational “maintenance work” (Beck 1988; Fishman 1978). This involves efforts to sustain conversation by inviting others to speak and by prompting them to elaborate on their experiences. Women, for instance, ask a number of questions that initiate topics for others: “How was your day?” Tell me about your meeting,” Did anything interesting happen on your trip?” “What do you think of the candidates this year?” Communication of this sort opens the conversational door to others and maintains interaction.
Paragraph 14
Inclusivity also surfaces in a fifth quality of women’s talk, which is responsiveness (Beck 1988: Tannen 1990a; 1990b; Wood 1993a). Women usually respond in some fashion to what others say. A woman might say “Tell me more” or “That’s interesting”; perhaps she will nod and use eye contact to signal she is engaged; perhaps she will ask a question such as “Can you explain what you mean?” Responsiveness reflects learned tendencies to care about others and to make them feel valued and included (Kemper 1984; Lakoff 1975). It affirms another person and encourages collaboration by showing interest in what was said.
Paragraph 15
A sixth quality of women’s talk is personal, concrete style (Campbell 1973; Hall & Langellier 1988; Tannen 1990b). Typical of women’s conversation are details, personal disclosures, anecdotes, and concrete reasoning. These features cultivate a personal tone in women’s communication, and they facilitate feelings of closeness by connecting communicator’s lives. The detailed, concrete emphasis prevalent in women’s talk also clarifies issues and feelings so that communicators are able to understand and identify with each other. Thus, the personal character of much of women’s interactions sustains interpersonal closeness.
Paragraph 16
A final feature of women’s speech is tentativeness. This may be expressed in a number of forms. Sometimes women use verbal hedges such as “I kind of feel you may be overreacting.” In other situations they qualify statements by saying “I’m probably not the best judge of this, but …” Another way to keep talk provisional is to tag a question onto a statement in a way that invites another to respond: “That was a pretty good movie, wasn’t it?” “We should get out this weekend, don’t you think?” Tentative communication leaves open the door for others to respond and express their opinions.
Paragraph 17
There has been controversy about tentativeness in women’s speech. R. Lakoff (1975), who first noted that women use more hedges, qualifiers, and tag questions than men, claimed these represent lack of confidence and uncertainty. Calling women’s speech powerless, Lakoff argued that it reflects women’s socialization into subordinate roles and low self-esteem. Since Lakoff’s work, however, other scholars (Bate 1988; Wood & Lenze 1991b) have suggested different explanations of women’s tentative style of speaking. Dale Spender (1984a), in particular, points out that Lakoff’s judgments of the inferiority of women’s speech were based on using male speech as the standard, which does not recognize the distinct validity of different speech communities. Rather than reflecting powerlessness, the use of hedges, qualifiers, and tag questions may express women’s desire to keep conversation open and to include others. It is much easier to jump into a conversation that has not been sealed with absolute, firm statements. A tentative style of speaking supports women’s general desire to create equality and include others. It is important to realize, however, that people outside of the women’s speech community may misinterpret women’s intentions in using tentative communication.
Men’s Speech
Paragraph 18
Masculine speech communities define the goals of talk as exerting control, preserving independence, and enhancing status. Conversation is an arena for proving oneself and negotiating prestige. This leads to two general tendencies in men’s communication. First, men often talk to establish and defend their personal status and their ideas, by asserting themselves and/or by challenging others. Second, when they wish to comfort or support another, they typically do so by respecting the other’s independence and avoiding communication they regard as condescending (Tannen 1990b). These tendencies will be more clear as we review specific features of masculine talk.
Paragraph 19
To establish their own status and value, men often speak to exhibit knowledge, skill or ability. Equally typical is the tendency to avoid disclosing personal information that might make a man appear weak or vulnerable (Derlega & Chaiken 1976; Lewis & McCarthy 1988; Saurer & Eisler 1990). For instance, if someone expresses concern about a relationship with a boyfriend, a man might say “The way you should handle that is …,” “Don’t let him get to you,” or “You ought to just tell him …” This illustrates the tendency to give advice that Tannen reports is common in men. First, it focuses on instrumental activity – what another should do or be – and does not acknowledge feelings. Second, it expresses superiority and maintains control. It says “I know what you should do” or “I would know how to handle that.” The message may be perceived as implying the speaker is superior to the other person. Between men, advice giving seems understood as give-and-take, but it may be interpreted as unfeeling and condescending by women whose rules for communicating differ.
Paragraph 20
A second prominent feature of men’s talk is instrumentality – the use of speech to accomplish instrumental objectives. As we have seen, men are socialized to do things, achieve goals (Bellinger & Gleason 1982). In conversation, this is often expressed through problem-solving efforts that focus on getting information, discovering facts, and suggesting solutions. Again, between men this is usually a comfortable orientation, since both speakers have typically been socialized to value instrumentality. However, conversations between women and men are often derailed by the lack of agreement on what this informational, instrumental focus means. To many women it feels as if men don’t care about their feelings. When a man focuses on the content level of meaning after a woman has disclosed a problem, she may feel he is disregarding her emotions and concerns. He, on the other hand, may well be trying to support her in the way that he has learned to show support – suggesting ways to solve the problem.
Paragraph 21
A third feature of men’s communication is conversational dominance. Despite jokes about women’s talkativeness, research indicates that in most contexts, men not only hold their own but dominate the conversation. This tendency, although not present in infancy, is evident in preschoolers (Austin, Salehi & Leffler 1987). Compared with girls and women, boys and men talk more frequently (Eakins & Eakins 1976; Thorne & Henley 1975) and for longer periods of time (Aries 1987; Eakins & Eakins 1976; Kramare 1981: Thorne & Henley 1975). Further, men engage in other verbal behaviors that sustain conversational dominance. They may reroute conversations by using what another said as a jumping-off point for their own topic, or they may interrupt. While both sexes engage in interruptions, most research suggests that men do it more frequently (Beck 1988; Mulac, Wiemann, Widenmann & Gibson 1988; West & Zimmerman 1983). Not only do men seem to interrupt more than women, but they do so for different reasons. L.P. Stewart and her colleagues (1990 p. 51) suggest that men use interruptions to control conversation by challenging other speakers or wresting the talk stage from them, while women interrupt to indicate interest and to respond. This interpretation is shared by a number of scholars who note that women use interruptions to show support, encourage elaborations, and affirm others (Aleguire 1978; Aries 1987; Mulac et al. 1988).
Paragraph 22
Fourth, men tend to express themselves in fairly absolute, assertive ways. Compared with women, their language is typically more forceful, direct, and authoritative (Beck 1988; Eakins & Eakins 1978; Stewart et al. 1990; Tannen 1990a 1990b). Tentative speech such as hedges and disclaimers is used less frequently by men than women. This is consistent with gender socialization in which men learn to use talk to assert themselves and to take and hold positions. However, when another person does not share that understanding of communication, speech that is absolute and directive may seem to close off conversation and leave no room for others to speak.
Paragraph 23
Fifth, compared with women, men communicate more abstractly. They frequently speak in general terms that are removed from concrete experiences and distanced from personal feelings (Schaef 1981; Treichler & Kramarae 1983). The abstract style of men’s speech reflects the public and impersonal contexts in which they often operate and the less personal emphasis in their speech communities. Within public environments, norms for speaking call for theoretical, conceptual, and general thought and communication. Yet, within more personal relationships, abstract talk sometimes creates barriers to knowing another intimately.
Paragraph 24
Finally, men’s speech tends not be highly responsive, especially not on the relationship level of communication (Beck 1988; Wood 1993a). Men, more than women, give what are called “minimal response cues” (Parlee 1979), which are verbalizations such as “yeah” or “umhmm.” In interaction with women, who have learned to demonstrate interest more vigorously, minimal response cues generally inhibit conversation because they are perceived as indicating lack of involvement (Fishman 1978; Stewart et al. 1990). Another way in which men’s conversation is generally less relationally responsive than women’s is lack of expressed sympathy and understanding and lack of self-disclosures (Sauer & Eisler 1990). Within the rules of men’s speech communities, sympathy is a sign of condescension, and revealing personal problems is seen as making one vulnerable. Yet women’s speech rules count sympathy and disclosure as demonstrations of equality and support. This creates potential for misunderstanding between women and men.
Misinterpretations Between Women and Men
Paragraph 25
In this third section, we explore what happens when men and women talk, each operating out of a distinctive speech community. In describing features typical of each gender’s talk, we already have noted differences that provide fertile ground for misunderstandings. We now consider several examples of recurrent misinterpretations between women and men.
Showing Support
Paragraph 26
The scene is a private conversation between Martha and George. She tells him she is worried about her friend. George gives a minimum response cue, saying only “Oh. To Martha this suggests he isn’t interested, since women make and expect more of what D. Tannen (1986) calls “listening noises” to signal interest. Yet, as Tannen (1986; 1990b) and A. Beck (1988) note, George is probably thinking if she wants to tell him something she will, since his rules of speech emphasize using talk to assert oneself (Bellinger & Gleason 1982). Even without much encouragement, Martha continues by describing the tensions in her friend’s marriage and her own concern about how she can help. She says, “I feel so bad for Barbara, and I want to help her, but I don’t know what to do.” George then says, “It’s their problem, not yours. Just butt out and let them settle their own relationship.” At this, Martha explodes, “Who asked for your advice?” George is now completely frustrated and confused. He thought Martha wanted advice, so he gave it. She is hurt that George didn’t tune into her feelings and comfort her about her worries. Each is annoyed and unhappy.
Paragraph 27
The problem here is not so much what George and Martha say and don’t say. Rather, it’s how they interpret each other’s communication – actually, how they misinterpret it, because each relies on rules that are not familiar to the other. They fail to understand that each is operating by different rules of talk. George is respecting Martha’s independence by not pushing her to talk. When he thinks she directly requests advice, he offers it in an effort to help. Martha, on the other hand, wants comfort and a connection with George – that is her purpose in talking with him. She finds his advice unwelcome and dismissive of her feelings. He doesn’t offer sympathy, because his rules for communication define this as condescending. Yet within Martha’s speech community, not to show sympathy is to be unfeeling and unresponsive.
“Trouble Talk”
Paragraph 28
Tannen (1990b) identifies talk about troubles, or personal problems, as a kind of interaction in which hurt feelings may result from the contrast between most men’s and women’s rules of communication. A woman might tell her partner that she is feeling down because she did not get a job she wanted. In an effort to be supportive, he might respond by saying, “You shouldn’t feel bad. Lots of people don’t get jobs they want.” To her this seems to dismiss her feelings – to belittle them by saying lots of people experience her situation. Yet within masculine speech communities, this is a way of showing respect for another by not assuming that he or she needs sympathy.
Paragraph 29
Now let’s turn the tables and see what happens when a man feels troubled. When he meets Nancy, Craig is unusually quiet because he feels down about not getting a job offer. Sensing that something is wrong, Nancy tries to show interest by asking, “Are you ok? What’s bothering you?” Craig feels she is imposing and trying to get him to show a vulnerability he prefers to keep to himself. Nancy probes further to show she cares. As a result, he feels intruded on and withdraws further. Then Nancy feels shut out.
Paragraph 30
But perhaps Craig does decide to tell Nancy why he feels down. After hearing about his rejection letter, Nancy says, “I know how you feel. I felt so low when I didn’t get that position at Datanet.” She is matching experiences to show Craig that she understands his feelings and he’s not alone. Within his communication rules, however, this is demeaning his situation by focusing on her, not him. When Nancy mentions her own experience, Craig thinks she is trying to steal the center stage for herself. Within his speech community, that is one way men vie for dominance and attention. Yet Nancy has learned to share similar experiences as a way to build connections with others.
The Point of the Story
Paragraph 31
Another instance in which feminine and masculine communication rules often clash and cause problems is in relating experiences. Typically, men have learned to speak in a linear manner in which they move sequentially through major points in a story to get to the climax. Their talk tends to be straightforward without a great many details. The rules of feminine speech, however, call for more detailed and less linear storytelling. Whereas a man is likely to provide bare information about what happened, a woman is more likely to embed the information within a larger context of people involved and other things going on. Women include details not because all of the specifics are important in themselves but because recounting them shows involvement and allows a conversational partner to be more fully part of the situation being described.
Paragraph 32
Because feminine and masculine rules about details differ, men often find women’s ways of telling stories wandering and unfocused. Conversely, men’s style of storytelling may strike women as leaving out all of the interesting details. Many a discussion between women and men has ended either with his exasperated demand, “Can’t you get to the point?” or with her frustrated question, “Why don’t you tell me how you were feeling and what else was going on?” She wants more details than his rules call for; he is interested in fewer details than she has learned to supply.
Relationship Talk
Paragraph 33
“Can we talk about us?” is the opening of innumerable conversations that end in misunderstanding and hurt. As Tannen (1986) noted in an earlier book, That’s Not What I Meant, men and women tend to have very different ideas about what it means to talk about relationships. In general, men are inclined to think a relationship is going fine as long as there is no need to talk about it. They are interested in discussing the relationship only if there are particular problems to be addressed. In contrast, women generally think a relationship is working well as long as they can talk about it with their partners. The difference here grows out of the fact that men tend to use communication to do things and solve problems, while women generally regard the process of communicating as a primary way to create and sustain relationships with others. For many women, conversation is a way to be with another person – to affirm and enhance closeness. Men’s different rules stipulate that communication is to achieve some goal or fix some problem. No wonder men often duck when their partners want to “discuss the relationship,” and women often feel a relationship is in trouble when their partners are unwilling to talk about it.
Moving Toward Solutions: A Conclusion
Being Androgynous
Paragraph 34
In conclusion, research (Sollie & Fisher 1985) suggests that women and men who are “androgynous” are more flexible communicators, who are able to engage comfortably in both masculine and feminine styles of speech. The breadth of their communicative competence enhances the range of situations in which they can be effective in achieving various goals.
Being Bilingual
Paragraph 35
In relation to learning about different speech rules, many couples find they can improve their communication. Each partner has become bilingual, and so communication between them is smoother and more satisfying. When partners understand how to interpret each other’s rules, they are less likely to misread motives. In addition, they learn how to speak the other’s language, which means women and men become more gratifying conversational partners for each other, and they can enhance the quality of their relationships.
Works Cited
Aleguire, D. G. (1978). Interruptions as turn-taking. Paper presented at the International
Sociological Association Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala University,
Sweeden.
Aries, E. (1987). Gender and Communication. In P. Sharver, A., & C. Hendricks (Eds.) Sex and
gender (pp. 149-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Austin, A.M.B., Salehi, M., & Leffler, A. (1987). Gender and developmental differences in
children’s conversations. Sex Roles, 16, 497-510.
Bate, B. (1988). Communication between the sexes. New York: Harper and Row.
Beck, A.T. (1988). Love is never enough. New York: Harper and Row.
Bellinger, D.C., & Gleason, J.B. (1982) Sex differences in parental directives to young children.
Sex Roles, 8, 1123-1139.
Campbell, K.K. (1973). The rhetoric of women’s liberation: An oxymoron. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 59, 74-86.
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language: Studies in language and linguistics. London:
Longman.
Coates, J., & Cameron D. (1989). Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on
language and sex. London: Longman.
Derlega, V.J., & Chaliken, A.L. (1976). Norms affecting self-disclosure in men and women.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 376-380.
Eakins, B., & Eakins, G. (1976). Verbal turn-taking and exchanges in faculty dialogue. In B. L.
Du Bois & I. Crouch (Eds.), Papers in southwest English: IV. Proceedings of the
conference on the sociology of the languages of American women (pp. 53-62). San
Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
Eakins, B.W., & Eakins, R.G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Fishman, P.M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
Hall, D., & Langellier, K. (1988). Story-telling strategies in mother-daughter communication. In
226). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Johnson, F.L. (1989). Women’s culture and communication: An analytical perspective. In C.M.
Lont & S.A. Friedly (Eds.), Beyond Boundaries: Sex and gender diversity in
communication (pp. 301-316). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Kemper, S. (1984). When to speak like a lady. Sex Roles, 10, 435-443.
Kramarae, C. (1984). Women and men speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Langer, S.K. (1953). Feeling and form: A theory of art. New York: Scribners.
Langer, S.K. (1979). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite and art
(3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, E.T., & McCarthy, P.R. (1988). Perceptions of self-disclosure as a function of gender-
linked variable. Sex Roles, 19, 47-56.
Maltz, D.N., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.J.
Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J.M., Widenmann, S.J., & Gibson, T.W. (1988). Male/female differences
and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect.
Communication Monographs, 55, 315-335.
Parlee, M.B. (1979). Conversational politics. Psychology Today, pp. 48-56.
Saurer, M.K., & Eisler, R.M. (1990). The role of masculine gender roles stress in expressivity
and social support network factors. Sex Roles, 23, 261-271.
Schaf, A.W. (1981). Women’s reality. St. Paul, MN: Winston Press.
Sollie, D.L. & Fischer, J.L (1985). Sex-role orientation, intimacy of topic, and target person
differences in self-disclosure among women. Sex Roles, 12, 917-929.
Spender, D. (1984a). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stewart, L.P., Steward, A.D., Friedly, S.A., & Cooper, P.J. (1990). Communication between the
sexes: Sex differences, and sex role stereotypes (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-
Scarisbrick.
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks
relationships. New York: Ballantine.
Tannen, D. (1990a). Gender differences in conversational coherence: Physical alignment and
topical cohesion. In B. Dorval (Ed). Conversational organization and its development.
(Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 167-206. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. (1990b). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
William Morrow.
Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Treichler, P.A., & Kramarae, C. (1983). Women’s talk in the ivory tower. Communication
Quarterly, 31, 118-132.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex
conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley
(Eds.). Language, gender and society (pp. 102-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wood, J.T. (1993a). Engendered relationships: Interaction, caring, power, and responsibility in
close relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Process in close relationships: Contexts of close
relationships (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wood, J.T. (1993b). Engendered identities: Shaping voice and mind through gender. In D.
Vocate (Ed.), Intrapersonal communication: Different voices, different minds. Hillside,
NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
Wood, J.T., & Inman, C. (1993, August). In a different mode: Recognizing male modes of
closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research.
Wood, J.T., & Lenze, L.F. (1991b). Gender and the development of self: Inclusive pedagogy in
interpersonal communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 14, 1-23.
Economic Debate- Progressive Income Tax For this Economic Debate, we are going to discuss the…
TOPIC: Going Global Discussion Thread 1 (initial post due Wednesday for full credit) Please note:…
Assignment Topic This week will culminate in the creation of a narrated PowerPoint to create…
The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder. Assignments submitted…
you need to post your 2-page information flier to share with your Final Project Group.…
discussion: Discuss the methods used at your company to measure and ensure quality products and…