Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 545–559 | Cite as

Women's language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?

  • Julie R. McMillan
  • A. Kay Clifton
  • Diane McGrath
  • Wanda S. Gale
Articles

Abstract

Six differences in linguistic behavior in same-sex and mixed-sex problem-solving groups were explored. Small groups of all women, all men, and mixed sex were run and videotaped. Linguistic behavior was assessed through a content analysis of four syntactic categories: intensifiers, modal constructions, tag questions, and imperative constructions in question form. Support was found for the hypothesis of Key (1975) and Lakoff (1975) that women, as compared with men, use more linguistic categories that connote uncertainty. Support was also found for these authors' hypotheses that (1) women use more linguistic forms that connote uncertainty when men are present than when men are absent, and (2) men are more likely to interrupt women than women are likely to interrupt men. The results are discussed from the perspectives of women's role (supportive behavior and minority status) and women's culture (interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality).

Keywords

Small Group Social Psychology Content Analysis Minority Status Supportive Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M. The compassion trap. In V. Gornick & J. B. Moran (Eds.), Women in sexist society. New York: Basic Books, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, N. Sex-typed language: The production of grammatical cases. Acta Sociologica, 1971, 14(1–2), 24–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, J. The sex game. New York: Atheneum, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, J. My four revolutions: An autobiographical history of the ASA. In Joan Huber (Ed.), Changing women in a changing society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, B. Some sociological determinants of perception: An inquiry into sub-cultural differences. British Journal of Sociology, 1958, 9, 159–174.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, B. Class, codes and control, I: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 20(20), 59–78.Google Scholar
  8. Callary, R. E. Status perception through syntax. Language and Speech, 1974, 17(20), 187–192.Google Scholar
  9. Clifton, A. K., & Lee, D. E. Self-destructive consequences of sex role socialization. Suicide, 1976, 6(1), in press.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, M., & Delheimer, V. Personal communication about research in progress, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Gilley, H. M., & Summers, C. S. Sex differences in the use of hostile verbs. Journal of Psychology, 1970, 76(September), 33–37.Google Scholar
  12. Hacker, H. Women as a minority group. Social Forces, 1951, 30(October), 60–69.Google Scholar
  13. Henley, N., & Freeman, J. The sexual politics of interpersonal behavior. In S. Cox (Ed.), Female psychology: The emerging self. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Horton, J. Time and cool people. Transaction, 1967, 4(April), 5–12.Google Scholar
  15. Jesperson, O. The woman. In Language: Its nature, development, and origin. New York: W. W. Norton, 1921, 237–254.Google Scholar
  16. Jesperson, O. Sex and gender. In The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: W. W. Norton, 1924, 243–266.Google Scholar
  17. Kemnitzer, L. S. Language learning and socialization. Urban Life and Culture, 1973, 1 (January), 363–378.Google Scholar
  18. Key, M. R. Male/female language. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. Kikpatrick, J. Political woman. New York: Basic Books, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. Kluckhohn, F. American women and American values. In L. Bryson (Ed.), Facing future risks. New York: Harper, 1953, 175–199.Google Scholar
  21. Kramer, C. Folk linguistics: Wishy-washy mommy talk. Psychology Today, 1974, 8(1), 82–85.Google Scholar
  22. Kutner, N. G., & Brogan, D. An investigation of sex-related slang vocabulary and sex-role orientation among male and female university students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36(3), 474–484.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, R. Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, D. E., & Clifton, A. K. Women as a minority. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois State University, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. Sapir, E. Abnormal types of speech in Nootka. In David G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  27. Schwartz, G., & Merten, D. The language of adolescence: An anthropological approach to the youth culture. American Journal of Sociology, 1967, 72(March), 453–468.Google Scholar
  28. Trugill, P. Sociolinguistics. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Walsh, B., & Leonard, W. Usage of terms of sexual intercourse by men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974, 3(4), 373–376.Google Scholar
  30. Wheeler, S. Socialization in correctional institutions. In David A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969, 1005–1023.Google Scholar
  31. Whorf, B. L. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings. J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  32. Wolfram, W. A. sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negroes. Speech at Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie R. McMillan
    • 1
  • A. Kay Clifton
    • 1
  • Diane McGrath
    • 1
  • Wanda S. Gale
    • 1
  1. 1.Illinois State UniversityNormal

Personalised recommendations