Examining how Gender Influences Language Styles and Communication Patterns in Various Social Contexts

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Sep 1, 2024
https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00344
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 10 No. 3 (2024): Journal of Policy Research

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mazhar Nawaz
Assistant Professor (English), Govt. Associate College Jahanian
Muhammad Haris Hayat
Abasyn University, Islamabad Campus
Shahid Hussain Mir
Lecturer, Department of English, University of Kotli, AJK
Rashid Hameed
PhD Scholar, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of gender on communication styles and dynamics through a thematic analysis of interviews conducted with diverse participants. Employing a qualitative methodology, the research identifies key themes such as Adaptation Strategies, Navigating Power Dynamics, Gender Norms, Intersectionality, and Emotional Expression. Findings reveal that individuals exhibit flexibility in their communication, often adopting softer tones and employing hesitation markers to foster connections and navigate social interactions. Notably, power dynamics manifest through interruptions, predominantly by male participants, which assert dominance and marginalize women's contributions. The study further explores how societal expectations shape communication behaviors, illustrating the constraints imposed by gender stereotypes. Intersectionality emerges as a critical factor, demonstrating that race and class significantly impact communication strategies. The role of vulnerability and emotional expression is highlighted, indicating a tension between authenticity and societal expectations. Overall, this analysis underscores the complexities of gendered communication, suggesting the need for a nuanced understanding of how various identities intersect in shaping communicative practices.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
[1]
Nawaz, M. , Hayat, M.H. , Mir, S.H. and Hameed, R. 2024. Examining how Gender Influences Language Styles and Communication Patterns in Various Social Contexts. Journal of Policy Research. 10, 3 (Sep. 2024), 280–289. DOI:https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00344.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Labeling processes in the organization. Research in organizational Behavior, 17, 413-461.
  2. Auer, P., & Roberts, C. (2011). Introduction—John Gumperz and the indexicality of language. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.018
  3. Benítez Pérez, M. E. (2017). La familia: Desde lo tradicional a lo discutible. Revista Novedades en Población, 13(26), 58-68.
  4. Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22334-3
  5. Coates, G. W., & Moore, D. R. (2004). Discrete metal‐based catalysts for the copolymerization of CO2 and epoxides: discovery, reactivity, optimization, and mechanism. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 43(48), 6618-6639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200460442
  6. Coates, K., & Coates, K. S. (2004). A global history of indigenous peoples. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230509078
  7. Coates, M. (2004). Distributed particle filters for sensor networks. Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/984622.984637
  8. Cordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational postulates. In Speech acts (pp. 83-106). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_005
  9. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573
  10. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing gender. Language and gender, 9-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147.002
  11. French, C., Dowrick, A., Fudge, N., Pinnock, H., & Taylor, S. J. (2022). What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), 302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01767-7
  12. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
  13. Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, 2(3), 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64108-9
  14. Holmes, E. R., & Holmes, L. D. (1995). Other cultures, elder years. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452232980
  15. Holmes, G. P., Chapman, L. E., Stewart, J. A., Straus, S. E., Hilliard, J. K., & Davenport, D. S. (1995). Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of B-virus infections in exposed persons. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 20(2), 421-439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/20.2.421
  16. Kapidzic, S., & Herring, S. C. (2015). Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society, 17(6), 958-976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813520301
  17. Kramarae, C. (1992). Punctuating the dictionary. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1992.94.135
  18. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80017-6
  19. Lakoff, R. (1975). Linguistic theory and the real world 1. Language Learning, 25(2), 309-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00249.x
  20. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (2018). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In The matrix of language (pp. 81-98). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429496288-7
  21. McConnell-Ginet, P. E. S. (2003). Language and gender.
  22. O'Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men's gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. Parts of this chapter were presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, Aug 1994.,
  23. Smitherman, M., Lee, K., Swanger, J., Kapur, R., & Clurman, B. E. (2000). Characterization and targeted disruption of murine Nup50, a p27Kip1-interacting component of the nuclear pore complex. Molecular and cellular biology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.20.15.5631-5642.2000
  24. Sunderland, J. (2013). Gender, sexuality and meaning: linguistic practice and politics. In: Taylor & Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.794071
  25. Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends' talk. Discourse processes, 13(1), 73-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544747
  26. Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body image, 14, 118-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001
  27. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2015). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. American Sociological Association's Annual Meetings, Sep, 1978, San Francisco, CA, US; This is a revised version of a paper presented at the aforementioned conference.,
  28. West, C. D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1977). Women's place in everyday talk: Reflections on parent-child interaction. Social problems, 24(5), 521-529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1977.24.5.03a00040
  29. ZIMMERMAN, D. (1998). Candace West. Feminist Foundations: Toward Transforming Sociology, 3, 167.
  30. Zimmerman, D. W. (1996). A note on homogeneity of variance of scores and ranks. The Journal of experimental education, 64(4), 351-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1996.10806603