Man and Woman Talk in Indian Organizations

Abstract

The article examines grammatical and syntactical forms in reported speeches of men and women in the Indian work environment. Until recently, there has been little or no study on the linguistic performance across genders in the Indian setting. However, the recent advent of women in the organizations indicates that an understanding of the linguistic similarities or variances is required and will aid collaborative communication. Based on an empirical study, the article posits that linguistic variances in the organizational setup begin to fade at the middle management level. Communication and styles of communication are organization and not gender specific. Additionally, the article argues that organization-fit language is more masculine in nature and hinges on aggression and assertion rather than nurturance or submission. Findings of the research may be of significance to academics and corporates in the business scenario who review the process of communication in same- and mixed-gender groups from the lens of organizational requirements rather than gender specifics.

Keywords

group communication management communication organizational communication workplace interaction

Researchers (e.g. Aries, 1998) posit that style of communicating a message conforms to the situation and the context in which it is used (Krauss & Chiu, 1998). Variations in style may also be attributed to the gender of the communicator. As early as 1966, Hoenigswald stated that gender differences in communication styles are based on folk linguistics, which suggests that there are common beliefs about language and language users. Many of the language attributes associated with women suggest that stereotypically women demonstrate “ineffective communication characteristics such as verbosity, constrained vocabulary, and indirect requests (Thome and Henley, 1975)” (Smeltzer & Werbel, 1986, p.41). Women use soft and polite expressions, vague adjectives (Crawford, 1995), question forms, and hedges (Lakoff, 1975) in their communication patterns. The objective of this form of language use is to strengthen bonds with coworkers or team leaders and avoid use of words or phrases that sound unfriendly or inappropriate. Men, on the other hand, have been found to use impersonal language and topics (Holmes, 1992). Researchers analyzed the differences and found that the objective of communication for women is to be communal (Williams & Best, 1990), supportive, and sensitive. For men, the aim is to project an authoritative stand in interactions with team members and coworkers with focus on task orientation (Aries, 1996; Reis, 1998; Winstead, 1986). Holtgraves (2002) ascertained that the difference in communication styles across genders is based on power or status of both the sender and the receiver. Extending the research findings of Holtgraves, the article discusses the communication styles of men and women in the Indian work scenario. It proceeds to analyze the styles across genders through a study of grammatical and syntactical forms.

Communication of messages in the organizations indexes task orientation, status, and membership in a group/team. Admittedly, the structuring of the message is role and situation specific. Arguably then, the role of gender and characteristics specific to gender communication become secondary to the message that is communicated in a business scenario. I submit that before we make a claim of the nature stated above, an understanding of the message, through a study of the grammatical and syntactical constructs, will help answer the following questions: Do men and women working in organizations communicate in a similar or different manner? Can the differences or similarities be attributed to grammatical and/or syntactical structures? If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, wherein lie the differences or similarities and how do we account for them? The study purports to examine these questions.

In the Indian context, the past decade has witnessed a surge of women entering the organizations. With an increase in the number of women within organizations, there has been evidenced a change in communication, behavioral, and working styles of men and women. While major changes have been noted in all three spheres, the study focuses on the communication styles used across genders in same- and mixed-sex groups.

Within this purview, the study of gender differences in the Indian context is of greater relevance as the transition of the woman from a home maker to an employee within an organization is relatively new. In contrast to Western society, where women have been working in organizations for many decades, the newness of the phenomenon in India calls for a deeper understanding of the Indian culture and the issues revolving round gender accommodation. Hence, the study makes no attempt to compare and contrast working women in India with their counterparts in Western countries. Admittedly, while a comparative study of men and women across the globe will be interesting, the differences stemming from language use by native- and second-language users will be huge and do not form part of the present study.

In the Indian context, women for decades have been relegated to the task of rearing and nurturing of children, cooking, and housekeeping. In most of the homes, even today, the family structure is patriarchal, and the word of man is the “law.” Men structured familial and societal patterns are still observed in the country, and any attempt to break free of these structures is not viewed favorably, both at the family level and at the organizational level. However, with economic liberalization, higher education, and change in societal and cultural mores, women have become more enterprising and resourceful. Many have stepped out of the house to use their intellectual capabilities make a living for the family. Major dichotomies in terms of perceptions of women, then and now, have, in some situations, led to controversies. Both men and women are faced with a difficult choice. For instance, men are pondering over the question: Should we continue with our old pattern or expand or change to encompass a newer structuring that is inclusive of women? Women, on the other hand, are toying with the idea: Should we adhere to the existing patterns created by men or innovate and bring to the table something that is new and characteristic of the female gender?

This debate has given rise to multiple issues: How do men and women interact with one another within the organization? What are the behavioral changes that are required across genders? How do organizations manage a workforce that is diverse? While all these issues are significant, the article focuses only on the interaction style as reflected in the use of grammatical and syntactical forms. This has been done through analyses of narratives of critical incident of upward influence (UI).

The article examines data at two levels: (a) a frequency count of the use of pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, verbs, adverbs, hedges, and tag questions used by men and women to influence their team leader and (b) a nonparametric test, Mann–Whitney U test, to validate the results.

In the present study, I argue that differences, if any, in the linguistic styles of men and women can be a function of the nature of dialogue and the context in which the interaction is initiated. Additionally, it can also be a result of the social roles within and outside the organization. Hence, the analysis of the communication styles, which began as an investigation of the differences in the language used across genders, ended on a broader approach to individual variations and commitment to varying social and organizational roles and societal nurturance.

Literature Review

Differences between men and women in speech situations have been accounted for by researchers studying language and gender. They have explained the linguistic differences across genders though there are variations in their interpretations. Two theories, namely, the dominance and difference approach, have been proposed.

The “dominance theory” emphasizes that variations in gender speech result from the conversational goal of the participants in which the desire to dominate and manage is steered by status and power. Men, because of a proclivity to dominate the conversational arena in mixed gender talks, tend to be more dominating and hence use strategies that accentuate their position. Higher incidences of interruptions are found in the conversation, which reflect the higher social and economic status of men. Low social status is reflected in the desire to be accepted by the group and is marked by strategies such as tag questions (Lakoff, 1975; Trudgill, 1978). While on a broader level one can state that these gender-specific variations are found in man and woman talk, specific individual variations cannot be discounted.

The “difference theory” assumes that there are two subcultures, “men” and “women,” in the speech community. Acquisition of linguistic strategies across genders is varied, giving rise to difference in speech styles of men and women. Maltz and Borker (1998) stated that the difference in linguistic performance can be understood by a study of the variations in behavioral rules of the two subcultures embedded in a societal context. Similarly, Woods (2008) focused on socialization as an important factor that determines the nature of language use across genders. “The process of socialization teaches us to communicate and interpret what others say and do. This means that communication goals and styles vary according to the experiences, values and norms of particular social groups.” (p. 5).

To explore the role of social context on speeches of men and women, researchers have conducted multiple studies (Holmes, 1997; Thomson, Murachver, & Green, 2001) and have attempted to study the impact of women’s role and status on language (Eckert, 1989; James, 1996; Pooley, 2003; Romaine, 1996). The gender, motives, concerns, and requirements of the sender have been found to be the pivotal factors determining choice and use of words and phrases.

Gender and Language

Researchers propose that emotional, gentle, sympathetic choice of words is a specific linguistic trait adopted by women (Briton & Hall, 1995; Carli, 1990; Hay, 2000; Mulac, 1998), whereas men use forceful language, which if emotional is mostly negative (Mulac, 1998).

Mulac and Lundell (1986) stated that out of 14 language variables that demonstrate effects consistent with “gender-linked language effect,” seven were characteristic of male speakers: impersonals, fillers, elliptical sentences, units, justifiers, geographical references, and spatial references. The remaining seven, that is, intensive adverbs, personal pronouns, negations, verbs of cognition, dependent clauses with subordinating conjunctions, oppositions, and pauses, were typical of the female population.

In addition to spelling out differences in talk across genders at the grammatical level, researchers have also discussed differing linguistic styles adopted by men and women. Tannen (1990) stated that women and men belong to different sociolinguistic subcultures, with men’s internalized linguistic style more “competitive and results oriented” and women’s more “relational and rapport oriented.” Language features more indicative of men are number of words, negations, questions, judgmental adjectives, references to emotion, and oppositions, whereas those more predictive of women are intensive adverbs, longer mean length sentences, hedges, directives, dependent clauses, and sentence initial adverbials (Mulac, Seibold, & Farris, 2000).

Although a majority of the findings by researchers point toward a difference in linguistic style, contradictory results have also been presented. For instance, Brownlow’s (2003) findings stated that in the use of language, there is no difference in the presentation of affectual or emotional processes between men and women. The polite and powerless speech style generally associated with women has been contradicted in the findings of Brownlow.

Hypothesis 1: Significant differences in the communication styles will exist between men and women in the work environment.

Grammatical Forms

Differences have been cited by researchers in the varying use of parts of speech by men and women. The research, however, is limited to a study of only those parts of speech in which a difference has been found. Apparently not all parts of speech have been explored. For the purpose of this study, I will (a) review the data based on existing literature on pronouns, verbs, and adverbs and (b) extend the analysis to encompass prepositions and conjunctions.

Pronouns

Simplicity in language use has been found to be a characteristic feature of the linguistic style of women. Women use more “first-person references in prestatement clauses,” which sound like hedges, and some phrases like “and stuff,” “and things like that,” and “you know” (Crosby & Nyquist, 1977; Precht, 2002).

As women have been found to be collaborative in their use of language, they tend to personalize, using more of personal pronouns like “I,” “you,” “she,” “her,” “their,” “myself,” “yourself,” and “herself” (Brownlow, 2003; Woods, 2003). Argamon, Koppel, Fine, and Shimoni (2003) postulated that female writers use more features associated with “involvedness,” such as first-person (e.g., “I think”) and second-person pronouns. As male language is more competition oriented, men tend to use first-person singular pronouns far less often than women (Mulac, 1998; Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003), which makes the style more distant, passive, and objective. The adoption of this style is either deliberate or in response to the expectations of societal pressures. Additionally, men favor impersonal pronouns, such as, “it,” “this,” “that,” “these,” “those,” and “they” (Brownlow, 2003).

Verbs and adverbs

Mulac, Bradac, and Gibbons (2001) referred to directives used by men as direct and uncertainty verbs used by women as indirect. Language features used by men were rated as “more direct, succinct, personal, and instrumental,” whereas nine of the 10 features used by women were perceived as “more indirect, elaborate, and affective.” The findings are in tune with comprehension of variations in language use, which are in consonance with stylistic preferences governed by cultural norms.

Mulac et al. (2000) argued that adverbs are used more intensively by women than by men. I am not aware of literature that demonstrates variations/similarities in the frequency of use of adverbs between men and women. The same holds true for conjunctions and prepositions.

Much of the literature dealing with grammatical forms used by men and women points toward differences in frequency of use or avoidance. The “power-laden” and the “powerless” talk stemming from the needs of men and women to gain credibility and acceptance in the social context have been primarily accounted for as reasons for the differences.

Hypothesis 2: Significant differences in the quantum of use of specific parts of speech (pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, verbs, and adverbs) will exist between men and women.

Syntactical Forms

Researchers (Biber, Conrad, & Leech, 2002) stated that tag questions and hedges used in the speech patterns of women are a by-product of tactics used for politeness and nature of speech, often referred to as “powerless.”

Hedging

Lakoff (1973, 1975) argued that hedges were used more frequently by women and were characteristic of “woman’s language” for they indicated social insecurity, lack of confidence, and a desire to use polite forms (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Shimanoff, 1977).

Cheshire (2005) illustrated that “metacomments,” such as “I know that sounds a bit strange,” were often used by adolescent girls when giving replies. The boys, however, did not make use of similar “metacomments.” Boys, Cheshire (2005) noted, were more concerned with referential meanings, whereas girls focused on the affective component of the discourse, which meant that their focus on the information status was much less than that of boys.

Based on a literature survey, we can state that tags and hedges, mostly associated with politeness, are differentially present in the speech patterns of men and women.

Hypothesis 3: Significant differences in the use of tags and hedges will exist between men and women.

Gender of the Interviewer and Language

Interviewer-respondent interaction for accurate response patterns has been studied by researchers (Groves, Cialdini, & Couper, 1992). They discuss the importance of strategies adopted by interviewers to cull out information from the interviewee. In line with this finding is the research discussing the demographic and socio-economic characteristic of the interviewer that may affect the response pattern (Lyberg & Lyberg, 1991).

“The relationships between participants and the interviewer in a research project are inevitably complex, multifaceted and dynamic. While contextually situated, these relationships nonetheless are influenced by the identities and histories of those involved, researcher and researched alike,” concludes Arendell (1997, p. 364) in a survey interview with divorced fathers.

An interesting dimension to the study of interviewer-respondent communication is from the perspective of language across genders in interviews. Impact of interviewer gender has been analyzed in both face-to-face and telephone talks. Findings have been varied with some researchers arguing in favor of a difference and others discussing similarities in response patterns across genders.

Same-gender conversation among women, submit researchers (e.g. Aries, 1976), is preferred by women as it gives them freedom to discuss issues without accounting for what has been defined as the “social desirability bias.” According to Babbie (1983), “Whenever you ask people for information, they answer through a filter of what will make them look good. This is especially true if they are being interviewed in a face-to face situation” (p. 135). However, the same does not necessarily apply to dialogue between men and women, as women in conversation with men, argued Spender (1985), “monitor their expression in a way that men do not . . . and must transform their meanings so they conform to male requirements” (p. 81). Though the conversation situation is very different from the interview scenario, many of the concepts of conversational power may affect the conversation across genders in interviews (Kane & Macaulay, 1993).

Landis, Sullivan, and Sheley (1973) stated that women respondents tend to give “feminist responses” when interviewed by men. Both men and women have been considered to be traditional in their response patterns when interviewed by men (Northrup, 1992; Whelchel, 1987). Men tend to “protect themselves from others’ attempts to put them down and push them around.” Women on the other hand, view conversations as “negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation . . . and to reach consensus” (Tannen, 1990, p. 25). One of the reasons could be that men try to establish control over the conversation (Fishman, 1983; Zimmerman & West 1975), while women converse in same-sex conversations. They are of the view that it accords them both autonomy and flexibility (Aries, 1976).

The focus of researchers studying the impact of interviewer gender has been on the different response patterns of the interviewees—male and female—and the authority exercised by the interviewer. The results of such studies have been varied. Kane and Macaulay (1993) stated,

As women are more accustomed to accommodating themselves to men’s status in conversation, when interviewed their responses may be more notably affected by interviewer gender than men’s responses may be. This differential gender-of- interviewer effect may be particularly evident for questions which address men’s advantage. It may be easier for a woman, in ‘polite conversation’ with a man, to be critical of women’s status as too low than to denounce men’s status as too high. (p. 5)

Men try and maintain “polite conversation” on important topics when dialoguing with female interviewers. There are major variations in responses of female respondents when interviewed by male and female interviewers. A reason attributed to the same is that the topics may be found to be threatening to the status quo in gender relations (Kane & Macaulay, 1993).

Gender, Language, and Organizational Culture

Various schools of thought have deliberated on what constitutes organizational culture. Almost a hundred definitions of organizational culture have been posited by researchers (Ott, 1989). Researchers postulate that organizational culture is a social construct that deduces sense from organization behavior and outcomes (Martin, 2002). In sum, the totality of beliefs, values, and organizational practices can be clubbed to form what in common parlance is referred to as organizational culture.

Carroll and Mills (2006) stated that culture is socially constructed. Meanings derived from interactions are situated in the common sharing and understanding of the context. As culture is also symbolic, the meanings are derived from our past collective experience. In other words, meanings are in the mind, and how sense is derived is contingent on sense-making by the interactants. Another interpretation of organizational culture refers to it as a unifying factor in which common goals create a sense of common responsibility leading to consensus. Finally, the holistic notion of culture refers to the essence, the interaction patterns, expected behaviors, and work ethics. As all these elements are closely interlinked, the manifested parts are only a projection of the whole and evidence a similarity, a link that underlies all communication, actions and behaviors. Willmott (1993) referred to it as “corporate culturalism.”

Speech differentiation between men and women, the subgroups of a speech community, can also be a result of the cultural factors (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Thorne & Henley, 1975). Tajfel (1974) and Gumperz (1982) analyzed the relationship between social identity and language and stated that men and women form subcultures in which women constitute the minority group and men the majority group. The differences in the speeches of men and women can also be understood from the perspective of “culture and social organization” (Maltz & Borker, 1998). In line with the arguments presented above is the finding postulated by Tannen (1990) that “gender hierarchy” is stronger than “social status” hierarchy.

The two hierarchies, gender and social status, as presented by Tannen (1990), are interlinked. Men are at a vantage point/dominant position because of their social and economic status. They are found to use a relatively dominant style that is characterized by high vitality. The vitality of a speech community is represented by a group’s “distinctiveness,” “social activity,” and “solidarity when confronted by another group” (Kunsmann, 2000). Men, who are representatives of the dominant style and are characterized as part of a high-vitality group, have more rights and privileges, which get reflected in their speech (Trömel-Plötz, 1998). Women, who are characterized by low vitality, are seen to use language that is weak, unassertive, and tentative (Coates, 1998).

Many of these gender-associated variations stem from the “difference approach.” The “dominance approach” is validated by a comprehension of power, which is based on social, economic, and socio-historical position. The question before us is this: Can a probe in linguistic variability across genders be explained on the basis of organizational culture, power, status, or gender?

Hypothesis 4: Significant differences in language specifics between men and women are a result of organizational culture, power, and status in the organization.

Method

One fourth of the data comprised the corpus I had compiled for a research project. Though part of the data selected for the study was also used in earlier research, the focus was different. In the first article, I studied the relationship between gender and UI using affect as a moderator (Kaul, Ansari, & Rai, 2006) and in the second, the role of face-threatening acts (Kaul & Patnaik, 2006) in reported incidents of UI across genders Retain. In this particular study, the focus was on identifying differences, if any, in the linguistic styles of men and women.

Participants for the study were from an Indian commercial bank, financial institution, and marketing department of a national daily and doctors from a private hospital. I randomly selected and analyzed 50 responses for men and 50 for women. All four organizations had very different characteristics. The commercial bank is one of the leading banks in the country, well known for its employee- and gender-friendly policies. It is one of the few banks credited to have a very good ratio of men to women at all levels. The financial institution is a subsidiary of a larger financial entity and is two decades old. Almost all the employees are from the parent organization. It provides loans over Indian rupees three crores (INR 30 million) to start-ups and other financial organizations. Though it does have a substantial number of women at different levels, the top management of the institution is male dominated. The leading national daily has been in existence for over a century and a half. I interviewed men and women from the marketing division. In sharp contrast to the editorial division, there are fewer women in the marketing division. The private hospital had both male and female doctors. It has been in existence in Mumbai for the past 59 years and has earned a reputation of being one of the top five hospitals in the city. The doctors who were interviewed had been with the hospital for over five years and were referred to as “full-time consultants.” Although the data were collected from four different organizations, I made an attempt to ensure that maximum number of respondents fell in the middle management category, that is, they had a work experience of minimum five years. Transcripts for analysis were randomly selected from a considerably larger chunk of interviews. Number of transcripts studied for the analysis was as follows: Bank: 14 Males (M) and 10 Females (F) (n = 24), Financial Institution: 12 M and 12 F (n = 24), Marketing division of a national daily: 12 M and 12 F (n = 24), and doctors from a hospital: 12 M and 12 F (n = 24). A considerably large number of interviews were taken, out of which the transcripts were randomly selected for analysis. I moved on the assumption that the men and women who were interviewed were a representative sample of the middle management level in the organization.

Different procedures were followed for collating the sample. For the Indian commercial bank, I got in touch with the human resources (HR) manager, who gave me access to people working in the middle rung of the organization. There were 109 employees and all of them were interviewed. Fourteen transcripts for men and 14 for women were randomly selected for analysis. The same process was followed for the financial institution and the national daily. However, I was able to interview only 15 men and 15 women in each organization. Out of the number of interview transcripts collected, I randomly selected 12 for men and 12 for women in each organization. For interviewing the doctors, I got in touch with one doctor, who introduced me to other doctors. The chain was diligently followed till I got my required numbers: 15 male and 15 female doctors. Out of these interviews, I again randomly selected 12 in each category.

The educational qualifications varied significantly with maximum number of participants having the Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) degrees. There was a comparatively lower cluster of participants with an MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) degree and a Master of Commerce degree. The number of participants with all other degrees was insignificant.

The participants were asked to narrate a critical incident in which they had influenced their team leader. The constant variables in the study were the interviewer and the set of questions. The interviews were conducted in English, as all participants were comfortable with the use of English, even though it was a second language for them. It was interesting to note that the interview/conversation with the participants, which began as a dialogue, soon matured into a monologue, with constant and gentle prodding from the interviewer. The questions from the interviewer focused on the background information of the participants, name of their team leader, critical incident, and the outcome—compliance, resistance, or commitment.

The discussion began with small talk during which the participants introduced themselves and talked about their job profile. Gradually they were drawn into presentation of an instance on UI, which was also recorded. Prior to the commencement of the interview, the interviewer informed the participants of the process to be followed. The overall duration of each tape was between 25 and 30 minutes. Transcripts for the same were prepared, and each transcript was marked either M or F. Number of recordings was as follows: Indian commercial bank: 87 men and 22 women, financial institution: 15 men and 15 women, marketing division of a national daily: 15 men and 15 women, private hospital: 15 men and 15 women. The sample for analysis was randomly selected to include 50 responses each, from men and women.

The variables selected for analysis in the present study are based on an understanding of defining attributes of communication patterns across genders. They are the use of grammatical (personal pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and adverbs) forms and the use of syntactical forms (hedging and tags) to effectively transmit a message.

The analysis was conducted in two phases: In the first phase, the coder manually counted the number of pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, adverbs, and hedges and tags used by both men and women. The frequency of occurrence was noted and mean for the same was taken. While the mean for the same did give a direction, it did not account for the variances, if any, in the data. In the second phase, I conducted the U tests to measure the similarities or differences in the use of grammatical and syntactical forms.

Scope of the Study

I conducted the study on language use by men and women in four Indian organizations with the aim of studying the difference, if any, in the structuring of language within the organizational context. The respondents were a mix of people from different regions within the country and on a transferable job. The work and organizational culture was not confined to any region but was typical to the organization.

Although the issues discussed by men and women were similar, I expected the differences/similarities to surface in the narration of the incidents. The study was restricted to an analysis of employees in the managerial cadre. This was made possible by requesting the organizations to suggest a representative sample. The organizations gave us names of all employees in the middle management level or with five to nine years of work experience.

Findings

The total sample size for the study was 100. Hundred transcripts were divided into two categories: Male and Female. Each transcript within the two categories was assigned a number so that I could refer to it at a later date if there was a need. The demographic profile of the participants is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Age Profile of the Participants

	N, by Age-Group (Years)
Gender	21-25	26-30	31-35	36-40	41-45
Male	8	24	15	2	1
Female	6	30	20	3	1
Average age = 32.10 years

All respondents had been working with their respective organizations for a minimum of five years. The average age of the respondents was 32.10 years. The overall work experience varied from five to 24 years (Table 2). Maximum number of male and female respondents was in the age category of 26 to 30 and 31 to 35 years, respectively. Most of the respondents fell in the same age category with almost similar work experience. As there was an organizational difference, I expected their narration of critical incidents would have variations, more specifically in terms of approach. While I did get a wide range of issues, the variations were majorly in terms of use of tactics for securing compliance. Reskin (1988) argued that equality in terms of power or status negates the concept of difference or variation in gender studies. Interestingly, when we talk of power or status, we discuss the concepts in the framework of role or status relationship. Perceived variations, a result of unequal role/status, may be attributed to gender differences (Reskin, 1988) or they may be moderated by perceived similarity to the speaker (Reid, Palomares, Anderson, & Brown, 2009).

Table 2.

Work Experience

	Work Experience (Gender Specific) in Years
Age (Years)	0-5	6-10	11-15	16-20	21-25
21-25
Male	8	0	0	0	0
Female	6	0	0	0	0
26-30
Male	10	14	0	0	0
Female	8	22	0	0	0
31-35
Male	0	12	3	0	0
Female	0	15	5	0	0
36-40
Male	0	0	2	0	0
Female	0	0	2	1	0
41-45
Male	0	0	0	1	3
Female	0	0	0	0	0

All participants narrated incidents related to work in which they had to influence their team leader for leave sanction, initiation of a new project, and transfer. Not all respondents were able to secure compliance, some managed to get commitment, and some even faced resistance.

Grammatical and Syntactical Forms

Mann-Whitney U (also referred to as the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon, Wilcoxon rank-sum, or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney) test was conducted to study the data.

The U-test statistic was used to test the hypotheses at the .05 level of significance.

Mann-Whitney U Test

Ranks^a
	Gender	N	Mean Rank	Sum of Ranks
Personal pronouns	1	50	52.97	2648.50
	2	50	48.03	2401.50
	Total = 100
Conjunctions	1	50	47.76	2388.00
	2	50	53.24	2662.00
	Total = 100
Prepositions	1	50	49.15	2457.50
	2	50	51.85	2592.50
	Total = 100
Verb	1	50	46.00	2300.00
	2	50	55.00	2750.00
	Total = 100
Adverbs	1	50	46.32	2316.00
	2	50	54.68	2734.00
	Total = 100
Tags	1	10	10.45	104.50
	2	21	18.64	391.50
	Total = 31
Hedging	1	50	53.80	2690.00
	2	50	47.20	2360.00
	Total = 100
Test Statistics^b
	Personal pronouns	Conjunctions	Prepositions	Verb	Adverbs	Hedging
Mann-Whitney U	1126.500	1113.000	1182.500	1025.000	1041.000	1085.000
Wilcoxon W	2401.500	2388.000	2457.500	2300.000	2316.000	2360.000
Z	−.852	−.945	−.465	−1.551	−1.441	−1.192
Asymp. Sig. (two-tailed)	.394	.345	.642	.121	.149	.233
Exact significance [2*(one-tailed)]

Note: Asymp. Sig. = asymptotic significance. All the Z (absolute) scores are less than 1.96. This indicates that the samples of men and women are from the same underlying distribution. Null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the 5% level of significance.

Not corrected for ties.

Grouping variable: sex.

The U tests on grammatical and syntactical forms did not show significant difference. Differences concerning use of grammatical and syntactical forms have been postulated in literature on gender and language. Lakoff (1979) stated that differences in style of language use can be a result of variations in style, a sociolinguistic factor. To be able to make the findings robust, the situational context (Freed & Greenwood, 1996; McFadyen, 1996; Mulac, 1998) or status differences (Crosby & Nyquist, 1977) needs to be carefully analyzed before concluding that there are disparities or no disparities in linguistic styles of men and women or that they are an outcome of gender specifics.

Some researchers, for instance, Carli (1990), in a study on linguistic disparities in same- and mixed-gender teams, demonstrated that use of many of the syntactical forms such as hedges, tag questions, disclaimers, and so on in the talk of women in mixed-gender groups sharply accentuated the variations in male and female talk. The findings in the present study did not yield a similar conclusion. However, it was interesting to note that most of the women narrated incidents of compliance, whereas majority of men narrated incidents in which there was initial resistance, which was followed by a promise for compliance or commitment.

The “no-differences” finding was applicable to all variables studied. The use of tags, however, was insignificant in both men and women. This can be understood from the perspective of the role adopted by men and women in the study, which was facilitation of the process of interview through use of politeness strategies. Tags were used by an insignificant number of men and women in the present study. Out of the entire corpus, only 10 males and 21 females used tags.

This finding becomes more relevant when we analyze the use/avoidance of tags with respect to the function rather than form. Some studies (Lapadat & Seesahai, 1977), on analysis of informal data, demonstrate that men use twice as many tags as women, while some (Fishman, 1980), on a similar subject, reveal that women used three times as many tags as men. Some researchers lay emphasis on the individual (not gender) and posit that responsibility of success in an interaction brings about use/avoidance of tags (Cameron, McAlinden, & O’Leary, 1989; Holmes, 1984; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Discussion

Eakins and Eakins (1978) stated that there are no conclusive findings based on empirical studies that would validate the communication differences between sexes. Many of the results are anecdotal and based on experiences. In spite of the paucity of literary work in this area, there still exist stereotypical beliefs and assumptions concerning the linguistic style of men and women.

In this study, there was no statistically significant difference in the grammatical and syntactical forms used by employees while narrating a critical incident. We can discuss the “no-difference” result as a contradiction to the exaggerated differences between groups composed of same-gender members. Butler (1990) examined the social dominant perspective by laying emphasis on “established difference” rather than “natural divisions.” Two models—“masculine” and “feminine”—had been suggested. “Masculine” is supposed to be ideal for organizational work and “feminine” appropriate for relationship building. Contrary to this “convenience explanation,” Borisoff and Hahn (1995) postulated that the need for different models in different spheres arises from the compartmentalization of men and women and their work during the industrial revolution. Men went out to work and hence the style of communication came to be referred to as “masculine.” As women stayed back to manage the home and the children, their style became nurturing, which was reflected in their communication. Hence the communication style of women came to be referred to as “feminine.”

Contrary to the above-stated facts, I argue that with the entry of women in the organization, the “masculine” and the “feminine” models, postulated by earlier researchers, can no longer apply to the choice or use of language. I am unable to cite references that deal with similarities rather than dissimilarities as there is little literature that discusses the former. One of the reasons can be that null findings rarely find their way to publication (Bate, 1984). Another interesting example cited in Reeder’s (1996) article is of Fitzpatrick (1983) who found eight similarities and two differences in interpersonal behaviors of men and women. The author spent the entire section discussing the two differences rather than the eight similarities.

Perceptions of differences in communication patterns and styles are often a result of stereotypical beliefs about gender psychology and behavior (Smeltzer & Werbel, 1986).

Attributes assigned to women, such as weak, indecisive, and submissive, are literally translated into the analysis of the speech patterns. Similarly, observation of men as aggressive, decisive, and blunt is in consonance with their role image and speech style (Smeltzer & Werbel, 1986).

To revert to the finding of “no difference,” I argue that employees within an organization do not display or demonstrate gender variations in understanding situations or problems. Keeping the organizational goal in mind, the communication is geared in favor of finding a solution rather than illustration of specific grammatical nuances that can be referred to as typically “male” or “female.” This is clearly evident from the sample demographics. The sample in which we had respondents with a varied educational background and differing years of experience revealed little or no difference in terms of language use and constructs.

While there are multiple quantitative studies that reveal specific features for men and women, the standard deviations are huge, which more often than not result in an overlap. Maltz and Borker (1998) stated that psychological tests of college going students in the United States showed an overlap between boys and girls on a masculinity scale.

Building on the points discussed above, I submit that variations in use of syntactical forms between men and women do not necessarily stem from gender differences. Interpretations by researchers dispel the myth and give credence to the fact that gender cannot be studied in isolation. Context, content, and individual style contribute to the variations. For instance, Preisler (1986), in some of the small-group discussions, found that tags tended to be used by those who adopted a facilitative role. Continuous shift in speech style to adjust to the needs of the receiver has also been suggested by researchers. Giles and Smith (1979) argue that speech can be used to reduce or accentuate differences—in order to communicate social similarity, differences, approval, or disapproval.

While obvious differences have been noticed by researchers, they have also proved that people, in general, modify their language in accordance with the situation or the social context. The reason attributed is that people try and accommodate the gender-preferential language style that matches the linguistic style of the person she or he is speaking with rather than the speaker’s gender, even during same-gender conversation (Thomson et al., 2001). This naturally explains the “no-difference” finding in the present study, from the perspective of the interviewer and interviewee gender.

Mulac, Wiemann, Widenmann, and Gibson (1988) used the speech adoption theory (Giles & Smith, 1979), which suggests that people tend to adopt the language and the communication pattern of the people operating in a particular group, which explains the in-group language semblance and skill development culture. Social categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oaks, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) discusses processes through which people collectively form part of a group or a social group or category in which in-group characteristics are shared. Prototypes are attributes that serve the purpose of normative action (Reid et al., 2009) and define the group in a particular context. They are developed in a manner that clearly segregates an individual as a member of one group from a member in another group (Hogg & Reid, 2006). In-group members are characterized by attitudes, beliefs, and defining behaviors that are typical to all members in the group. Is the difference in language style then real or perceived? Kim and Bresnahan (1996), in a study of four cultures, found no differences in the communication goals of men and women. They stated that “perceived difference” resulting from stereotypes is much steeper than the “actual difference.”

Building on the theory proposed by researchers of same cultures account, I argue that within organizations, a similar pattern of nurturance is followed, which creates a common language pattern across genders. The present study indicates that within organizations, employees follow a “unisex” language that is goal-centric. This developed language is greater or higher than socialization process theory and prevents miscommunication or bracketing of communication as male/female.

The growing number of women in organizations and their contribution to the corporate world has given rise to much research and debate. It is important for organizations to recognize and acknowledge the team contribution of men and women to their growing businesses. Most of the operations within organizations are a result of collaborative effort of men and women working in mixed gender teams. While both men and women use the same official language, the choice of words and sentential structuring—grammatical and syntactical—can and does make a difference.

In light of the above discussion, we are faced with the following set of questions:

Is there a difference in the structuring of speech between individuals?

If there is, is it an outcome of gender differences?

Can men or women in the workplace environment be said to use a similar or different pattern?

What is the effect of organizational and in-group culture on the team members?

Do all members in the same-gender or mixed-gender teams adopt the same grammatical and syntactical structure?

As there appears to be no study (to my knowledge) or references to discovering similarities or disparities in the grammatical and syntactical forms in the Indian context, present work adds to the limited empirical research in this area. Superior performance through good communication in same- and mixed-gender teams is one of the major benefits of this research.

Conclusion

In the Indian context, the subordinate position of the women at the societal front is translated to a similar position within the organization. There is compelling evidence to prove that women adopt and assimilate a dominant masculine culture within the organization. The same is reflected in their conduct, actions, and communication. This “masculine culture” is on more than one occasion structured by the governing needs of the organization, which in most situations decry what has traditionally been referred to as “feminine” and “nurturing.” Arguably then, it is not strange that women use a speech style that is not hesitant or tentative but assertive and aggressive. The finding is of greater relevance as the task assigned to both men and women in the study was to narrate an incidence of UI in which the target was a male superior.

Taking the point ahead, I argue that differences evidenced in speech of men and women within organizations are not specific to gender considerations. Grammar and syntax, differentiating factors in language consideration, are sensitive to situation, team, and nurturance within the organization. Meanings are assigned to words through the historical context of language games in a particular situation or a context (Wittgenstein, 1953). Parts of speech, such as pronouns, adverbs, verbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and syntax, can be assessed and their relevance in a sentential construct attributed to the situational need rather than gender-specific mannerisms or traits. Relatively current emphasis on gender and language highlights the need to comprehend language as a vehicle for furtherance of organizational goals rather than an emphatic statement on gender specifics or differences.

I submit that if gender differences are perceived from the cultural aspect, they will be evident in behaviors and relationships (Burleson, 1994). However, if these variations stem as a result of skill differences, my argument would focus on the perception of men and women as important in not only development and maintenance of relationships but also fructification of task-oriented goals.

Based on grammar and grammatical constructs, I have made the first attempt to provide an understanding to the choice and use of linguistic styles within the organizational context in the Indian scenario. Beginning with borrowings from the study of Lakoff (1975), the article concludes, contrary to the earlier studies, that there are no real or significant differences in grammatical and sentential constructs across genders. Variations in syntactical form can be attributed to aspects other than those related to “man” or “woman” concepts of style. A study on the concept of style will require a framework that studies the linguistic form and the social functions in sync (Philips, 1980). For a study of this nature, “we must expand our consideration to aspects of speech other than those that deal with power and status, for femaleness is surely more than being polite, deferential and uncertain” (Philips, 1980, pp. 539-540).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support of Prof. Vijaya Sherry Chand in helping with the statistical analysis. Mr Debmalya Nandan helped in the initial round of coding and preparation of the first draft of the paper.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bio

Asha Kaul (PhD, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India) is a Professor in the area of Communication at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. She has her specialization in the area of oral, written and corporate communication, presentation skills and gender discourse. Currently, she is focussing on writing cases on Indian organizations to understand patterns of communication related to strategic choices in varied situations.

References

Argamon

Koppel

Fine

Shimoni

A. R.

(2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23, 321-346.

Arendell

(1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 341-368.

Aries

(1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behaviour, 7, 7-18.

Aries

(1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Aries

(1998). Gender differences in interaction: A reexamination. In Canary

Dindia

(Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (pp. 65-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Babbie

(1983). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bate

(1984). Submerged concepts in gender/communication research. Women’s Studies in Communication, 7, 101-104.

Biber

Conrad

Leech

(2002). The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London, England: Longman.

Borisoff

Hahn

(1995). From research to pedagogy: Teaching gender and communication. Communication Quarterly, 43, 381-393.

10.

Briton

Hall

(1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79-90.

11.

Brown

Levinson

S.C.

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Brownlow

(2003, July). Characterising neurologically typical syndrome. Poster presented at the PsyPAG conference, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, England.

13.

Burleson

B. R.

(1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In Daly

J. A.

Wiemann

J. M.

(Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Cameron

McAlinden

O’Leary

(1989). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates

Cameron

(Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 74-93). Harlow, England: Longman.

16.

Carli

L. L.

(1990). Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.

17.

Carroll

W. R.

Mills

A. J.

(2006). Gender identity, the culture of organizations and women’s IT careers. Retrieved from http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~amills/papers/Encyclo_06.pdf

18.

Cheshire

(2005). Syntactic variation and beyond: gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 479-508.

19.

Coates

(Ed.). (1998). Language and gender: A reader. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

20.

Crawford

(1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London, England: Sage.

21.

Crosby

Nyquist

(1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.

22.

Eakins

BW.

Eakins

. (1978). Sex Differences in Human Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

23.

Eckert

(1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change, 1, 245-268.

24.

Fishman

J. A.

(1980). Attracting a following to high-culture functions for a language of everyday life: The role of the Tshernovits conference in the “Rise of Yiddish.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 24, 43-73.

25.

Fishman

P. M.

(1983). Interaction: The work women do. In Henley

(Ed.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89-101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

26.

Fitzpatrick

(1983). Effective interpersonal communication for women of the corporation: Think like a man, talk like a lady. In Pilotta

(Ed.), Women in organizations (pp. 73-84). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

27.

Freed

A. F.

Greenwood

(1996). Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the difference? Language in Society, 25, 1-26.

28.

Giles

Smith

(1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In Giles

St. Clair

R. N.

(Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45-65). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

29.

Groves

R. M.

Cialdini

R. B.

Couper

M. P.

(1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495.

30.

Gumperz

(Ed.). (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Hay

(2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709-742.

32.

Hoenigswald

H. M.

(1996). A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In Bright

(Ed.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 16-20). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.

33.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30.

34.

Holmes

(1982). The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal, 3, 40-65.

35.

Holmes

(1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27, 47-62.

36.

Holmes

(1992). Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse & Society, 3, 131-150.

37.

Holmes

(1997). Women, language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1, 195-224.

38.

Holtgraves

(2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.

James

(1996). Women, men and prestige speech forms: A critical review In Bergvall

V. L.

Bing

J. M.

Freed

A. F.

(Eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice (pp. 98-125). Harlow, England: Longman.

40.

Kane

E. W.

Macaulay

L. J.

(1993). Interviewer gender and gender attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 1-28.

41.

Kaul

Ansari

Rai

(2006). Gender, affect and upward influence. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 2, 3-31.

42.

Kaul

Patnaik

(2006). Gender differences in the use of FTAs when reporting incidents of UI: An Indian study. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1, 3-17.

43.

Kim

M. S.

Bresnahan

M. I.

(1996). Cognitive basis of gender communication: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Quarterly, 44, 53-69.

44.

Krauss

R. M.

Chiu

(1998). Language and social behavior. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 41-88). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

45.

Kunsmann

(2000). Gender, status and power in discourse behavior of men and women. Linguistik online, 5. Retrieved from http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/KUNSMANN.HTM

46.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

47.

Lakoff

R. T.

(1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45-79.

48.

Lakoff

R. T.

(1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

49.

Lakoff

R. T.

(1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327, 53-80.

50.

Landis

Sullivan

Sheley

(1973). Feminist attitude as related to sex of the interviewer. Pacific Sociological Review, 16, 306-314.

51.

Lapadat

Seesahai

(1977). Male versus female codes in informal contexts. Sociolinguistics Newsletter, 8, 7-8.

52.

Lyberg

(1991, August). Nonresponse research at Statistics Sweden. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Atlanta, GA.

53.

Maltz

Borker

(1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Gumperz

J. J.

(Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 281-312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Maltz

Borker

(1998). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Coates

(Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 417-434). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

55.

Martin

(2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

McFadyen

R. G.

(1996). Gender, status and “powerless” speech: Interactions of students and lecturers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 353-367.

57.

McMillan

J. R.

Clifton

A. K.

McGrath

Gale

W. S.

(1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545-559.

58.

Mulac

(1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In Canary

D. J.

Dindia

(Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

59.

Mulac

Bradac

J. J.

Gibbons

(2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27, 121-152.

60.

Mulac

Lundell

T. L.

(1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 81-101.

61.

Mulac

Siebold

Farris

(2000). Female and male managers’ and professionals’ criticism giving differences in language use and effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 389-416.

62.

Mulac

A. M.

Wiemann

J. M.

Widenmann

S. J.

Gibson

T. W.

(1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender linked language effect. Communication Monograph, 55, 315-335.

63.

Northrup

D. A.

(1992). Gender, gender, gender. The effect of interviewer’s gender on respondent’s answers to affirmative action items (Working Paper). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: York University, Institute for Social Research.

64.

Ott

S. J.

(1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Groves, CA: Brooks/Cole.

65.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Mehl

M. R.

Niederhoffer

K. G.

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.

66.

Philips

S. U.

(1980). Sex differences and language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 523-544.

67.

Pooley

(2003). The man-woman differentiation when speaking regional languages in France. Langage & Societe, 106, 9-31.

68.

Precht

(2002). Gender differences in affect, evidentiality, and hedging in American conversation. Paper presented at the 76th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco, CA.

69.

Preisler

(1986). Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expressions of tentativeness. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.

70.

Reeder

H. M.

(1996). A critical look at gender differences in communication research. Communication Studies, 47, 318-330.

71.

Reid

S. A.

Palomares

N. A.

Anderson

G. L.

Brown

B. B.

(2009). Gender, language, and social influence: A test of expectation states, role congruity, and self-categorization theories. Human Communication Research, 35, 465-490.

72.

Reis

H. T.

(1998). Gender differences in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and process. In Canary

D. J.

Dindia

(Eds.), Gender differences and similarities in communication (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

73.

Reskin

B. F.

(1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation and the devaluation of women’s work. Gender & Society, 2, 58-75.

74.

Romaine

(1996). Clothes make the man, but language makes the woman. In Elmevik

Melander

Thelander

(Eds.), Samspel & variation (pp. 393-403). Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala, Institutionen för nordiska språk.

75.

Shimanoff

S. B.

(1977). Man = human: Empirical support for the Whorfian hypothesis. Bulletin: Women’s Studies in Communication, 1(2), 21-27.

76.

Smeltzer

L. R.

Werbel

J. D.

(1986). Gender differences in managerial communication: Fact or folk-linguistics? Journal of Business Communication, 23(2), 41-50.

77.

Spender

(1985). Man made language. Boston, MA: Routledge.

78.

Tajfel

(1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.

79.

Tannen

(1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

80.

Thomson

Murachver

Green

(2001). Where is the gender in gendered language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.

81.

Thorne

Henley

(Eds.). (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

82.

Trömel-Plötz

(1998). Selling the apolitical. In Coates

(Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 446-458). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

83.

Trudgill

(1978): Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London, England: E. Arnold.

84.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oaks

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

85.

Whelchel

N. L.

(1987, May). Sex-based respondent-interviewer interaction effects on gender-sensitive questions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Hershey, PA.

86.

Williams

J. E.

Best

D. L.

(1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multi-nation study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

87.

Willmott

(1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 515-552.

88.

Winstead

B. A

(1986). Sex differences in same sex friendships. In Derlega

V. J.

Winstead

B. A.

(Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 81-99). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

89.

Wittgenstein

(1953). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan.

90.

Woods

(2008). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

91.

Woods

(2003). Computer helps translate gap between “he said, she said.” Retrieved from www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030908/NEWS08/109080101

92.

Zimmerman

D. H.

West

(1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Thorne

Henley

(Eds.), Language and sex difference and dominance (pp. 105-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.