Communicating with the Opposite Gender in Deborah Tannen's Genderlect Theory

Introduction

Few things can be as frustrating as trying to communicate with the opposite gender. Every day each one of us is faced with the struggle of trying to relay our thoughts across the gender gap, and Deborah Tannen attempts to explain why we have those complications with a theory called the Genderlect theory. This theory was developed to explain the fundamental differences between the methods each gender use to communicate. I have had the wonderful opportunity to spend time shadowing a PA at a local clinic and through that I gained first-hand insight into the principles of the Genderlect theory. Observing the conversation styles of men and women revealed the most, but the differences in how a female PA and male doctor communicated with their patients also spoke volumes. By analyzing the situations I observed, it becomes apparent that the Genderlects theory has clear applicable points that accurately describe male and female communicative behavior.

Description of Theory

To summarize the Genderlect theory, one must look at several broad points Tannen describes. The first of these points is the reasoning behind men and women communication. She states that women communicate to incite a connection, whereas men communicate to demonstrate status. Therefore, women tend to use conversation to build and maintain interpersonal relationships while men converse when there is an opportunity to exhibit power or establish a hierarchy. In conjunction with the reason for communication, Tannen also demonstrates the different styles that genders communicate. Women use what she describes as rapport talk. Rapport talk tends to express emotions and feelings and build bonds. On the other hand, men use report talk. Report talk can be describe...

... middle of paper ...

...usion

In conclusion, it is fairly obvious that the Genderlect theory is based on clearly observable findings. The main points described in the theory can be witnessed in analyzing the day that I spent shadowing in the clinic. The social tendencies of females could be observed in conversation and the increased average visit time was also indicative of the importance of socializing. In contrast, the more direct nature of males was also apparent in their value of details over superfluous conversation. Also, a close look into the opposing styles of Dr. Flatt and Mrs. Bryant reveals what each gender idealizes as important in communication. While close observation clearly demonstrates a fundamental difference in the manner that each gender communicates, neither style is superior and knowledge of these differences is imperative in successful cross-gender communication.