In her theory on Gender and Communication Studies, Deborah Tannen defines Genderlect as “Male-female conversation that is a cross-cultural communication. Masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking. Men’s report talk focuses on status and independence; women’s rapport talk seeks human connection.” In other words, the Genderlect theory helps describe the reason that many couples have trouble communicating and have different priorities on mutual issues. One example that illustrates this theory is the movie Pineapple Express, a ridiculous series of adventures involving a pot dealer Saul (James Franco) and one of his customers Dale (Seth Rogen). The two become unlikely friends when Dale witnesses a murder (while the murderers also witness him witnessing their murder) and can only turn to Saul for help; however, Saul’s attempts at helping the situation only make things worse. At one point, Dale contacts his girlfriend whom he as repeatedly disappointed, but she begins to regain feelings for him as he tells her he loves her and begs her to take him back. However, when she responds “I love you too, let’s get married,” he immediately seems taken aback as he replies “I..I made a mistake. I mean..I don’t know, I realize now that if you would take me back now you must be very naïve and immature.” Hilarity ensues as it becomes clear that Dale has been presenting a different message from what his now ex-girlfriend was receiving, officially burning the bridge.
Chapter 34 talks about Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect theory. She is concerned with the notion that a communication between a male and female is actually considered to be a cross cultural communication. She recognizes how male and female often miscommunicate due to the differences in incentives and desires. Tannen believes that a male and a female should be hold equal within a conversation. She proposes the differences in desire between males and females. Males common seek for status in a conversation, while females strive for human connection. Nevertheless, Tannen understands that these are not the only goals that are valued by both sexes in a conversation, but she believes these are the primary aims. An example I have here is about a guy doing a survey interviewing guys and girls about if boy and girls can be just friends. Surprisingly enough, every girl says yes, and that they think it is possible for boys and girls to be just friends without crossing the friendzone line. On the other hand, many guys disagree and say there is always this secret admiration when a guy is very close to a girl. This displays Tannen claims that female seeks for human connection, while man seek for social status.
In chapter 33, it talks about the speech code theory, which is defined as “a system of socially constructed symbols and meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct”. In order to further explain this concept, researcher Gerry Philipsen proposed six propositions to explain this theory. First one is the distinctiveness of speech code, which explains how every distinct culture there is a distinct speech code. Second is the multiplicity of speech code which talks about how there are multiple speech codes within any community. Third is the substance of speech code, which is concerned with the psychology, sociology, and rhetoric aspects that are being affected by the speech code within a community. Fourth is the interpretation of speech code; this talks about how the significant of the speech relies on the interpretation of the communication between both the speakers and the listeners. Fifth is the site of the speech code; this talks about how the speech is affected by the given terms, rules, and premises of the community. Lastly is the force of speech code, which talks about how one’s effectively use of shared speech can generate metacommunication. An example I have is a very funny scene from the movie Rush Hour. The investigator asks the Buddha who are you. The Buddha said “Yu”, which sounds like the word “you” but it is actually a very common name in Chinese culture. The investigator thinks he is being amused while the Buddha is actually serious what he is saying. This displays the differences in speech code, and how meaningful conversation cannot be generated without the common understanding and interpretation of the communication.
Speech Codes Theory is a term coined by Gerry Philipsen, it means “a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct”. Philipsen’s ultimate goal was “to develop a general theory that would capture the relationship between communication and culture”, so that it would be easier to interpret the way people speak. In order to examine the core of speech codes theory, Philipsen came up with six general propositions. The first one says that “Wherever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found a distinctive speech code”, 2nd: In any given speech community, multiple speech codes are deployed, 3rd: A speech code involves a culturally distinctive psychology, sociology, and rhetoric, 4th: The significance of speaking depends on the speech codes used by speakers and listeners to create and interpret their communication, 5th: The terms, rules, and premises of a speed codes are inextricably woven into speaking itself and the last one: The artful use of a shared speech code is a sufficient condition for predicting, explaining, and controlling the form of discourse about the intelligibility, prudence, and morality of communication conduct. I experience the Speech Codes Theory in my daily life, when I moved to the United States after growing up and living in Germany for the first nineteen years of my life, it took me a while to understand certain sayings and also to understand the function of selected phrases. In the beginning, acquaintances would ask me “how are you doing” while passing me in study hall or the hallway in Tribble and at first I thought that those people were actually interested in knowing how I was, I soon learnt that this phrase is just a politer way of saying hi in America and that people, unless they are actually your close friends, do not really pay attention to your answer/ do not want to hear the actual answer.
Deborah Tannen is the author of the book “You Just Don’t Understand”, which tries to explain why men and women often talk past each other. She claims that “”most men and women don’t grasp that talking through their problems with each other will only make things worse if it’s their divergent ways of talking that are causing the trouble in the first place”. The term “Genderlect” suggests that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects. Tannen believes that women and men differ in the focus behind their communication. While Men want to report and have the desire to give information while remaining independent of the other party and are comfortable telling other what to do and appearing “superior””, woman want to reach consensus and consult with others before deciding and their focus behind their communication is to build relationships, they desire intimacy in conversation. Therefore men use fewer words than women and express fewer feelings than women, they give feedback directly and bluntly, while women give feedback with tact, tentativeness and sensitivity to the other person’s feeling. The attached clip, from the TV-shows Friends, is an example for the difference between men and women and their ways to communicate. When “Rachel” comes home from her date, her friends are really curious and get excited for her, a lot of communication (non-verbal and verbal) happens before she is actually able to tell her story, while when the guys talk almost no words are exchanged and none of the friends seems to be excited for his friend etc. This clip shows that men definitely use fewer words and express fewer feelings than women.
Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles discusses how men and women’s styles of discourse should be observed as two distinct cultural dialects. Tannen sought out to explain why males and females often talk past one another, basing her theory off the claim that “Male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication” (p.435). Genderlect argues that men and women’s styles of conversation should not be viewed as inferior or superior to one another, but rather as two separate cultural dialects. A prime example portraying the miscommunication that occurs between males and females is portrayed in the romantic comedy movie, He’s Just Not That Into You. In this movie, Gigi went on what she believed was a great date with a man named Connor. When Connor did not call Gigi after their date, she was confused and sought out guidance on the matter from his friend, Alex. The scene attached is a dialogue between Gigi and Alex regarding their personal views on when someone chooses not to call follow-up a date with a phone call. It is evident in this clip the distinct differences in the views of male, Alex, verses those of female, Gigi. Alex states that if a man does not call after a date that he is uninterested, while Gigi states numerous explanations as to why the man wouldn’t call, none of which pertained to lack of interest. This is a great example of how Tannen believed men desire status, while women desire connection. Gigi was seeking a connection with Connor and Alex explained that males such as Connor would call if they were interested, which he clearly was not. It is apparent through this clip that males and females interpret communication in different manners and the signals of one may differ to another.
Speech Codes Theory, coined by Gerry Philipsen, is a communication theory defined as a “historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (p.421). The theory itself seeks to address inquiries pertaining to speech codes, their substance, the way in which they are discovered, and their influence on people among various cultures. Speech Codes Theory relies on six general propositions. The first proposition being that there is always a distinctive speech code within every distinctive culture. The second proposition states that within every speech community, there are multiple speech codes. Thirdly, speech codes involve culturally distinctive psychology, sociology, and rhetoric. The fourth proposition is that the significance of speaking is determined by the speech codes used by both the speakers and listeners in order to interpret the communication. The fifth involves the concept that the terms, rules, and premises of a speech code and inextricably woven into the act of speaking. The final proposition focuses on the force of speech codes in discussions, stating that the use of shared speech codes is adequately used for predicting, explaining, and controlling communication conduct. All six of these propositions are what Philipsen felt were essential aspect of understanding and analyzing Speech Codes Theory. The theory focuses on the idea that all cultures obtain their own speech codes that are widely understand and tend to have variations from other cultures’ speech codes. For instance, in the movie Mean Girls, Cady, a student who just moved to America from Africa, encountered a difference in speech codes based off of her culture leading to a misguided understanding. In the scene attached, Regina, another character, was in awe with what Cady had just disclosed to her, so she said, “shut up”. In our modern American culture, it is understood that “shut up” does not necessarily mean that someone should be quiet, but is used as an expression of surprise. In this case, Cady was confused and thought she had to explain that she had not said anything, though Regina was simply restating “shut up” to further explain her awe in Cady. This scene captures a strong relationship between communication and culture, just as the theory strives to do, in the sense that Cady misunderstood what Regina was trying to communicate to her due to her unfamiliarity with the modern American culture.
Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw’s Agenda Setting Theory focuses on the concept that the mass media has “the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda”(p.378). Within this, the theory focuses on the relation between two aspects- the media agenda and the public agenda. The media agenda refers to the “pattern of news coverage across major print and broadcast media as measured by the prominence and length of stories” (p.379). Whereas the public agenda is seen as the “most important public issues as measured by public opinion surveys”(p.380). McCombs and Shaw are not suggesting through their Agenda Setting Theory that they media actively tries to influence individual’s opinions on issues, rather they are stating that individual’s tend to rely on news professionals in order to find indicators of where to focus our attention. For instance, The New York Times is a widely read and respected newspaper throughout the world. In every issue, the cover of The New York Times focuses the readers’ attention towards what the editors feel are the most pressing issues of that day. That is not to say that the rest of the newspaper is not filled with important information, it is simply that the news professionals are helping us readers focus our attention. Thus, they are transferring the salience of issues from their newspaper to the public agenda by having readers focus on those pieces of news. Their articles typically remain unbiased in efforts to not sway readers’ opinions, simply give the reader’s cues on where to direct their focus for each day.
George Cerbner’s Cultivation Theory focuses on the idea that people who “spend the most time in front of the tube develop an exaggerated belief in a mean and scary world” (p.266). Thus, it is the theory stating that television has an effect on how one sees and experiences the world. Gerbner’s framework can be viewed as a “three-pronged plug leading to a TV set, with each of the prongs uniquely equipped to tell us something different about the world of TV” (p.367). The three prongs being addressed are institutional process analysis, message system analysis, and cultivation analysis. Looking more closely at cultivation analysis, it is defined as research that is “designed to find support for the notion that those who spend more time watching TV are more likely to see the “real world” through TV’s lens” (p.370). This is something I found myself resonating with because at numerous points throughout my life, I found myself being influenced by what I watched on TV or in movies. Within his theory of cultivation, Gerbner specifically discussed the effects that violence in television tends to have on individual’s social paranoia that creates a feeling of a lack of safety and trust. For instance, when I was in elementary school I watched the movie The Little Vampire, where a young and lonely boy get to know a vampire who flew into his room in the night. Even with my young age, I was knowledgeable of the fact that vampires did not exist. However, after watching this fictional movie, I was so frightened that a vampire would fly into my room in the night too. I was seeing the “real world” through TV’s lens, just as cultivation analysis puts it, though at the time, I truly believed that if I saw this on TV it could happen to me, despite my awareness of vampires being fictional. The Little Vampire kicked in my social paranoia that cultivated my sense of fear and lack of safety, altering my prior feelings at that time.
Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles is a theory that believes miscommunication between males and females is similar to that which occurs between cultures because the two genders communicate in very different styles from each other. She believes male and female styles of conversation should be viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking. She believes that women desire connection, while men desire status. This idea between the difficulty in male versus female conversation based on what they wanted made me thing of the comedy Ted. In this movie, Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are longtime boyfriend and girlfriend. Mark likes the way things are and therefore does not want to change them. However, Mila and her female coworkers believe after so many years he should grow up and get her a ring for marriage. This I believe highlights the difference in women’s desire for connection and men’s desire for control and status as the book looks at through conversations in When Harry Met Sally. I could not find the scene with the women talking about the necessity of marriage but below is the scene of the men clearly not believing that it is necessary.
