"ZAMONAVIY TILSHUNOSLIK VA TARJIMASHUNOSLIKNING DOLZARB MUAMMOLARI"
mavzusidagi xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjuman
118
THE PRAGMATICS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN
COMMUNICATION
Danabaeva Indira
1
st
year of Master’s degree student
of National university of Uzbekistan
+998990214239
Scientific advisor: Sobirova Dilafruz Akrom qizi
Annotation:
This research investigates the pragmatics issues of gender
differences in communication from a linguistic and scientific approach focusing on
discourse by men vs women. The study looks at speech acts, conversational styles and
interactional norms to evaluate how language is differently made by men and women
and whether these differences have consequences for the male and female
communicators themselves. This presented thesis uses linguistic theory, gender studies
and empirical data used for the over-arching understanding of gendered
communication.
Key words:
pragmatics, gender, speech, language, style, communication,
socialization.
Аннотация:
Это исследование изучает прагматические вопросы
гендерных различий в общении с точки зрения лингвистического и научного
подхода, фокусирующегося на дискурсе мужчин и женщин. Исследование
рассматривает речевые акты, разговорные стили и нормы взаимодействия, чтобы
оценить, как по-разному создается язык мужчинами и женщинами, и имеют ли
эти различия последствия для самих коммуникаторов-мужчин и женщин. Этот
представленный тезис использует лингвистическую теорию, гендерные
исследования и эмпирические данные, используемые для всеобъемлющего
понимания гендерной коммуникации.
Ключевые слова:
прагматика, гендер, речь, язык, стиль, коммуникация,
социализация.
Annotatsiya:
Ushbu tadqiqot suhbat jarayonida gender masalalari farqlarining
pragmatikasini lingvistik va ilmiy yondashuvdan kelib chiqib, erkaklar va ayollar
o‘rtasidagi nutqqa qaratilgan. Tadqiqot nutq harakatlari, suhbat uslublari va o‘zaro
ta’sir me’yorlarini ko‘rib chiqadi hamda erkaklar va ayollar tomonidan til qanday
farqlanadi, shuningdek, bu farqlar erkak va ayol kommunikatorlarning o‘zlari uchun
oqibatlarga olib keladimi yoki yo‘qligini baholashdan iborat. Ushbu taqdim etilgan
tezis lingvistik nazariya, gender tadqiqotlari va gender aloqasini chuqur tushunish
uchun ishlatiladigan empirik ma’lumotlardan foydalanadi.
Kalit so'zlar:
pragmatika, jins, nutq, til, uslub, muloqot, sotsializatsiya.
"ZAMONAVIY TILSHUNOSLIK VA TARJIMASHUNOSLIKNING DOLZARB MUAMMOLARI"
mavzusidagi xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjuman
119
Pragmatics or the context, under which meanings are established in
communicative situations, is what this study deals with. Some quirky issues the
gender’s role might play are speech act performance (e.g.,
request, apology, command
),
politeness strategies, turn-taking and conversational implicates. The pragmatic
differences can be socially constructive – disturbing - that is, how gender influences
interpersonal relationships and perception of authority, cooperation and dominance
during discourse.
While studying the speech of male and female in communicative basis, one may
notice some particular linguistic features of men’s and women’s communication styles.
Some key areas include the following categories as,
speech acts
- these contrast how
women and men make requests, give commands, apologize and express
agreement/disagreement;
conversational style -
when men use direct and assertive
language, while women employ indirect, cooperative and polite speech patterns;
Turn-
Taking and Interruptions -
in this context, men interrupt more and dominate
conversation, whereas women use backchanneling cues to invite discussion;
Lexical
Choices and Intonation
- women employ more reluctance such as (…
I think, maybe
)
and tag questions such as, (…
It is nice, isn't it?
), while men prefer plain assertiveness.
According to R. Lakoff, the language of women is more tentative and polite. The
features are hedging - for example, “
I think
”, “
maybe
” - tag questions, such as “
It’s
nice, isn’t it?
”, and indirect speech which such as “
Would it be possible to submit the
report by Friday?
” instead of “
Submit the report by Friday
”
-
makes them look less
assertive in speaking. This, linguistic style is a product of society where women are
expected to be more deferential and accommodating in all conversation settings. [6;
22]
As it was mentioned in Model of Difference by D. Tannen, “…Men and women
have different communication styles shaped by socialization, as she said. According to
scholar, men generally use “
report talk
” focused on information and status, while
women use “
rapport talk
” focused on relationships and understanding. This difference
can appear in everyday situations. It could be how they react in a problem situation. A
man may provide solutions while a woman seeks emotional support and connection.
Men compete for dominance in discussion groups and create ties that are important for
women. [7; 86]
Gender communication is not fixed but changes according to the situation. While
conducting research on communicative differences on male and female’s speech D.
Cameron says that, “…the speech of male and female is not fixed actually, but varies
with social context, power relationship between them and individual's personal
experience. For example, a female CEO would mostly probably speak directly and
assertively in the board meetings, just like other male counterparts, while a male
caregiver would use nurturing and empathetic language at home”. [3; 56] D. Cameron’s
"ZAMONAVIY TILSHUNOSLIK VA TARJIMASHUNOSLIKNING DOLZARB MUAMMOLARI"
mavzusidagi xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjuman
120
model does not mention anything about gender being the only factor influencing
language use. Occupation, culture, and individual personality also play roles in
influencing language use.
According to D. Tannen, “…males tend to be more literal when it comes to
speech acts, issuing commands or statements of fact. A man might say, “
Give me the
report by noon
”, but a woman might put it more tentatively and use “
Could you send
me the report when you have time?
”, furthermore, females use indirect speech, hedging
and politeness strategies maintaining relationships. Women may use more inclusive
language in social situations such as, “
We should look at other options
”, as opposed to
a more directive “
Try something else
”. [7; 90]
The use of politeness strategies by women in their speech is try to build rapport,
such as through positive politeness strategies, such as compliments, apologies, and
inclusive language. [2; 37] So, for instance, one might hear a woman say in a group
project, “
I appreciate your effort on this; maybe we could tweak this part a little?
”,
however, men use negative politeness strategies commands and minimal response
tokens. For instance, “
Change this part-it doesn't work
” might come from a man in that
group situation.
There is the point that must be highlighted that men are more likely to interrupt
conversations to assert their dominance when the status of males is being competed
upon. [8; 74] The findings show that in a discussion with a male and a female, while
be male interrupts more, the female rarely interrupts. An example can be a meeting in
which a man could cut across a woman who was making a statement in order to put
forth his point.
Language processing areas involving greater brain activity where women show
greater activity in language processing areas, such as the left hemisphere’s Broca’s and
Wernicke’s areas, which may contribute to their greater use of verbal expression and
multitasking in communication. For example, studies suggest that women outperform
men in verbal fluency tasks and word recall. [1; 88] Men tend to be more lateralized
than women when it comes to brain function leading to conversation being more task-
oriented and purposeful in men. Perhaps this characterizes women’s greater use of
indirect speech and discursive markers in comparison to men.
Scholars as P. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet maintained that gender roles provide
the background for different linguistic behaviors from childhood. Girls are considered
cooperative, nurturing, and polite; whereas boys are considered assertive, competitive,
and, of course, authoritative in their speech. [4; 186] However, other scholars as D.
Maltz and R. Borker say that boys engage in competitive games in which language is
used to set hierarchy (“
I’m the leader; You follow me
”), whereas girls engage in
cooperative ones where language is used to foster bonds (“
Let’s decide together what
we should do
”).
"ZAMONAVIY TILSHUNOSLIK VA TARJIMASHUNOSLIKNING DOLZARB MUAMMOLARI"
mavzusidagi xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjuman
121
To sum up, the study of gender differences in communication reveals that
language use is shaped by different influences. While men and women exhibit distinct
speech patterns, these differences are not fixed but vary according to context, power
relations, and personal experiences. Recognizing and understanding these variations
fosters more effective and inclusive communication, improving interactions in both
personal and professional settings.
LIST OF USED LITERATURE:
1.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003).
The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the
Extreme Male Brain
. Allen Lane.
2.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
3.
Cameron, D. (2007). The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women
Really Speak Different Languages? Oxford University Press.
4.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013).
Language and Gender
.
Cambridge University Press.
5.
Coates, J. (1996).
Women Talk: Conversation Between Women Friends
.
Blackwell.
6.
Lakoff, R. (1975).
Language and Woman's Place
. Harper & Row.
7.
Tannen, D. (1990).
You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation
. William Morrow.
8.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). "A Cultural Approach to Male-
Female Miscommunication." In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.),
Language and Social Identity
(pp.
196-216). Cambridge University Press.
9.
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). "Sex Roles, Interruptions and
Silences in Conversation." In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.),
Language and Sex:
Difference and Dominance
(pp. 105-129). Newbury House.
10.
Djumabaeva, J. S., & Avazmatova, M. M. (2022). International Journal of
Social Science Research and Review.
11.
Djumabaeva, J. S. (2015). Plesionymy and graduonymy in English and
Uzbek. European Journal of Literature and Linguistics, (2), 55-58.
