Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
E.M. Eisenberg, S.R. Phillips
Miscommunication in organisations
R. Lakoff (1973)
Language and woman's placeLanguage in Society, 2
J. Coates
Gossip revisited: language in all‐female groups
Julie McMillan, A. Clifton, Diane Mcgrath, Wanda Gale (1977)
Women's language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?Sex Roles, 3
N. Coupland, J.M. Wiemann, H. Giles
Talk as ‘problem’ and communication as ‘miscommunication’: an integrated analysis
B. Eakins, R. Eakins (1978)
Sex differences in human communication
N. Coupland, H. Giles, J. Wiemann (1991)
′Miscommunication′ and Problematic Talk
Cheris Kramarae (1980)
Perceptions and Politics in Language and Sex Research
L. Porter (1977)
Behaviour in Organizations
S. Case (1993)
Wide-verbal-repertoire speechWomens Studies International Forum, 16
L. Hirschman
Analysis of supportive and assertive behaviour in conversations
P. Kollock, P. Blumstein, P. Schwartz (1985)
Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and DutiesAmerican Sociological Review, 50
Daniel Maltz, Ruth Borker (1983)
A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication
A. Bodine
Sex differentiation in language
J. Lapadat, M. Seesahai (1977)
Male Versus Female Codes in Informal Contexts, 8
Emil Bohn, R. Stutman (1983)
Sex-Role Differences in the Relational Control Dimension of Dyadic InteractionWomen's Studies in Communication, 6
M. Baumann
Two features of ‘women’s speech’?
I. Gomm
A Study of the Inferior Image of the Female Use of the English Language as Compared to that of the Male
P. Fishman
Conversational insecurity
S.S. Case
Wide verbal repertoire speech: gender, language and managerial influence
P. Fishman (1978)
Interaction: The Work Women DoSocial Problems, 25
J. Holmes
Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: some evidence for hedges as support structures
D. Tannen
You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation
S.S. Case
Gender differences in communication and behaviour in organisations
B. Dubois, Isabel Crouch (1975)
The question of tag questions in women's speech: they don't really use more of them, do they?↓Language in Society, 4
D. Cameron, F. McAlinden, K. O’Leary
Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions
N. Henley, Cheris Kramarae (1991)
Gender, power, and miscommunication.
J.L. Johnson
Questions and role responsibility in four professional meetings
L. Hirschman (1994)
Female–male differences in conversational interactionLanguage in Society, 23
J. Coates (1986)
Women, men, and language
C. McCowen
Teaching teamwork“, Management Today, September, pp. 107‐11
D. Tannen (1990)
You just don't understand: women and men in conversation. morrow
S.S. Case
Cultural differences, not deficiencies: an analysis of managerial women’s language
The use of tag questions in speech has been hypothesised to make speech sound uncertain and tentative although Holmes (1984) suggests that there are three different types of tag questions and only one type is linked to uncertainty. Research on the issue of gender differences in tag question usage has produced confusing findings with some research indicating women use more tag questions, other research revealing men use more and some research finding no difference. The research on tag question use has identified role and power as important factors not just gender. The effects of the presence of the opposite sex on speech is a controversial area of study. Past research suggests that the use of tag questions is affected by whether the conversation is between members of the same sex or members of both sexes. The current study aimed to clarify the controversy of whether men or women use more tag questions, any possible effects of group composition and sought to extend research on the relationship of tag question use to role (chairperson or not) and power (highest status or not). The study was conducted at a power station in England. Ten business meetings which were all male, all female or mixed were tape recorded. From these tape recordings the tag questions were identified, transcribed and classified as modal, affective facilitative or affective softener according to the classification provided by Holmes (1984).
Women in Management Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Feb 1, 1998
Keywords: Communications; Gender; Language; Meetings; Women
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.