gender lang

8/9/2019 Gender Lang

1/18

Introduction

As Greenberg and Baron (1993) propose

It is a fact of life on the job th at everyone

engages in communication. C omm unication

has a cent ral role in on es working day and

perhaps this is why most man agers and organ-isational theorists view comm unication as

extremely importan t (Eisenberg and Phillips,

1991). Organisations could gain a great deal

from improving their comm unication systems

and tackling problems that have been attrib-

uted to t he quality of comm unication or

comm unication breakdown among individ-

uals and groups (Coupland et al., 1991).

Research in the area of sex differences in

language and oral commu nication has its

roots in the investigation of traditionally held

stereotypes about how women and m en

speak. Em pirical research has found some

support for these stereotypes but there are

also findings which actually invert trad itional

stereotypes or find no d ifferences at all

between the sexes. There are however enough

consistently foun d differences between men

and women to b e able to describe two distinct

speech styles, one used mainly by men, the

other used m ainly by women (Case, 1988,

1993; Tannen, 1990).

Explanat ions of the differences between

the speech of men and women have included

cultural differences between the two sexes

about what a conversation is (Maltz and

Borker, 1982) . Explanations based on male

dom inance in society have also been offered

where female speech is a reaction to the domi-

nant group of men (H enley and Kramarae,

1991). M ale dominance in society means that

male speech is seen as the n orm and female

speech is evaluated as deficient when com-

pared (H enley and Kram arae, 1991). Maledominance means that men control the lin-

guistic system and this in turn means that

women are denied adequate means to express

them selves. Researchers are now beginning to

recognise the fact that each of the theor ies has

something to offer and that a more compre-

hensive approach to the explanation of gender

differences in speech is called for.

Fishman (1978) concluded that women

use questions as a way of maintaining conver-

sation and gaining a response from a man . Aquestion is a powerful tool because it

demands a response. F ishman believes that

this is a manifestation of the m ale/female

hierarchy, which reflects the unequal statu s of

19

Women in Management Review

Volume 13 Number 1 1998 pp. 1936

MCB University Press ISSN 0964-9425

The impact of genderand its interaction withrole and status on the

use of tag questions inmeetings

Alison C.T. Calnan and

M arilyn J. Davidson

The authorsAlison C.T. Calnan is a Personnel Officer wi th Visteon,

Basildon, Essex.

Marilyn Davidson is Senior Lecturer in Organisational

Psychology, Manchester School of Management, UMIST,

Manchester.

Abstract

The use of t ag questions in speech has been hypothesised

to make speech sound uncertain and tentat ive 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 di fferences in

tag question usage has produced confusing fi ndings with

some research indicat ing women use more tag questions,

other research revealing men use more and some research

finding no dif ference. The research on tag question use has

identifi ed 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 t he 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 womenuse more tag questions, any possible effects of group

composition and sought to extend research on the rela-

tionship of tag question use to role (chairperson or not)

and power (highest status or not). The study was conduct-

ed 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 identi fied, t ranscribed and classified as modal,

affective facilitat ive or affective softener according to the

classification provided by Holmes (1984).


2/18

women in society and demonstrates the

powerlessness of women. Women have

becom e the shift workers of ordinary inter-

action, i.e. they spend t ime asking questions

to keep the conversation going and d oing the

work to maintain interaction (F ishman ,

1978). Johnson (1980) in a study of profes-

sional meetings in a large industr ial corpora-

tion revealed that women did ask more qu es-

tions. On the other hand, Johnson (1980)

concludes that the use of questions is not

based on sex and n or does it demonstrate

powerlessness but instead it is linked to

purpose and the intent of the speaker, for

example, using it to check someone elses

utterance.

Sex differences in speech and tagquestions

T he aim of this paper is to present the find-

ings of a stud y which investigates gender

differences and the impact of role and status,

and the use of specific types of questions

known as tag questions.

A tag question is in between an outr ight

statement and a yes/no qu estion, e.g. Its hot

out side, isnt it?. T hey may either be formal,

e.g. Werent you? D oes he? H asnt it?

or informal e.g. Right? OK?. Lakoff

(1975) m aintained that tag questions make

speech less assertive and more tentative and

according to Lakoff women use more tag

questions in their speech. Emp irical investiga-

tions have revealed mixed findings as to

whether women do in fact use tag questions.

Some researchers agree that women use

more tag questions, e.g. Case (1988) in a

study of a group of managers at a manage-

ment school found that women used tag

questions more abundant ly than men. Fish-man (1980) demonstrated that in 52 hour s of

natural conversation between heterosexual

couples, at home, women asked th ree times as

many tag questions as men. M cMillan et al.

(1977) assigned male and female psychology

students to mixed, all male and a ll female

groups. On average they found t hat the female

student s used tag qu estions twice as often as

their male counterparts. Furthermore in

mixed groups women used three times as

many tag questions as the men.Oth er researchers have demon strated that

in some situations men use more tag ques-

tions than women, e.g. Dubois and C rouch

(1975) studied the conversational give and

take among participants following presenta-

tions at a professional conference and found

that all examples of tag questions recorded

were spoken by men. Lapad at and Seesahai

(1977) studying informal conversations

revealed that men asked m ore tag questions

than women. H owever, other studies have

shown no d ifference in the usage of tag

questions between men and women . For

example Bauman n (1976) in a study of

conversations in three different settings an

office staff meeting (mixed men and women),

a graduate linguistic class (mixed men and

women), an d a womens discussion grou p (all

women) revealed that men used tag questions

at least as mu ch as women, no tag questions at

all being recorded in the all female 2.5 hour

interaction. Baumann argues that tag ques-tions may not express uncertainty but that

simply they are used to be m ore polite. Indeed

Case (1993) demonstrated in the analysis of a

group of managers working together at a

management school that the women u sed tag

questions which made their speech sound

more socially facilitative.

Kollocket al. (1985) suggest that the u se of

tag questions is not to d o so much with gender

but with p ower. In a study of intimate couples

both heterosexual and homosexual Kollocket

al. revealed that the less powerful par tner in

all female and m ixed sex (whether m ale or

female) couples asked more tag questions.

Although in terestingly in m ale gay coup les the

less powerful partner had lower rates of tag

questions, K ollocket al. maintained that in all

male coup les the position of the less powerful

coup le is especially difficult an d it is often the

less powerful partner who will want to en d the

relationship. Kollocket al. maintained that

because of this the more powerful partner will

use more t ag questions to encourage the lesspowerful partner and tr y to create the appear-

ance of equality. Kollocket al. concluded that

it is power differences that m ay create the

appearance of sex differences in conversation.

Johnson (1980) has also linked the use of the

tag question to power. In h er study of four,

one-hour professional meetings she linked the

use of tag questions to the most powerful

person , since she found that it was actually the

male leader of the group who asked the m ost

tag questions (over half). H e used them tointerject, clarify and elaborate when others

had the floor as well as when h e himself was

talking. Indeed Johnson (1980) comm ents

that her findings contradict Lakoffs assertion

20

The impact of gender and its interaction w ith role and status

Alison C.T. Calnan and M arilyn J. Davidson


Volume 13 Number 1 1998 1936


3/18

that tag questions represent weakness or

uncertainty and in fact the tag question is a

powerful checking device.

Indeed Cameron et al. (1989) examined

the use of modal and affective tag questions in

group s where there were asymm etries in

power held by the par ticipants. Tags with

modal meaning request the addressee to

confirm the speakers proposition, e.g. Sh es

coming around noon, isnt she? and are

usually spoken with r ising inton ation. An

affective tag is one t hat expresses the speakers

attitude to t he addressee either by supporting/

facilitating the add ressee, e.g. T he hens

brown, isnt she? (spoken by a father to a

son), or b y softening a n egatively affective

speech act, e.g. T hat was pretty silly, wasnt

it? and are u sually spoken with falling tone(Coates, 1993). Cameron et al. (1989) discov-

ered that a ffective tags were used on ly by

powerful speakers; powerless speakers n ever

used affective tags. T he use of affective tags

was also related to role in the conversation.

T hose taking on a facilitating role regardless

of sex used m ore facilitating tags, although it

could be argued that women m ore often take

on th e role of facilitator in conversation (Fish-

man, 1980). M odal tags were used by both

powerful and powerless speakers although

both powerless men and women used them

slightly more. Furthermore in an other study,

Holmes (1984) found that women used mainly

affective tags while the majority of tags used

by men were mod al. Coates (1988) suggests

that women use more affective tags than men

because of the natu re of their conversations,

since the topics that women talk about i.e.

people and feelings, are more face threatening

than the topics men talk about, i.e. things.

Holmes (1984) argues that a ffective tags are

not associated with u ncertainty and it is infact modal tags that reflect uncertainty and

notably these are used mostly by men or by

powerless people. In conclusion, it would

appear from the research findings to date that

the issue of who uses tag questions most, in

what situations, and the relationship of tag

questions with power is still far from resolved.

Speech behaviour in groups

Nowadays, the nature of the goals and objec-tives of organisations necessitate that people

act as a group rather th an as individuals.

McC owan (1989) suggests that with sharpen-

ing competition between increasingly well-

organised players, it is team performance

which has often become the crucial factor in

success rather t han individual performance.

T he effect of the composition of groups on

speech behaviour of men and women is far

from clear. Bodine (1975) hypothesised that

the speech used in situations where both sexes

are present may be qu ite different from the

speech of single sex groups. Studies demon-

strate that in m ixed groups mens behaviour

approaches females, since men will increase

the frequency of supportive, personal interac-

tion and decrease competitiveness (Bohn and

Stutm an, 1983). Fu rthermore, men will also

swear less when women are present (Gomm ,

1981). M cMillan et al. (1977) found that in a

mixed sex group men used more tag ques-

tions, modal construction and intensifierswhich are all character istics of female speech.

Interestingly women used more when they

were in m ixed sex groups as well. They

hypothesise that m en u se more female

character istics in the presence of women

since they will recognise the female values of

interpersonal closeness and em otional

involvemen t. T hey offer another explanation

of why women increase the frequency of these

speech characteristics in ter ms of a power

different ial where unaggressive language

would be more appropr iate when t alking to

people with m ore power. What happens to th e

speech of women in sam e sex groups is less

clear (Case, 1994), although H irschman

(1973, 1974) tentatively suggests that women

may talk more easily to each other than to

men , since speech between women h as fewer

hesitations, more minimal responses and

more elaboration of the others speech. Tannen

(1990) com ments that at an all female meet-

ing which she observed and t aped there were

more multiple floors, more laughing, teas-ing and overlapped speech than at meetings

where all or most of the par ticipants were

male. Researchers have called for more

research into the effect of the com position of

groups on speech (Maltz and Borker, 1982).

The study

T his study attempts to resolve the con troversy

surrounding the issue of tag question usage,

par ticularly the issue of gender differencesand the impact of role and status. T he investi-

gation was condu cted using meetings held at a

power station in the nor th of England. U nlike

many previous studies a variety of meetings

21


Alison C.T. Calnan and Marilyn J. Davidson




4/18

were tape recorded, all of which were part of

the n ormal working day at the p ower station

and hence conducted in natural conditions.

T he study was designed to investigate the

following hypotheses drawn from the litera-

ture:

(1) Women will use more affective (facilita-

tive and softener) tag qu estions than men.

(2) Men will use more modal tag questions

than women.

(3) Women in mixed groups will use more tag

questions than women in all female

groups.

(4) Men in mixed groups will use more

affective (facilitative and softener) tag

questions than m en in all male groups.

A furth er set of hypotheses were associated

with th e num ber of tag questions spoken by

people acting as chairperson and the people of

highest status (grade):

(5) People acting as chairperson will use

more affective, par ticularly facilitative,

tag questions than those people not acting

as chairperson.

(6) People with the highest status (grade) will

use more affective tag questions.

MethodGeneral Design

Ten bu siness meetings (all of which were a

natu rally occurr ing part of the working day)

were tape recorded at a power station in the

nor th of England over a period of one week. Of

the meetings stud ied, four were all male, one

was all female and five were mixed male and

female. Each meeting had d ifferent people

attending and was made up of between three

and 16 people. T he purpose of the ten meet-

ings taped varied but can be divided into threemain categories, the first category being sec-

tion/department review meetings which were

regular meetings (meetings one, two, four,

eight and n ine). T he second category included

meetings discussing specific projects (meet-

ings three, five and ten) , and committee meet-

ings (meeting six) made up th e third category.

Typed transcripts were taken from the tape

from each meeting. Tag questions occur ring in

the first 30 m inutes of the meeting were ident i-

fied and classified. T he classification of tag

questions was based on the description p rovid-

ed by Holmes (1984) and involved dividing

them into: affective facilitative, i.e. t ag ques-

tions indicating a positive interest in or

solidar ity with th e addressee; affective soften-

er, i.e. tag questions which soften a face threat-

ening act; or finally mod al, i.e. tag questions

requesting information or confirm ation of

information. T he speaker of the tag question

was noted and labelled appropr iately as either

male or female. It was also recorded whether

they were the chairperson or n ot and the

highest person with regards to status in the

group or not.

T he independ ent variables therefore in this

study were:

(1) the sex composition of the groups, either

all male, all female or mixed male and

female;

(2) the sex of the subjects, either male or

female;

(3) the role of the person in the group, i.e.whether they were the chairperson or not ;

(4) whether the person was highest in status

(grade) in the group or n ot. T he depen-

den t variable was the frequency of occur-

rence of tag questions both modal and

affective ( facilitative and softener).

Subjects

T he subjects were all, apar t from two,

employees at an electricity generating power

station in the nor th of England. T he remain-

ing subjects were curren tly working at the site

as contractors. In total 72 subjects took part,

mean age = 37.97: 48 males, mean age =

38.77, and 24 females, mean age = 36.44 . All

but one of the subjects described their ethnic

origin as white (UK and N orthern Ireland),

the remaining subject was classified as other

white (European). All subjects stated that

English was their first language.

A Sony M-425 m icro-cassette recorder was

used to tape all of the meetings. Each person

attend ing a meeting was informed that theexperimenter wished to tape record the meet-

ing as part of her study on how groups interact.

T he experimenter, at this point, d id not

explain the exact natu re of the study. Everyone

attend ing was asked permission to allow tape

recording and was guaranteed confidentiality

and that no one would be identified by the

study. Where possible a letter was sent to all

part icipant s before the meeting took place. It

was made clear by the experimenter that if any

one person ob jected tape recording would nottake place so the study was entirely voluntary.

On arrival at the meeting room each

subject was asked to complete a shor t

biographical questionnaire; one member of

22






5/18

the group was asked to also complete a short

questionnaire providing information abou t

the m eeting itself. Both these questionnaires

were completed before the meeting began.

T he micro-cassette tape recorder was then

left in the room and on e person was asked to

turn over the tape if the meeting lasted longer

than half an hour. All participants were

instructed to tr y to forget that the tape

recorder was there and continue as they

norm ally would. At this point confidentiality

of the study was assured once more. T he

experimenter then left the room . T he experi-

menter returned at th e end of the meeting to

collect the tape and tape recorder. A letter was

given to the chairperson which explained in

more detail what the study was about and

expressed thanks to all those part icipating.

Meetings

T he study was conducted during one week at

the power station. M eetings scheduled for this

week were identified with the assistance of

secretaries. From the ident ified meetings, all

the m eetings that were suitable in terms of size,

(preferred size between 4-12 people), length

(at least half an hour) and where the subject

matter was not thou ght to be especially confi-

dent ial, were approached to be taped. O n this

basis ten meetings were selected and agree-

ment was given to tape record all these meet-

ings.

M eeting 1

T his was a meeting of a section in the human

resources department . It was a regular meet-

ing taking place each week and its purpose

was for the team memb ers to commu nicate to

each other their week ahead . Five people

attended all of whom were male (mean age =

34.4). T here was a mixture of grades from a

section head to an indu strial placement stu-

dent. T he indu strial placement student had

provided th e agenda. T he meeting lasted

38.49 m inutes and was quite informal in style.

M eeting 2

T his was a meet ing taking place in a section of

the engineering maintenance department .

T he purpose of the meeting was to review the

sections progress and th e meeting takes place

regularly every month. N ine people attended,

seven male (mean age = 37.85) and twofemale (mean age = 30.5), the mean age of the

group was 36.2 years. All the men were at

engineer grades and one was head of the

section, both women were on clerical grades.

T he style of the meeting was to go around

each person in tur n for an update. On e hours

worth of tape was recorded and the meeting

was not concluded in this time.

M eeting 3

T his was the first meeting of a group dis-cussing a project. Four people attended, all

were female (m ean age = 39). All the women

worked in the same section at a similar grade,

one of the women acted as team leader. T he

meeting lasted 30 minutes.

M eeting 4

T his was a meeting of represent atives of

sections within the commercial departm ent

and the departm ent man ager who was female.

T he meeting was held each morn ing for

briefing purposes. Six people attended (meanage = 38) , three male (mean age = 39) an d

three female (mean age = 37). All those

attending were at supervisory grades. T he

meeting lasted 30 m inutes and involved each

person in tu rn describing their day ahead.

M eeting 5

T his was a meeting to discuss an engineering

process and was the fourth occasion that the

group had m et. Twelve people attended, all of

whom were male (mean age = 40.16 years).

All those attend ing were engineers or similar

in status. The m eeting lasted 32.08 minutes

and the agenda was led by the highest ranking

man who sum marised a num ber of issues and

then went round the table asking for updates

from each person.

M eeting 6

T his was a meeting of a cross department

group reviewing training activities on site.

T he group met every two months and had

been meeting for six years. Six people were

present at the meeting (mean age = 41.166),

four were male (mean age = 41.75) and two

were female (mean age = 40). T he group was

a mixture of grades but the women were the

lowest grades present. O ne of the m en acted

as chairperson and he had p repared an agenda

which involved a h igh degree of input from

the training manager (male) and another

representative of the training departm ent

(female). T he meeting lasted one hour.

M eeting 7

T his was a meeting to discuss the installation

of a monitoring system by a contractor. It was

a weekly meeting and they had met ten t imes

previously. T here were four group members,

23






6/18

all of whom were male and th eir mean age was

45.5 years. All attendees were of similar

grade. T he meeting lasted 30 minutes and

was chaired by one of the m en.

M eeting 8

T his was a weekly meet ing of the com mercialdepartment and was an oppor tun ity to pass

on information abou t both work and social

events. T he m eeting had been taking place for

one year. Sixteen people attended in total,

(mean age = 36 .33), n ine of whom were

female (mean age = 36.125) and seven of

whom were male (mean age = 36.57). T he

group was made up of a mixture of grades

from clerical staff to a junior m anager. T he

meeting lasted 36 .06 m inutes and was chaired

by a woman. O n the agenda were two infor-

mal presentations.

M eeting 9

T his was a weekly team m eeting of a section

in the human resources department. T he

meeting was aimed at u pdating each team

member on current issues. Seven people

attended (mean age = 35 .14), four females

and three males. T he meeting lasted 34.21

minutes and involved a sum mar y of some

current issues by the department man ager

(male) as well as an oppor tun ity for the rest ofthe team to share current concerns. T he

meeting was informal but chaired by the

second highest ranking person ( female).

M eeting 10

T his was a meeting to discuss perform ance

indicators for a project. T hree males attended

(mean age = 39 .66). It was the second t ime

that the group had met. T he meeting was an

open floor and all were at engineering grades.

T he meeting lasted 50.36 minutes.

Transcripts

T he first half-hour of each tape was listened to.

In every case where a tag question occur red

the tape was transcribed in the exact words of

the speaker and the intonation was noted. T he

speaker of the tag qu estion was also noted and

a label was attached ind icating whether they

were male or female, acting as chairperson or

not and whether they were the person in the

group of the highest status or not. In th is study

the person of highest status was the person

with the highest job grade. Tag questions were

coun ted and classified as either mod al or

affective ( facilitative and softener) using th e

description p rovided by H olmes (1984).

An independent experimenter was asked to

repeat th e process of coding the tag questions.

T he coder was briefed on what a tag question

was and th e different types modal, affective

facilitative, affective softener. D ue to t ime

constraints of the coder on ly five of the

meet ings were selected. T hese five meetings

included , however, 72 per cent of identified

tag questions. A Pearson product moment

correlation was calculated of 0.7180, indicat-

ing good inter-rates reliability.

Results

T he analysis is divided into three main

sections. Each section looks at differences

between two groups on th e following tag

question categories: total mean nu mber of tagquestions (all types), total mean num ber of

affective tag questions (both facilitative and

softener), m ean nu mber of affective facilita-

tive tag questions, mean number of affective

softener tag questions and m ean num ber of

modal tag questions.

T he first section examines differences

between males and females, in all the meet-

ings. T herefore the mean n umbers of tag

questions of each category is compared

between m ales and females. T his is achieved

by presenting the data in graph ical form and

then comparing means using independent

samples t-tests. T he next section is concerned

with differences in tag question u sage between

same sex groups compared to mixed sex

groups. T herefore, in th is section the m ean

numbers of tag questions (all categories) used

by women in sam e sex groups will be com-

pared to the mean n umber of tag questions

used by women in mixed groups; and the

mean num ber of tag qu estions (all categories)

used by men in same sex groups will be com-pared to the mean n umber of tag questions

used by men in mixed sex groups. T his analy-

sis will be achieved by presenting the data

graphically and t esting for any differences

using independent samp les t-tests. T he final

section investigates the effects of role (chair-

person or not) and status (person of highest

status in the m eeting or not) on all categories

of tag question use in all meetings. In th is

section the mean num bers of tag questions

asked by people in the role of chairperson willbe compared to the mean num ber of tag

questions asked by people not in the role of

chairperson. T he mean num ber of tag ques-

tions is also compared b etween people of

24






7/18

highest status in each m eeting and people not

of highest status. Again the data will be pre-

sented graphically and independen t t-tests are

used. An analysis of variance is also reported

in this section which investigates the interac-

tion of sex with role and status.

Gender differences in tag question use

Figure 1 shows the mean n umber of tag

questions used by men and women in all the

meetings studied, i.e. both mixed sex and

same sex. It r eveals that there is a difference

between the total mean num ber of tag ques-

tions asked by women com pared to that of

men. Looking at the different types of tag

questions, the graph dem onstrates that men

and women ask exactly the same mean number

of affective questions. H owever, women askmore affective facilitative tag questions while

men ask more affective softener tag qu estions.

Men also ask more modal tag questions.

To test the significance of these differences

t-tests were carried ou t between the two

groups (men an d women) on each type of tag

question. T he means and results of the t-tests

for tag questions (modal, affective, affective

facilitative and affective softeners) are pre-

sented in Table I. T hese data are used to test

H1 that women will use more affective (facili-

tative and softener) tag qu estions than men,

and to testH2 that m en will use more modal

tag questions than women.

No significant d ifference was found

between how often men and women use tag

questions, women using a mean of 2.21 while

men u sed a mean of 2.63 tag questions. When

looking at the d ifferent types of tag questions,

men and women were shown to use exactly

the same mean total number of affective tags,

both m en and women h aving a mean of 1.17.

Consider ing the d ifferent types of affective tagquestions, no significant difference was found

between the mean n um ber of affective facilita-

tive tag questions used by men and women,

with the mean for women being 1.17 and the

mean for m en being 0.813. A significant

difference (t= 2.96,p < 0.05) was demon-

strated, however, between th e mean number

of affective softeners used by men and

women. Women were found never to u se

affective softeners while men used a mean of

0.292. N o difference was found in the use of

modal tags with women using a mean of 1.13

and m en using a mean of 1.46.

T hese results mean th at neitherH1 orH2

are supported .H1 stated that women will use

more affective tag questions than men . How-

ever these results indicate that there is no

difference between the mean n umb ers of

affective tag questions used by men andwomen. When con sidering facilitative and

softener t ags, no difference was found between

men and women in their use of facilitative tags,

but it was found that, in fact, men use signifi-

cantly more softener tags (t= 2.96,p < 0.05).

H2 stated that m en will use more modal tags

that women, but these results indicate that

there is no significant difference between the

mean number of modal tags used by men and

the mean number of modal tags used by

women.

Figure 2 shows the mean n umber of tag

questions used by women in same sex groups

compared to women in mixed groups. T he

graph reveals that women in same sex group s

used a greater total nu mber of tag questions.

When con sidering the different types of tag

questions, women in all female groups used

more modal and affective facilitative tag

questions. No women , no matter if they were

in all female groups or m ixed grou ps, ever

used affective softener tag questions.

Table II presents means for the numb er oftag questions (affective, facilitative, softener

and m odal) for women in m ixed and same sex

groups. It also shows t-test results for these

two groups (mixed and same sex) comparing

the nu mbers of tag questions asked by women

in same sex groups to women in mixed

groups. T hese data are used to test the signifi-

cance of the differences presented in the

graphs and thusH3 that women in m ixed

groups will use more tag questions than

women in all female groups.No significant d ifference was found in the

total mean use of tag questions between

women in same sex groups and women in

mixed groups, with women using a mean of

25





Tot al t ags Tot alaffective

Facilit at ive Soft ener M odal

Type of tag question

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Mean number of tag questionsKey

Male (n = 48)

Female (n = 24)

Figure 1 The mean number of tag questions used by men

and women in all meetings (i.e. both same and mixed sex)


8/18

9.25 in same sex groups and women u sing a

mean of 0.80 in mixed groups. T here was nosignificant d ifference shown between the

mean total number of affective tags that

women use in mixed groups compared to the

mean n umber used in same sex groups, with

women using a mean of 5.75 in same sex

groups and a m ean of 0.25 in mixed groups.

Since women did n ot use any affective soften-

er tag qu estions the results for facilitative tag

questions are the same as the results for total

affective tag questions. F urtherm ore no t-testcould b e calculated for affective softener tag

questions since there were no examples. A

significant difference (t= 3.47,p < 0.05)

between the use of modal tag qu estions was

demon strated, however, between women in

mixed groups and women in same sex groups,

women in mixed groups using a mean of 0.65

while women in sam e sex group s using a mean

of 3.50.

T hese results do not suppor tH3 that

women in mixed groups will use more tagquestions than women in all female groups,

since no significant difference was foun d

between the m ean num ber of tags used by

women in mixed and women in same sex

groups. In fact, F igure 2 indicates that women

in same sex group s ask the most tag questions.

T his is supported by the fact that women in

same sex groups used significantly more

modal tag questions (t= 3.47,p < 0.05) than

women in m ixed groups.

26





Total tags Totalaffective

Facili tat ive Modal

Type of tag question

109876543210

Mean number of tag questions

Key

All female (n = 4)

Mixed (n = 20)

Figure 2 The mean number of t ag questions used bywomen in al l female and mixed groups

Table II Mean number of occurrences of tag questions by women and standard deviat ions in mixed and same sex group

All female Mixed

(n= 4) (n= 20)

Standard Standard Degrees of

Tag questions Mean deviation Mean deviation freedom tvalue

All tag questions 9.25 7.41 0.80 1.47 3.05 2.27

Affective 5.75 5.12 0.25 0.55 3.01 2.14

Affective facilitative 5.75 5.12 0.25 0.55 3.01 2.14

Affective softener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Modal 3.50 2.52 0.65 1.27 22 3.47*

Notes:

* = p < 0.05

NB: All degrees of freedom calculated using formulae for unequal variances

Table I Mean number of occurrences of tag questions and standard deviat ions by sex of subject

Women Men

(n= 24) (n= 48)

Standard Standard Degrees of

Tag questions Mean deviation Mean deviation freedom tvalue

All tag questions 2.21 4.40 2.63 3.38 70 0.45

Affective 1.17 2.84 1.17 1.87 70 0.00

Affective facilitative 1.17 2.84 0.813 1.39 70 0.70

Affective softener 0.00 0.00 0.292 0.683 47a 2.96*

Modal 1.13 1.83 1.46 2.10 70 0.66

Notes:

* = p < 0.05a = Degrees of freedom calculated using formulae for unequal variances


9/18

Figure 3 shows the mean nu mber of tag ques-

tions asked by men in same sex groups com-

pared to men in mixed groups. T he graph

reveals that m en in same sex groups ask a

greater total num ber of tag questions. In fact

they ask a greater num ber of every type of tag

question.

Table III presents means for the numb er of

tag questions (affective, facilitative, softener

and m odal) for men in mixed and same sex

group s. It also shows t-test results for these

two groups (mixed and same sex) comparing

the nu mbers of tag questions asked by men in

same sex groups to the num bers asked by men

in mixed group s. Th is data is used to test the

significance of the differences presented in the

graphs and thusH4 that men in mixed groups

will use m ore affective tag q uestions (facilita-

tive and softener) th an m en in all male groups

When considering differences in mean

num ber of tag questions used by men in

mixed group s and men in same sex groups no

significant d ifference was found in the total

mean use of tag questions, with men in same

sex groups using a mean of 3.29 while men in

mixed groups using a mean of 1.96. No differ-

ence was revealed in the m ean use of affective

tag questions between men in mixed groups

and m en in same sex groups either, with m en

in same sex groups asking a mean of 1.54

affective tag questions and men in mixed

groups asking a mean of 0.792. When

examining the d ifferent types of affective tag

questions used by men, n o difference was

found in the use of facilitative tag questions,

with m en in same sex groups using a mean of

0.875 and men in m ixed groups using a mean

of 0.750. T here was, however, a significant

difference (t= 2.70,p < 0.05) between the

mean use of softener t ag questions, since a

mean of 0.542 was found for men in same sex

groups while a mean of 0.042 was found for

men in mixed group s. No significant d iffer-

ence was found for the mean use of modal tag

questions between men in mixed groups and

men in same sex groups, since men in same

sex groups were demonstrated to use a mean

of 1.75 while men in mixed groups were found

to use a mean of 1.17 modal tag questions.

T hese data do not provide suppor t forH4

which states that men in mixed groups will

use more affective tag questions than men in

same sex groups. In fact, F igure 3 shows that

men in same sex groups use more affective

tags. Furtherm ore the t-test results also sug-

gest the opposite to the hypothesis, as the on ly

significant difference between the use of tag

questions by men in same sex groups com-

pared to m en in mixed groups is for the use of

affective softener t ag questions (t= 2.70,p

gender lang

Documents