TheoryOutlinePeerReviewChanelleGallucci1 xLiteratureReview_FinalPaperGuidelines xFinal_Paper_SAMPLE2 x
Order Literature Review on Theory
PeerReview Discussion
(Week 9)
15 points
Create an outline for your final paper and upload it to this discussion thread by course deadline. Then, read the outlines posted by your group members and provide constructive feedback to one or more of your peers.
Your outline should include:
1. General Information:
· The name of the theory you selected- Dialectical Theory
· The name of the primary theorist(s) who developed the theory- Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery in 1988.
· A brief summary of what the theory states (in your own words)- This theory states and examines how interpersonal relationships are interwoven with multiple contradictions.
2. A list of the main ideas, key terms, and key concepts that make up this theory, including for EACH CONCEPT:
· A brief definition of the concept or term (in your own words)- Is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about something but hoping to establish truth through reasoned arguments.
· A description of how it relates to other concepts or terms- Being able to relate as a process of contradiction. One concept of dialectical theorists is the contradiction which interplays between unified opposites.
· A citation for
at least
one academic source you found that discusses, applies, or defines this concept (Note: In your paper, you should have at least
two
sources per concept, so if you find additional sources, include them on your outline so you don’t forget! You’ll need them when you write the paper.)-
https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dialectical-theory
3. Challenges to the theory:
· At least one argument that challenges the theory (examples of challenges could be that it’s not a valid theory, it has been proven incorrect, it is incomplete, it is not relevant in today’s society, etc. – No theory is without criticism!)- One challenge which I mentioned I went through with a friend of 10 years is the dialectical theory within friendships. This could be challenging because friendships at any stage in life go through a set of challenges from both contextual and interactional dialects which friends both create and manage.
· A citation for one source that includes the challenge to the theory that you described-
http://www5.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/friendship01
Make sure you use standard outlining format and divide your paper in sections. Use complete sentences for each main point and sub point.
Outlining formatting example:
I.
a.
b.
II.
III.
a.
i.
ii.
b.
When you review your peers’ outlines, ask yourself:
1. Did this person accurately summarize the theory?
2. Did the person miss any key concepts or terms that should be included?
3. Does the person have source support for every point s/he intends to make?
4. Do you have any other helpful suggestions for your classmate?
Part 2: Literature Review/Final Paper (50 points)
· 5-6 pages
· Use APA style throughout
· Discuss ONE theory in depth
·
Use your outline from Week 8 as a guide. Your paper should include: o General information about the theory such as a summary of what the theory says and a brief history of how it was developed o an in-depth discussion of each of the main concepts and terms in the theory, using multiple sources to flesh out each concept o A discussion of the theoretical challenges or critiques that scholars have presented (Hint: Look at the back of the chapter you’re using and find the article the textbook authors are citing when they discuss critiques of the theory.)
· Cite at least five (5) reputable, peer-reviewed books or communication journals/research articles. o You may cite your textbook, but it does not count as one of your five sources. o No more than two (2) sources may be older than 1996
· Synthesize your sources. Remember that you are using them to support a point you are making about a key concept or term, what it means, and how it relates to other concepts or terms; you are NOT summarizing the sources.
· Literature Review should be well-organized and follow academic essay format
· SUBMIT: One Microsoft Word ( or x) file containing your paper and a References page in APA style. Your References page, cover page (not required), etc. do not count toward your 5-6 pages.
1
Genderlect Styles Theory of Deborah Tannen
The development and acceptance of Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles Theory was a huge turning point in the field of cross-gender communication. What is unique about this theory is the perspective that it takes on gender communication; Tannen claims that cross-gender communication is actually cross-cultural communication. Several communication scholars have studied her theory, further explained it, and related it to several real-life situations. There are five key concepts of Genderlect Styles Theory: its definition, rapport-talk vs. report-talk, tag questions, the “aha factor,” and cooperative overlap.
According to Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks (2013), a genderlect is “a term suggesting that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects” (p. 433). Essentially, what this means is that gender is not only the socially constructed appropriate behaviors of each biological sex, but it is a culture. Gender and culture are both things that we as humans perform, but what Tannen is arguing is that gender is culture, and we perform it in the same way. Gender and culture are one entity, not two separate ones that somewhere intertwine. Kelley and Brannen (2014) use several different definitions of the term genderlect in order to make sense of a way for women to better communicate. “Suzette Haden Elgin described genderlect as a ‘variety of language that is not tied to geography or to family background or to a role, but to the speaker’s sexual gender.’” Although this definition is not as clear as Griffin, Spark, and Ledbetter’s, it is more of a separation of the things that we usually consider to be culture and gender. It also implies that gender is considered to be a culture in itself.
Some scholars have even gone so far as to define “feminine” and “masculine” genderlects separately. Gamble and Gamble (2002), define the feminine genderlect as what is used to connect with others and maintain relationships and the masculine genderlect as what is used to prove themselves in conversation and negotiate their positions in comparison to others (p. 72). Hoar (1992) suggests that the feminine genderlect is the speech of someone whose status is low, and the masculine is that of someone whose status is high (p. 128). Neither of these works deny the possibility that women can easily use a masculine genderlect and men can easily use a feminine genderlect; both also recognize that women who use masculine speech and men who use feminine speech are looked down upon and sometimes even made fun of or criticized for their way of speaking.
One major key concept of Genderlect Styles Theory is the use of rapport-talk versus the use of report-talk. These two very different styles of talk delve further into why men and women talk about the things they do in the way that they do; Rapport-talk is used to establish connections with others, and report-talk is used to command attention, convey information, and win arguments. Women use communication to create and maintain relationships, involve others in conversations and respond to their ideas, and show sensitivity to others, whereas men communicate to assert ideas, opinions, and identity, solve problems or develop a strategy, and speak in a way that attracts attention to themselves (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2013, p. 434). It is not surprising then, that women generally use rapport-talk, while men use report-talk.
Monaghan and Goodman (2007) included one of Deborah Tannen’s pieces about rapport- versus report-talk in their compilation A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential Readings. In Tannen’s “Put Down that Paper and Talk to Me!” Rapport-talk and Report-talk, she defines some of the differences between these two types of talk. Tannen states, “…women are more comfortable talking when they feel safe and close, among friends and equals, whereas men feel comfortable talking when there is a need to establish and maintain their status in a group” (p. 198). Tannen defined report-talk in this situation as more public speaking and rapport-talk as more private speaking; what she’s saying is that men are more likely to talk in public, when they need to show off their identity and maintain their current status or achieve a higher one, but women are more likely to talk in private, where they feel concealed and close to those with whom they are communicating. Men are more concerned with their status and identity, whereas women are more concerned with their relationships. This makes a lot of sense of many general situations that men and women find themselves in. At least from my experiences, men are usually not afraid to talk about much publicly and are less concerned with the relationships they have with others and more about fending for themselves, whereas women tend to save as much face as possible and just discuss their issues in private.
Another key concept of Genderlect Styles Theory is the tag question. Tag questions are questions are those that follow a clearly declarative statement in order to invite potential disagreement while also opening the door for discussion (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2013, p. 436). An example of a tag question would be something like “I really enjoyed that restaurant we want to the other night, didn’t you?” Here, the statement is clearly that whoever is speaking did enjoy the restaurant, and is hoping that the other person did too (or maybe thinks they did), but is leaving room for them to say something like “Actually wasn’t really a fan of it,” and then go into further conversation about why they didn’t like it. Likewise, if the other person says they also liked it, that gives the speaker room to continue talking about it with more detail. Tag questions are typically used by women in an attempt to “soften the sting of potential disagreement” as well as provide opportunities for communication. According to Tannen (2007), research has actually shown that tag questions are expected from women, but not expected from men. “Psychologists David and Robert Siegler conducted an experiment asking adults to guess the sex of speakers. Sure enough, the stereotype held: Subjects guessed a woman was speaking when tags were used, a man when they weren’t” (p. 113).
The “aha factor,” another key concept of Genderlect Styles Theory, is explained as “a subjective standard ascribing validity to an idea when it resonates with one’s personal experience” (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2013, p. 440). Tannen, when faced with disagreement of her theory, suggested that anyone who reads about it uses this phenomenon to determine whether or not it’s true. She states in her book, Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends, “if my interpretation is correct, then readers, on hearing my explication, will exclaim to themselves, ‘Aha!’ Something they have intuitively sensed will have been made explicit” (p. 50). This is the kind of feeling that I get every single time I read about a theory that I can totally relate to…it’s like something goes off in my head and all I can say is, “Oh! That explains so much!” The aha factor is something that Tannen hopes people look for when reading and learning about her theory; if you can relate to it and it sounds familiar to you, then you should believe her (which I do).
One key concept of Genderlect Styles Theory that our textbook didn’t discuss, but that Tannen made several points on, is cooperative overlap. Kelley and Brennan (2014) make the point that men interrupt while women overlap. “During conversation, men frequently interrupt to insert a comment or reestablish status. Women, on the other hand, often overlap. Two or more women can talk at once without a perception of interruption or a violation of rights. Women are comfortable talking at the same time, while men interrupt to become the speaker” (p. 14). This is explicitly true when you consider the conversations between men and other men and women and other women. Men often interrupt other men to regain control of the conversation or make a significant point that reestablishes their status, whereas several women can talk at the same time without being seen as trying to take over the conversation, but instead just cooperating with one another and getting a word in when they can. This is not to say that women never feel like other women or even other men are interrupting them, but it is to say that women often do not utilize interruption so much as utilizing overlap in an effective manner.
Although Tannen’s theory is pretty widely accepted, there are some who challenge it. One of the things that I personally struggled with when reading our chapter on the theory is the fact that Tannen only focused on gender, which is nothing but a social construct. As I mentioned earlier, gender is something that we have socialized based on biological sex; the sex is something we are born with, but the gender is not. As a result, Tannen lacked any focus on homosexual relationships as well as on those who perform gender in a way that is not in accordance with their biological sex.
Victoria Leto DeFrancisco seemed to notice the issue of a lack of homosexual focus as well; she states in her review of Tannen’s book, You Just Don’t Understand, “Tannen provides no evidence to suggest that genderlects hold true in lesbian and gay relationships. Some of the claims Tannen makes about gender differences in language may actually be considered white heterosexist assumptions. What happens to the presumed genderlects when we take other social factors (such as race, ethnicity, social class, and sexual preference or orientation) into account?” (1992, p. 321).
Motschenbacher (2010) suggests that a re-definition of the genderlect concept is more than necessary in order to accommodate those who do not perform gender in line with their biological sex. “The traditional genderlect concept is no longer adequate for contemporaty linguistic work…If genderlects are constructed in the traditional sense, as female vs. male genderlect, they contribute to the further materialization of gender binarism. A more subtle differentiation, into an infinite number of genderlects corresponding to specific groups of women/men or men/women within certain communities and contexts, help to see gender no longer as a strictly binary construction and allows for overlap in the way certain men and women behave” (p. 58).
Overall, Deborah Tannen’s theory of Genderlect Styles is seemingly accurate. For those who do perform gender in accordance with biological sex, genderlects make perfect sense. However, for those that do not, genderlects only further restrict them, making them outsiders in the commonly accepted world. In general, Tannen’s theory provides an overwhelming amount of useful insight into communicating well and properly with the same, as well as the opposite gender. What is most important to remember when communicating with others is why they are communicating; we do not always have to accommodate them in order to allow the conversation to flow smoothly, but if we are capable of accommodating each other, the chances of a successful and more meaningful conversation increase exponentially.
References
(2014). Genderlect. In R. H. Brennan, Talking Is a Gift: Communication Skills for Women (pp.
9-14). Nashville, Tennessee, United States: B & H Academic.
DeFrancisco, V. L. (1992, June). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation by Deborah Tannan. Language in Society , 21 (2), pp. 319-324.
Em Griffin, A. L. (2015). Genderlect Styles of Deborah Tannen. In A First Look at
Communication Theory (Ninth ed., pp. 432-443). New York, New York, United States:
McGraw Hill.
Gamble, T. K. (2014). The Language of Conversation: How We Speak. In The Gender
Communication Connection (Second ed., p. 72). New York, New York, United States:
Taylor & Francis.
Hoar, N. (1992). Genderlect, Powerlect, and Politeness. In L. A. Perry (Ed.), Constructing and
Reconstructing Gender: The Links among Communication, Language and Gender (pp.
127-130). Albany, New York, United States: State University of New York Press.
Motschenbacher, H. (2010). 4.7 Conclusion: A re-definition of the genderlect concept. In
Language, Gender, and Sexual Identity: Poststructuralist Perspectives (pp. 58-59).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tannen, D. (2007). “Put Down that Paper and Talk to Me!”: Rapport-talk and Report-talk. In
L. M. Goodman (Ed.), A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential
Readings (pp. 186-193). Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (2005). Accountability in Interpretation. In Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk
among Friends (pp. 48-52). New York, New York, United States: Oxford University
Press.
(2007). It’s Different Coming from a Man. In D. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand (p. 113).
New York, New York, United States: William Morrow Paperbacks.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
