Gender linked language effect explains the effect of linguistic styles of men and women on perception about the communicator. The effect was observed in a series of studies (e.g., Mulac & Lundell, 1980, 1982) where the researchers found that (a) male and female speakers produced different linguistic patterns in their speech, (b) naive raters (who did not know the gender of the speaker) judged the male and female speakers differently, and (c) those raters’ judgments about the speaker were consistent with sex-role stereotypes. For example, in a study where male and female speakers were asked to describe the same landscape photographs to the researcher, Mulac and Lundell (1986) found that male speakers focused more on the objects in the photograph, the location (e.g., Vermont), and spatial reference (e.g., “On the right side”), whereas female speakers focused more on describing their feelings about the photograph (“It’s beautiful”) and used longer and more complex sentences than male speakers. Interestingly, male and female speakers were perceived differently by judges (who were not aware of the gender of the speaker) reviewing the speech transcripts, such that women were generally rated higher in socio-intellectual status (e.g., high social status, rich, literate) and aesthetic quality (e.g., pleasing, nice, sweet), whereas men rated higher in dynamism (e.g., strong, aggressive, loud). The gender linked language effect captures the social phenomenon in which the differences in people’s perceptions of the communicator, resulting from language differences, conform to gender stereotypes. This effect has been evident in public speeches, problem-solving interactions, and written essays (Mulac et al., 2013).    

References and other suggested readings: 

Mulac, A., Giles, H., Bradac, J. J., & Palomares, N. A. (2013). The gender-linked language effect: An empirical test of a general process model. Language Sciences, 38, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.004 

Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1980). Differences in perceptions created by syntactic-semantic productions of male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47(2),111–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758009376024  

Mulac, A, & Lundell, T. L. (1982). An empirical test of the gender-linked language effect in a public speaking setting. Language and Speech, 25(3),243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098202500303 

Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In Dindia, K., Canary, D. J. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 219–239). Erlbaum.  

Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8652001             

Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students’ impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 22(9–10), 439–470. https://doi.org/10.1007  Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376175

Politeness theory was developed to understand how people manage and save face when embarrassing or uncomfortable situations occur. The theory conceptualizes face as the public image of ourselves that we present to others, and it distinguishes two types of face. Positive face refers to an individual’s desire to be liked, appreciated, and admired by others. In other words, positive face is the favorable image that people put out to the world and hope to be validated by others. Negative face reflects an individual’s desire to be free and independent. This is the part of us that wants to act freely without being concerned about what others want us to do. According to the theory, people use a variety of communicative strategies when engaging in a face-threatening act that has the potential to violate one or both types of face. For example, when considering asking a friend for a ride to the airport, you may hedge your request so that your friend does not feel coerced to comply (negative politeness), start with a compliment before stating your request (positive politeness), hint or make indirect suggestions (going off-record), be direct and straightforward with the request (bald on-record), or avoid bringing up the topic altogether (avoidance). Those strategies can be considered as preventative facework because they minimize or avoid potential face threats. People may also use corrective facework strategies to restore their own face or to help others in response to embarrassing or face-threatening situations. Such corrective facework strategies may include pretending that it didn’t happen, using humor, providing excuses or justifications, or apologizing. Politeness theory illuminates diverse issues related to face and facework, such as sexual resistance strategies following initial and persisting requests (Afifi & Lee, 2000), people’s resistance to persuasion and social influence (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2011), and older adults’ responses to patronizing and assertive advice (Hummert & Mazloff, 2001).  

References and other suggested readings:  

Afifi, W. A., & Lee, J. W. (2000). Balancing instrumental and identity goals in relationships: The role of request directness and request persistence in the selection of sexual resistance strategies. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376511  

Alvarez, C. F., & Miller‐Ott, A. E. (2022). The polite abuser: Using politeness theory to examine emotional abuse. Personal Relationships, 29(4), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12442 

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–310). Cambridge University Press. 

Goldsmith, D. J., & Normand, E. L. (2015). Politeness theory: How we use language to save face. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 267–278). SAGE. 

Hummert, M. L., & Mazloff, D. C. (2001). Older adults’ responses to patronizing advice: Balancing politeness and identity in context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(1), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020001008 

Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion. Communication Research, 40(4), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136  Kelly, L., Miller-Ott, A. E., & Duran, R. L. (2019). Phubbing friends: Understanding face threats from, and responses to, friends’ cell phone usage through the lens of politeness theory. Communication Quarterly, 67(5), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2019.1668443