All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A general process model of the gender-linked language effect: Antecedents for and consequences of language used by men and women
Unformatted Document Text:  General Process Model of the GLLE 26 question of sex-typing is not completely known at this point, but one study suggests that again the answer is “yes” (Palomares, 2002; also see Winn & Rubin, 2001). Indeed, the connection between biological sex and between-group syntactic and semantic differences has long been denied (Jespersen, 1922). The general implication is that gender is often best viewed as a dynamic rather than a static concept. The connections among gender schematicity, chronic accessibility, gender-linked language behavior, and the gender-linked language effect are prime targets for future research. Although the relationships between variables suggested by a few of the theorems generated by our model have been investigated, the model suggests many possibilities for further investigation. At the level of individual constructs, it will be useful to investigate directly the notion of gender-linked language schemata. Some preliminary research in this regard has been conducted (Mulac et al., 2001), but at this point the construct is supported mainly by the results of research related only indirectly and by logic. There is direct evidence supporting the existence of gender-linked language stereotypes and it would be desirable to adduce similar evidence for gender-linked language schemata. This is a novel construct, unlike say perception of context, so investigating it empirically could easily suggest new paths for research. In a similar vein, it could be useful to investigate the notion that gender-linked language features are organized as prototypical networks interconnected in some way to the relatively stable schematic dimensions of directness, succinctness, emotionality, and personalness. Most of the theorems are capable of yielding hypotheses that are testable; a few are not (e.g., T13: GLS s Æ GLS h ). The question becomes: Which are the most interesting or important? We have indicated our preferences in the preceding section.

Authors: Mulac, Anthony., Bradac, James. and Palomares, Nicholas.
first   previous   Page 27 of 42   next   last



background image
General Process Model of the GLLE
26
question of sex-typing is not completely known at this point, but one study suggests that again
the answer is “yes” (Palomares, 2002; also see Winn & Rubin, 2001). Indeed, the connection
between biological sex and between-group syntactic and semantic differences has long been
denied (Jespersen, 1922). The general implication is that gender is often best viewed as a
dynamic rather than a static concept.
The connections among gender schematicity, chronic accessibility, gender-linked
language behavior, and the gender-linked language effect are prime targets for future research.
Although the relationships between variables suggested by a few of the theorems generated by
our model have been investigated, the model suggests many possibilities for further
investigation. At the level of individual constructs, it will be useful to investigate directly the
notion of gender-linked language schemata. Some preliminary research in this regard has been
conducted (Mulac et al., 2001), but at this point the construct is supported mainly by the results
of research related only indirectly and by logic. There is direct evidence supporting the existence
of gender-linked language stereotypes and it would be desirable to adduce similar evidence for
gender-linked language schemata. This is a novel construct, unlike say perception of context, so
investigating it empirically could easily suggest new paths for research. In a similar vein, it could
be useful to investigate the notion that gender-linked language features are organized as
prototypical networks interconnected in some way to the relatively stable schematic dimensions
of directness, succinctness, emotionality, and personalness. Most of the theorems are capable of
yielding hypotheses that are testable; a few are not (e.g., T13: GLS
s
Æ GLS
h
). The question
becomes: Which are the most interesting or important? We have indicated our preferences in the
preceding section.


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 27 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.