Gender schematicity, identity salience, and -linked language use
3
socially meaningful group differences (i.e., normative fit). When a social category is accessible and
fits the current context, then the social category becomes salient.
Research suggests that accessibility might be more complex than originally proposed (Blanz,
1999). Situational accessibility—the temporary cognitive accessibility of a social identity—is a direct
causal factor for identity salience along with fit. Alternatively, chronic accessibility—the
predispositional cognitive accessibility of a social identity—may interact with the salience of a social
identity to influence the consequences of an activated group identity (Blanz, 1999; Spears, 2001).
Such chronic accessibility factors include cognitive schemas, group identification, or personality
variables. Therefore, while situational accessibility and fit lead to social identity salience, the chronic
accessibility of a social identity can interact with the identity salience such that the effects of a salient
identity are maximized when the social category is also chronically accessible for an individual.
When a particular social category is salient, the self is viewed as a prototypical group
member (i.e., a process termed depersonalization; Turner, 1985). When depersonalized, individuals
perceptually, cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally assimilate to the in-group prototype. When a
particular identity is salient, one prescribes to that which is most exemplary of the group.
The Significance of Gender-Linked Language Use
Language use between different groups is one way in which individuals can enact salient
social identities. Much theoretically-based research supports the claim that individuals use language
differently depending on group identity salience (e.g., Fishman, 1977; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor,
1977; Giles & Johnson, 1987; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987; Giles & Powesland, 1975;
Gudykunst & Schmidt, 1987; Hogg & Rigoli, 1996). Other scholars also suggest that communication
is central to the maintenance of relationships and identities (e.g., Brown & Yule, 1983; Maynard &
Zimmerman, 1984; Svennevig, 1999). Communication and language are integral ways in which
gender identity can be enacted by individuals (Bergvall, 1996; Cameron, 1998; Eckert & McConnell-
Ginet, 1992a, 1992b; Meyerhoff, 1996; West & Zimmerman, 1985). Accordingly, much support
Convention