CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Gender Studies in LanguageLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistic Variation and Morphology

Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction?: A scoping review

Open access
Ilona Plug, Ilona Plug, Wyke Stommel, Wyke Stommel, Peter Lucassen, Peter Lucassen, Tim Olde Hartman, Tim Olde Hartman, Sandra Van Dulmen, Sandra Van Dulmen, Enny Das, Enny Das·2020·Review of Communication Research
DOI 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.026
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although the question whether women and men speak differently is a topic of hot debate, an overview of the extent to which empirical studies provide robust support for a relationship between sex/gender and language is lacking. The aim of the current scoping review was therefore to synthesize recent studies from various theoretical perspectives on the relationship between sex/gender and language use in spoken face-to-face dyadic interactions. Fifteen empirical studies were systematically selected for review, and were discussed according to four different theoretical perspectives and associated methodologies. More than thirty relevant linguistic variables were identified, e.g., interruptions and intensifiers. Overall, few robust differences between women and men in the use of linguistic variables were observed across contexts, although women seem to be more engaged in supportive turn-taking than men. Importantly, gender identity salience, institutionalized roles, and social and contextual factors such as setting and conversational goal, seem to play a key role in the relationship between speaker’s sex/gender and language used in spoken interaction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.026

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines.

    “Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6, 39–43].”

    From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [43]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bayard, D., & Krishnayya, S. (2001). Gender, expletive use, and context: Male and female expletive use in structured and unstructured conversation among New Zealand university students. Women and Language, 24(1), 1-15.
  2. Butler, J., (1993). Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge.
  3. Coates, J. (2016). Women, men, and language : A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd ed., Studies in language and linguistics). New York: Routledge.
  4. M.A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk, (Eds.), The Public Nature of Private Violence (p. 93-118). New York: Routledge.
  5. Goudsmit, E. M. (1994). All in her mind! Stereotypic views and the psychologisation of women's illness. In S. Wilkinson, et al., (Eds.), Women and health: Feminist perspectives (pp. 7-12). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
  6. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures (No. 3). Cambridge University Press.
  7. Stubbe, M. (2013). Active listening in conversation: gender and the use of verbal feedback. In S. Yamazaki and R. Sigley (Eds). Linguistic Insights -Studies in Language and Communication: Approaching language variation through corpora: A festschrift in honour of Toshio Saito (Vol. 167, p. 365-416). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. www.rcommunicationr.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ilona Plug, I. P., Wyke Stommel, W. S., Peter Lucassen, P. L., Tim Olde Hartman, T. O. H., Sandra Van Dulmen, S. V. D., & Enny Das, E. D.
Venue
Review of Communication Research
Publisher
UK Zhende Publishing Limited Company
Published
2020-12-15
Volume
9
ISSN
2255-4165 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.12840/issn.2255-4165.026
OpenAlex
W3118711172
Cited by
37
References
111
Citations by year
2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Review of Communication Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw (849200013)
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
sex differences in language, gender and language, spoken interaction, face-to-face communication, dyadic interaction, turn-taking, interruptions, intensifiers, conversational goals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review