# data[].attributes.body
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/46YbzIYj_Bo/hqdefault.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
In Living Language (p. 222), George Keith and John Shuttleworth record suggestions that:

women - talk more than men, talk too much, are more polite, are indecisive/hesitant, complain and nag, ask more questions, support each other, are more co-operative, whereas

men - swear more, don't talk about emotions, talk about sport more, talk about women and machines in the same way, insult each other frequently, are competitive in conversation, dominate conversation, speak with more authority, give more commands, interrupt more.

# data[].attributes.body
Women's Language
These are ten elements of the language that women use, as identified by Robin Lakoff in 1975. Of course, not all women use all of this language all of the time, and some may question the whole. It would be interesting to do a duplicate study now and see how much of this has changed since the 1970s.
1. HedgingHedging provides a way out, should disagreement occur, qualifying statements with non-absolute language, such as 'sort of', 'I guess', etc.Well, I sort of looked at him, and then he kind of looked back. Then I guess I kept looking.
2. PolitenessPoliteness is taken to more extreme forms, either putting the speaker in an inferior position or seeking to be thoughtful and non-threatening towards the other person.Do excuse me, but I really appreciate it if if you could take a little time to help me.
3. Tag questions Tag questions added to the end of a statement do not change the statement, although they do seek agreement.You would do that, wouldn't you?
4. Emotional emphasisThe emotional content of sentences are increased through the use of intonation that emphasizes and exaggerates emotional.You are so very kind. I really want you to know I am so grateful.
5. Empty adjectives Adjectives are applied to soften and add friendly elements to the sentence, although they are do not add any particularly meaningful content.What a charming and sweet young man you are!
6. Correct grammar and pronunciationCare is taken to be correct with language and speech. Colloquialisms and slang are used far less than men.I would be very appreciative if you could show me the way.
7. Lack of humor Humor is not used very much and jokes are very seldom told.
8. Direct quotationsThe words that people said are often quoted, even quoting people who quote other people. Then she said that he said, "I won't do it." So I said, "Why not?"9. Extended vocabularyRather than simple language, vocabulary is extended to use descriptive language. Thus, for example a precise language is used to describe colors.The walls should be cerise, with a royal blue tracer. 10. Declarations with interrogative intonation Statements are made, but using the intonation used for questions, rising at the end of the statement.That sounds like a good thing to do?

# data[].attributes.body
While over 50% of women surveyed said they didn't feel included in the workplace—whether in business social events, casual meetings or conversations—90% of men surveyed felt women had equal opportunities and didn't feel they excluded women.

# data[].attributes.body
The difference between the two lists reflects what Baron-Cohen takes to be the "essential difference" between male and female brains. The female-brain jobs make use of a capacity for empathy and communication, whereas the male ones exploit the ability to analyse complex systems. Baron-Cohen is careful to talk about -"people with the female/male brain" rather than "men and women". He stresses that there are men with female brains, women with male brains, and individuals of both sexes with "balanced" brains.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists estimate our species (Homo sapiens) developed language approximately 250,000 years ago. Today men talk differently than women because their brains evolved differently over the past quarter-million years. Men were the hunters and concentrated on ways to effectively stalk, kill and transport home the catch-of-the-day for the family group or tribe. Hunting was serious business and required physical endurance, but it did not require much talking.

# data[].attributes.body
Baron-Cohen classifies nursing as a female-brain, empathy-based job (though if a caring and empathetic nurse cannot measure dosages accurately and make systematic clinical observations she or he risks doing serious harm) and law as a male-brain, system-analysing job (though a lawyer, however well versed in the law, will not get far without communication and people-reading skills). These categorisations are not based on a dispassionate analysis of the demands made by the two jobs. They are based on the everyday common-sense knowledge that most nurses are women and most lawyers are men.

# data[].attributes.body
It‟s an accepted idea that women are more careful, sensitive and considerate than men. Before a woman talks, she usually thinks the effect her words will cause, so she often appears to be more polite. On the contrary, men appear to be rash, and they just say what they want to say and seldom care what others think, so men‟s speech is usually blunt and solid.

# data[].attributes.body
This is deliberately exaggerated for comedic effect. But possibly does show some trends of what is reality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excellent example for the difference between men and women! From the TV-Show Friends

# data[].attributes.headline
Read the articles and make a comment on them or forward on other resources

# data[].attributes.subject
Read the articles and make a comment on them or forward on other resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea that men and women speak a different language is well-worn in regards to personal relationships, but John Gray, author of the famous relationship guide Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus says the same communication difficulties we struggle with in our personal lives also play out in the office. He, along with gender intelligence specialist Barbara Annis, conducted over 100,000 interviews with male and female executives and coauthored Work With Me to highlight the blind spots in workplace communication that create conflict between the sexes.

They argue there are innate differences between how men and women respond to situations in the workplace and understanding what they are and why they exist can not only facilitate better communication but result in a happier and more productive working environment.

Seventy-two percent of men Gray and Annis surveyed said women ask too many questions. Some men felt these questions slowed down progress and delayed decision-making, while others felt questions were a sign that a female boss was being too controlling or critical.

Women admitted to asking questions but felt their questions were their best contribution; needed to stimulate an exchange of ideas, to build consensus, show concern for others and help arrive at the best possible outcome. Understanding the motivation and finding value the questions rather than be annoyed by them can help to facilitate better communication between the genders and create a more balanced workplace.

While over 50% of women surveyed said they didn't feel included in the workplace-whether in business social events, casual meetings or conversations-90% of men surveyed felt women had equal opportunities and didn't feel they excluded women.

So, who is correct? Both, it turns out.

Gray offers an example of a meeting in which men are constantly interrupting each other and throwing their ideas on the table while the women in the room are silent. "The men will just ignore her [because] they assume that she has nothing to say," says Gray. The woman at the table then feels that the men in the room don't care what she has to say. What men don't realize, says Gray, is that women like to be invited into the conversation.

"When women get together, if someone is not talking [women will tend to say] let me see what she's thinking," says Gray. These opposite reactions, he says, are a result of our biochemical differences. "One of the symptoms of high testosterone is once it gets revved up there's a faster reaction time so men are jumping in there, reacting very quickly," he says.

Women, he says, have higher levels of oxytocin (or what Gray dubs the "we" hormone") and like to be inclusive. Men who ask, "What do you think, Sally?" can help women feel included in the discussion, while Gray says women can take the initiative themselves and lean in Sheryl Sandberg style.

The way men and women feel and show appreciation in the workplace also differs. While men want their individual results to be acknowledged-"John did a great job on that report"-women tend to share the praise and like to be acknowledged as part of a team. When a woman is credited for a task-"Great job on landing that key client, Sarah"-she will most often share the spotlight-"I couldn't have done it without Kate's help."

Gray argues we owe this difference to our two opposite hormones again: oxytocin and testosterone. Women have higher levels of oxytocin, the hormone that promotes a feeling of connectedness-as in "we did this together," "I have a team that supports me." Men, on the other hand, experience a tremendous release of testosterone when they take credit for something, so naturally want to be the stars of the show.

The ways in which men and women solve problems is also linked to these favorite hormones: oxytocin and testosterone. "The stress reaction when a man is challenged by a problem [is] to withdraw. This is a man's reaction to rising testosterone levels to meet a challenge," says Gray.

Women, on the other hand, seek support to solve a problem to engage their "we" hormone (oxytocin), which explains why women can misinterpret men's shutting out as appearing not to care, or brushing off the problem.

Facilitating better connection between the sexes doesn't mean that men need to completely change their behaviors or that women need to change, but in order to improve communication and have a more harmonious work environment, we each have to work harder to understand and respect our differences.

"The real issue [in workplace conflict] is lack of gender intelligence. We need to appreciate and respect the differences between men and women; to anticipate them and respond appropriately to them," says Gray.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are We Speaking A Different Language? Men And Women's Communication Blind Spots

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea that men and women speak a different language is well-worn in regards to personal relationships, but John Gray, author of the famous relationship guide Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus says the same communication difficulties we struggle with in our personal lives also play out in the office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do you tell male speech from female speech? University researchers David Bamman, Jacob Eisenstein, and Tyler Schnoebelen took up the challenge of replicating and reciprocating previous research, which used Twitter, to point out that identifying gender differences in speech is a lot more complicated than the conclusions previous studies came to.

The latest study cites the work of researchers Burger, Henderson, Kim, and Zarrella 2011, that measured 184,000 "authors," or Twitter users, which was able to obtain 75.5 percent accuracy for identifying the gender of the speaker, granted that their algorithm had multiple tweets per author to work with. 67.8 accuracy was obtained from single messages per author. Bamman, Einsentein, and Schnoebelen, were able to best these results, arriving at an impressive 88.8 percent accuracy.

They achieved this rate by looking at deciphering gender-based lexicon a little differently than their predecessors, although the study does build on top of work that has already been conducted in this field.

The researchers used a test group of 14,464 English speaking authors based in the United States. To make sure that these users were in fact English speakers, for the sake of accuracy, each author needed to have used at least 50 of the 1,000 most common English words. A total of 9,212,118 tweets were investigated over the course of this study, and to help make sense of this trove of data, researchers used a predictive machine learning algorithm that would be able to make an educated assumption about the gender based on individual words.

What previous research hasn't touched on was the fact that in each gender there is more than one style of speech, influenced by our social circles. "Individuals with many same-gender friends tend to use language that is strongly associated with their gender," the study explains. "Individuals with more balanced social networks" on the other hand, aren't likely to give into gender-specific "norms" when it comes to their speech habits.

Based on the study's results, the researchers compare previous research in gender speech and reveal the inaccuracy of their predecessors' findings, which you can check out in the table above. But to give you an idea about the differences in speech at a glance (and not diving too deeply into the complexities of different styles of speech within each gender), the more obvious results pointed out that women will normally tend to use emotional language like "sad, love, glad, sick, proud, happy, scared, annoyed, excited, and jealous." Emoticons, and CMC (computer-mediated communication) terms (lol, omg, brb, for instance) are female markers, "as [are] ellipses, expressive lengthening (e.g., coooooool), exclamation marks, question marks, and backchannel sounds like ah, hmmm, ugh, and grr."

Clear male markers include words related to swearing, technology, and sports, and in relation, numbers (as in scores).

Terms relating to family are a little more complicated. In the past they've been a market of female gender, but this study marks it as a point of contention with "mixed results" as the researchers explain in the following statement:

"Of the family terms that are gender markers, most are associated with female authors: mom, mommy, moms, mom's, mama, sister, sisters, sis, daughter, aunt, auntie, grandma, kids, child, children, dad, husband, hubby, hubs. However, wife, wife's, bro, bruh, bros, and brotha are all male markers."

To briefly get deeper into how the study picked apart lexicon patterns, the researchers identified eight different types of categories of speech - dictionary words, punctuation, non-standard unpronounceable words, non-standard pronounceable words, named entities, numbers, taboo words, and hashtags - and plotted these to individual social groups of authors to find the patterns, giving them a better sense of gender speech habits than before. If you had a knack for statistics you might be able to get a better idea of the researcher's findings with the chart below:

Our speech is ultimately predisposed to certain types of languages based on gender, but what steers it are our social ties. The takeaway? Who you hang out with, and the number of guys or girls that are in your social group (both online and off), will effect how you end up speaking on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Researchers can tell the difference between tweets from men and women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you tell male speech from female speech? University researchers David Bamman, Jacob Eisenstein, and Tyler Schnoebelen took up the challenge of replicating and reciprocating previous research, which used Twitter, to point out that identifying gender differences in speech is a lot more complicated than the conclusions previous studies came to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the 2016 presidential contest, there has been one thing that supporters and detractors of Donald Trump have agreed on. The chest-pounding real estate mogul from New York has emerged as the quintessentially masculine candidate. Love him or loathe him, Trump's campaign has been defined by the ways he has asserted his maleness-mocking his opponents for their low energy, bullying his critics, sneering at perceived weakness, boasting of his sexual prowess, vowing to hit back twice as hard as he's been hit.

But academic research has picked up something that thousands of hours of campaign punditry has missed completely: Donald Trump talks like a woman. He might be preoccupied with grading women's looks, penis size and "locker room talk," but the way he speaks and the actual words he uses make for a distinctly feminine style. In fact, his speaking style is more feminine by far than any other candidate in the 2016 cycle, more feminine than any other presidential candidate since 2004.

Story Continued Below

More than just a comical curiosity, this fact about Trump's mode of communication might help explain how a candidate who has been so extensively rebuked for his mean-spirited attacks on immigrants, women, the disabled and even prisoners of war has managed to attract support from millions of voters who adore the way he says openly what they feel. To some, Trump's ascent is evidence that society still prizes the masculine over the feminine, but what's happening is more complex, and Trump's style has qualities that go beyond mere blustery aggression. Research has shown that the more feminine a speaker's style, the more likable and trustworthy he seems. For Trump, who has been derided for his multiple contradictions and outright lies, that advantage might well have persuaded his supporters to listen to him and not the chorus of media fact checkers.

It's not just a lazy stereotype that men and women speak differently. In fact, researchers who have sifted through thousands of language samples from men and women have identified clear statistical differences. Some of these differences are exactly what you'd expect-men are more likely to swear and use words that signal aggression, while women are more likely to use tentative language (words like maybe, seems or perhaps) and emotion-laden words ( beautiful, despise). But other patterns are far from obvious. For example, contrary to the common stereotype that men can't resist talking about themselves, women are heavier users than men of the pronoun "I" whereas the reverse is true for the pronoun "we"; women produce more common verbs ( are, start, went) and auxiliary verbs ( am, don't, will), while men utter more articles ( a, the) and prepositions ( to, with, above); women use fewer long words than men when speaking or writing across a broad range of contexts.

Jennifer Jones, a doctoral candidate of political psychology at the University of California at Irvine, has combined these statistics into an index capturing the ratio of "feminine" to "masculine" words, and applied it to the language of 35 political candidates over the past decade. Hillary Clinton's language falls above the average on this index-more feminine than George W. Bush's, but less so than Barack Obama's.

But Donald Trump is a stunning outlier. His linguistic style is startlingly feminine, so much so that the chasm between Trump and the next most feminine speaker, Ben Carson, is about as great as the difference between Carson and the least feminine candidate, Jim Webb. And Trump earns his ranking not just because he talks a lot about himself or avoids big words (both of which are true); according to Jones, he also shows feminine patterns on the more subtle measures, such as his use of prepositions and articles. The key then is not what Trump talks about-making Mexico pay for the wall or bombing the hell out of ISIL-but rather how he says it.

Trump's unusually feminine style has been on display during all three presidential debates. Here's how he talked about his economic plans during the first debate: "My tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan; I'm very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence. When I go around-Lester, I tell you this, I've been all over. And when I go around, despite the tax thing, the thing that business-as in people-like the most is the fact that I'm cutting regulation.... I'm really calling for major jobs because the wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They're going to expand their companies. They're going to do a tremendous job."

To which Hillary Clinton responded in the more familiar-and more masculine-style that we're used to hearing from politicians: "I don't think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their debt at a lower rate-those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for the people at the very top."

Do these styles register with voters? After all, most people aren't likely to notice which candidate has used more auxiliary verbs or prepositions, or to be able to say whether men or women use more of either. But superficial features like these may be markers of deeper differences in how men and women talk and what they talk about. For example, using more verbs and fewer articles is a natural side effect of using language that focuses on processes and actions rather than on categories and concepts. Jones suggests that the bundle of features that define the feminine style reflect language that is "more socially oriented, expressive and dynamic, whereas masculine language is more impersonal, long-winded and unemotional." As she points out, though Trump tends to meander when he addresses his crowds,most people would not use the words "impersonal" and "unemotional" to describe his language. And her research suggests that candidates who speak in a feminine style may have an advantage over those whose language is more masculine.

In a study presented at the most recent meeting of the American Political Science Association, Jones crafted political speeches that hewed to either feminine or masculine norms, attributed them to fictitious political candidates running for the U.S. Senate, and asked volunteers to evaluate the candidates based on their speeches. Candidates who spoke in a feminine style were perceived as considerably warmer, more likable and more trustworthy than those whose style was more masculine. They also were more likely to earn the participants' votes. The benefit of using feminine language was greater for male candidates than for female candidates-but unlike previous studies that reported that women (but not men) were seen as less competent when adopting feminine traits, Jones' participants did not penalize female candidates who declined to speak like men.

It would be a stretch to conclude that candidates always stand to gain from getting in touch with their feminine side.

Studies of persuasive communication are notorious for showing sensitivity to context. For example, a 2015 study led by Patricia Strach found that female voice-overs were more credible than male voices in political ads that focused on so-called women's issues-education, child care and reproductive rights. But viewers found them less persuasive than male voices when the discussion veered to the economy or foreign policy. Other studies point to evidence that emotional language is effective against a political landscape that is filled with gloom and anxiety, but that cooler language prevails under conditions of stability and prosperity.

This makes it hard to draw any fast conclusions about what effect, if any, Trump's feminine linguistic style has had given the content of his campaign (though it's worth noting that Trump's chief rival, Ted Cruz, a lawyer and college debater who is often celebrated for his oratorical gifts,has a linguistic style that skews heavily to the masculine). Still, Jones' research casts doubt on the narrative that Trump's supporters are attracted to a political icon of masculinity who is untainted by woman-like traits. On the contrary, it may be exactly these traits-and their associations with emotional connectedness and personal vulnerability-that help to counter the opposition's portrait of Trump as a domineering misogynist who lacks empathy and concern for others.

"Nobody respects women as much as I do," Trump has asserted, a claim that leaves many in a slack-jawed state of incredulity. But one thing is clear: Among recent presidential candidates, nobody talks like women as much as he does. And that adds an intriguing splash of complexity to any gender-based story on Trump.

Julie Sedivy has taught linguistics and psychology at Brown University and the University of Calgary, and is the co-author of Sold on Language: How Advertisers Talk to You and What This Says About You.

This article tagged under:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 2016 presidential contest, there has been one thing that supporters and detractors of Donald Trump have agreed on. The chest-pounding real estate mogul from New York has emerged as the quintessentially masculine candidate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I'm very highly educated. I know words. I have the best words."

This is one of Trump's many infamous lines that make him as quotable as Oscar Wilde - for polar opposite reasons. If only Wilde were still alive to encapsulate in one catty sentence a situation that has left the most loquacious among us dumbfounded. Just as Dolly Parton famously remarked how expensive it was to look that cheap, perhaps there's an uncomfortable truth in this: it actually does take someone highly educated to pretend to be that stupid.

Donald Trump used many rhetorical linguistic devices to tap into the raw emotions of potential voters - and it worked. In this election, every lexical rule got tossed, twisted and trumped. Here are some of the language mechanisms he used:

Braggadocio

Trump relied heavily on superlatives to ramp up an emotional response to his grandiose claims. Things weren't big, they were "yuuuuuge". He wasn't just going to make things great again, they'd be "amazing", "tremendous", "the best". He wasn't just going to win. He was going to "win so much, you're going to be sick and tired of winning". It's the aspirational language of the American dream that has, superlative by superlative, slowly transformed into a nightmare.

Binaries

The divisive "us and them" rhetoric was used to full hateful effect by Trump. Either you're part of the crusading Judeo-Christian west, or part of terrorist, destructive Islam. Either you're a "criminal alien" or a hard-working, hard-done-by American. You're "legal" or "illegal". That "us and them" rhetoric of the campaign trail seemed to be diluted by the time he called for unity in his victory speech, though.

Hyperbole

In addition to personal boasts, Trump was prone to exaggeration and dramatisation. "The whole world is blowing up," Trump would claim when discussing one country, Syria. When introducing Reince Priebus in his victory speech, he was described him as a "superstar" three times in two sentences - a bold claim for a man few have heard of outside the Washington bubble.

Euphemisms

Trump could play something down, as well as up. His most infamous euphemism, of course, was "locker room talk" - a supposed justification for admitting to " grabbing women by the pussy " without their consent.

Half-finished sentences

Listen to Trump in this clip. "They're trying to justify i ... can you believe i ... I have the best wo ..." This stuttering, interrupted form of speech is a hallmark of his seemingly off-the-cuff delivery. It mimics natural conversation patterns. Feeling less scripted, it has been designed to appear authentic, trustworthy and passionate, rather than scrutinised and autocued by a hundred advisers.

Grammatical maturity

Presidential candidate language has declined in complexity, according to a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. It crunches word choice and sentence structure then gives grade-level rankings. George Washington's language reached graduate-degree levels. Abraham Lincoln's was 11th-grade. And Trump's? Right down to fourth grade. Was he really saying "bigly" like a fourth grader or "big league"? The answer seems to be both.

Repetition

Trump punctuates his speeches with repetition. It hammers the point home when the crowd is rambunctious and words risk getting lost. But it's also a delaying tactic, giving him time to select his next choice of words. On his news nemesis: "That's wrong. They were wrong. It's The New York Times, they're always wrong. They were wrong." The repetition isn't always at the end of the sentence; sometimes it's brought to the beginning for emphasis, a technique called anaphora. "I call it extreme vetting. I call it extreme, extreme vetting." Or even book-ending repetition in a sentence like this from his victory speech: "Tremendous potential. I've gotten to know our country so well - tremendous potential."

Verbs

Their most commonly used verbs revealed much about the tone of their campaigns; Clinton's included "hope", "support" and "try". Trump's were full of mansplaining and more binaries: "tell", "lose", "win", and "stop".

Sexist and racist language

Trump pejoratives " bad hombres" and " nasty woman " have become so infamous that they're already being parodied and reclaimed on merchandise.

Nomenclature

What people were called mattered more than ever in this election. What they weren't called was even more significant: Michelle Obama's refusal to even utter Trump's name, while roasting him robustly, spoke volumes by declining him the dignity of an identity in her speech. Hillary's tactic was to keep it on first name terms. Trump's name became handy for punning purposes ("love trumps hate") and also an aptronym, for being synonymous with a fart. Hillary's tripartite Presidential initialism, HRC, moved her maiden name to her middle name. It's the Rodham that said: I am my own woman, not just his wife.

Unfortunately, it just wasn't enough.

Gary Nunn is a regular contributor to Mind your language @garynunn1
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Winning words: the language that got Donald Trump elected

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I'm very highly educated. I know words. I have the best words." This is one of Trump's many infamous lines that make him as quotable as Oscar Wilde - for polar opposite reasons. If only Wilde were still alive to encapsulate in one catty sentence a situation that has left the most loquacious among us dumbfounded.