1887
Volume 21, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We explore how gendered language in Senate floor debates evolves between the 101st and 109th sessions (=229,526 speeches). We hypothesize that female Senators speak like women in the general population, that their speeches focus on traditionally designated women’s issues, and that they use female linguistic strategies found in the general population when discussing low politics or women’s issues. We also expect women to speak like legislators, adopting more male linguistic approaches for high politics issues or in election year speeches and for female senators to use more male linguistics as time served in the Senate increases. Using a suite of computational linguistics approaches such as topic modeling (Latent Dirichlet Allocation), syntax and semantic analysis (Coh-Metrix), and sentiment analysis (LIWC), our analyses highlight the distinct roles of women speaking for women (e.g. promoting issues like education or healthcare), women speaking like women (e.g. using personal pronouns), and women speaking as Senators.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.21053.win
2022-09-29
2023-02-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barnes, Tiffany D. and Mirya R. Holman
    2020 “Gender Quotas, Women’s Representation, and Legislative Diversity.” The Journal of Politics84, no.4: 000–000. 10.1086/708336
    https://doi.org/10.1086/708336 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnett, Micahel
    1990 “High Politics is Low Politics: The Domestic and Systemic Sources of Israeli Security Policy, 1967–1977.” World Politics42, no.4 (1990): 529–62. JSTOR. 10.2307/2010513
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2010513 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, Courtney M., Philip M. McCarthy, and Danielle S. McNamara
    2012 “Using LIWC and Coh-Metrix to investigate gender differences in linguistic styles.” Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution. 545–56. IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑60960‑741‑8.ch032
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch032 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergvall, Victoria L.
    1999 “Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender.” Language in Society28, no.2 (1999): 273–93. 10.1017/S0047404599002080
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002080 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernieri, Frank J., & Robert Rosenthal
    1991 “Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony.” Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. 401–32. Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blei, David. M., Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan
    2003 “Latent dirichlet allocation.” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3 (January): 993–1022.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bligh, Michelle C. and Jeffrey C. Kohles
    2008 “Negotiating gender role expectations: Rhetorical leadership and women in the US senate.” Leadership4, no.4 (November): 381–402. 10.1177/1742715008095187
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008095187 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bortfeld, Heather, Silvia D. Leon, Jonathan E. Bloom, Michael F. Schober, and Susan E. Brennan
    2001 “Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and Gender.” Language and Speech, 44, no.2(June 2001): 123–47. 10.1177/00238309010440020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burns, Courtney. and Amanda Murdie
    2018 “Female chief executives and state human rights practices: Self-fulfilling the political double bind.” Journal of Human Rights17, no.4 (April): 470–84. 10.1080/14754835.2018.1460582
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2018.1460582 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carroll, Susan J.
    2002 “Partisan Dynamics of the Gender Gap among State Legislators.(Symposium: Trends in State Party Politics).” Spectrum: The Journal of State Government75 (4): 18–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Childs, Sarah and Mona Lena Krook
    2006 “Gender and politics: The state of the art.” Politics26, no.1 (January): 18–28. 10.1111/j.1467‑9256.2006.00247.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2006.00247.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Janet, Robert Darcy, Susan Welch, M. Ambrosius, and J. A. Flammang
    1985 “Political Women: Current Roles in State and Local Government.”
  13. Cohen, Jacob
    1977 “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences” (revised ed.). New York: Academic Press.
  14. Condon, W. S., and W. D. Ogston
    1966 “Sound film analysis of normal and pathological behavior patterns.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease143, no.4 (October): 338–47. 10.1097/00005053‑196610000‑00005
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196610000-00005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly, and Laura Langbein
    2009 “Linking Women’s Descriptive and Substantive Representation in the United States.” Politics & Gender5 (4): 491–518. 10.1017/S1743923X09990328
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X09990328 [Google Scholar]
  16. Detraz, Nicole
    2011 “Threats or Vulnerabilities? Assessing the Link Between Climate Change and Security.” Global Environmental Politics11, no.3 (August): 104–20. 10.1162/GLEP_a_00071
    https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00071 [Google Scholar]
  17. Diekman, Amanda B.
    2007 “Negotiating the Double Bind: Interpersonal and Instrumental Evaluations of Dominance.” Sex Roles, 56, no.9 (May): 551–61. 10.1007/s11199‑007‑9198‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9198-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Diermeier, Daniel, Jean François Godbout, Yu Bei, and Stefan Kaufmann, S.
    2012 “Language and Ideology in Congress.” British Journal of Political Science42, no.1 (May): 31–55. 10.1017/S0007123411000160
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000160 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dion, Michelle
    2008 “All-knowing or all-nurturing? Student expectations, gender roles, and practical suggestions for women in the classroom.” PS: Political Science & Politics41, no.4 (October): 853–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dolan, Kathleen
    2005 “Do women candidates play to gender stereotypes? Do men candidates play to women? Candidate sex and issues priorities on campaign websites.” Political Research Quarterly58, no.1 (March): 31–44. 10.1177/106591290505800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800103 [Google Scholar]
  21. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    2013 “Language and gender.” Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139245883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139245883
  22. Files, Julia, Anita P. Mayer, Marica G. Ko, Patricia Friedrich, Marjorie Jenkins, Michael J. Bryan, Suneela Vegunta, Christopher M. Wittich, Melissa A. Lyle, Ryan Melikian, Treveor, Duston, Yu-Hui H., Chang, and Sharonne N. Hayes
    2017 “Speaker Introductions at Internal Medicine Grand Rounds: Forms of Address Reveal Gender Bias.” Journal of Women’s Health26, no.5 (February): 413–19. 10.1089/jwh.2016.6044
    https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6044 [Google Scholar]
  23. Frederick, Brian
    2009 “Are Female House Members Still More Liberal in a Polarized Era? The Conditional Nature of the Relationship between Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” InCongress & the Presidency36:181–202. 10.1080/07343460902948097
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07343460902948097 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilligan, Carol
    1993 “In a different voice.” Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674037618
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674037618
  25. 1995 “Moral orientation and moral development [1987].” InJustice and care. 31–46. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429499463‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499463-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heilman, M. E., A. S. Wallen, D. Fuchs, and M. M. Tamkins
    2004 “Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.” Journal of Applied Psychology89, no.3 (June): 416–27. 10.1037/0021‑9010.89.3.416
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416 [Google Scholar]
  27. Herrnson, Paul S., J. Celeste Lay, and Atiya Kai Stokes
    2003 “Women running ‘as women’: Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies.” The Journal of Politics65, no.1 (February): 244–55. 10.1111/1468‑2508.t01‑1‑00013
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hill, Kim Quaile, and Patricia A. Hurley
    2002 “Symbolic Speeches in the US Senate and Their Representational Implications.” The Journal of Politics64 (1): 219–231. 10.1111/1468‑2508.00125
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00125 [Google Scholar]
  29. Holman, Mirya R.
    2014Women in Politics in the American City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2016 “Gender, political rhetoric, and moral metaphors in state of the city addresses.” Urban Affairs Review52, no.4 (June): 501–30. 10.1177/1078087415589191
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415589191 [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes, Janet
    1997 “Women, language and identity.” Journal of Sociolinguistics1, no.2 (June): 195–223. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00012
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Holmes, Janet. and Miriam Meyerhoff
    (eds.) 2003The Handbook of Language and Gender. Blackwell, Oxford. 10.1002/9780470756942
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942 [Google Scholar]
  33. Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen
    1993 “Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37, no.1 (February)119–47. 10.2307/2111526
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526 [Google Scholar]
  34. James, Deborah, Sandra Clarke, and Deborah Tannen
    1993 “Gender and conversational interaction.” Women, Men and Interruptions: A Critical Review, edited byDeborah Tannen. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jones, Jennifer J.
    2016 “Talk ‘like a man’: The linguistic styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013.” Perspectives on Politics14, no.3 (September): 625–42. 10.1017/S1537592716001092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716001092 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kahn, Kim F.
    1993 “Gender Differences in Campaign Messages: The Political Advertisements of Men and Women Candidates for U.S. Senate.” Political Research Quarterly46, no.3 (September): 481–502. 10.1177/106591299304600303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600303 [Google Scholar]
  37. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye
    1977Power and interdependence: world politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Knight, Chris
    2008 “Language co-evolved with the rule of law.” Mind & Society7, no.1 (February):109–218. 10.1007/s11299‑007‑0039‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-007-0039-1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakoff, Robin
    2003 “Language, gender, and politics: Putting ‘women’ and ‘power’ in the same sentence.” The Handbook of Language and Gender, edited byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 160–78. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470756942.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lazar, Michelle M.
    2007 “Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis.” Critical Discourse Studies4, no.2 (September): 141–64. 10.1080/17405900701464816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levy, Dena, Charles Tien, and Rachelle Aved
    2001 “Do differences matter? Women members of Congress and the Hyde Amendment.” Women & Politics23, no.1 (January): 105–27. 10.1300/J014v23n01_07
    https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v23n01_07 [Google Scholar]
  42. Madera, J. M., M. R. Hebl, and R. C. Martin
    2009 “Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences.” The Journal of Applied Psychology94, no.6 (November): 1591–99. 10.1037/a0016539
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016539 [Google Scholar]
  43. Maltz, Daneil N., and Ruth A. Borker
    1982 “A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.” A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal Communication: Essential Readings, edited byLeila Monaghan and Jane Goodman, 168–85. Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mansbridge, Jane
    1999 “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” The Journal of Politics61 (3): 628–657. 10.2307/2647821
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821 [Google Scholar]
  45. McCallum, A. K.
    2002 “Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit.” www.citeulike.org/group/3030/article/1062263
  46. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal
    2016Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. McDowall, J. J.
    1978 “Interactional synchrony: A reappraisal.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36, no.9 (September): 963–75. 10.1037/0022‑3514.36.9.963
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.9.963 [Google Scholar]
  48. Niederhoffer, K. G., and James W. Pennebaker
    2002 “Linguistic style matching in social interaction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology21, no.4 (December) 337–60. 10.1177/026192702237953
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026192702237953 [Google Scholar]
  49. Osborn, Tracy L.
    2012 “How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KL3UkotYeqgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=tracy+osborn+2012&ots=FN4-xXLFdi&sig=7_4h8tXMv1c92vSUquXKcFCvzz8. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199845347.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199845347.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Osborn, Tracy and Jeanette Morehouse Mendez
    2010 “Speaking as women: Women and floor speeches in the Senate.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy31, no.1 (February): 1–21. 10.1080/15544770903501384
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15544770903501384 [Google Scholar]
  51. Osborn, Tracy, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Emily U. Schilling, and Jennifer Hayes Clark
    2019 “Ideology and Polarization among Women State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly44 (4): 647–680. 10.1111/lsq.12243
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12243 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pearson, Kathryn and Logan Dancey
    2011a “Elevating women’s voices in Congress: Speech participation in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly64, no.4 (December): 910–23. 10.1177/1065912910388190
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910388190 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011b “Speaking for the underrepresented in the House of Representatives: Voicing women’s interests in a partisan era.” Politics & Gender7no.4 (February), 493–519. 10.1017/S1743923X1100033X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X1100033X [Google Scholar]
  54. Pennebaker, James W.
    2013The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2018 “Expressive Writing in Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science13 (2): 226–229. 10.1177/1745691617707315
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617707315 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pennebaker, James W., Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn
    2015 “The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015.” UT Faculty/Researcher Works. https://utexas-ir.tdl.org/handle/2152/31333
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Robson, Deborah C.
    2000 “Stereotypes and the female politician: A case study of Senator Barbara Mikulski.” Communication Quarterly48, no.3 (May): 205–22. 10.1080/01463370009385593
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385593 [Google Scholar]
  58. Saint-Germain, Michelle A.
    1989 “Does Their Difference Make a Difference?The Impact of Women on Public Policy in Arizona Legislature.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sawilowsky, Shlomo S.
    2009 “New effect size rules of thumb.” Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_tbf/4/. 10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
    https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sheldon, Amy
    1990 “Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes.” Discourse Processes13, no.1: 5–31. 10.1080/01638539009544745
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539009544745 [Google Scholar]
  61. Shor, Boris, and Nolan McCarty
    2011 “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 530–551. 10.1017/S0003055411000153
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000153 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sinclair, Barbara
    2018 “Tip O’Neill and Contemporary House Leadership.” InMasters of the House, eds: Roger H. Davidson, Susan Hammond & Raymond Smock, 289–318. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429499029‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499029-11 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sunderland, Jane
    2004Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230505582
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505582 [Google Scholar]
  64. Swers, Michael L.
    2001 “Understanding the policy impact of electing women: Evidence from research on congress and state legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics34, no.2 (June): 217–20. 10.1017/S1049096501000348
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096501000348 [Google Scholar]
  65. Swers, Michele L.
    2002 “Fighting for Women’s Issues on the House Floor: An Analysis of Floor Amending Behavior in the 103d and 104th Congresses.” Legislative Studies Quarterly27:151–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Swers, Michael L.
    2013Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226022963.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226022963.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Thomas, Sue
    1994How women legislate. Oxford University Press on Demand.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Thomsen, Danielle M.
    2015 “Why so Few (Republican) Women? Explaining the Partisan Imbalance of Women in the US Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (2): 295–323. 10.1111/lsq.12075
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12075 [Google Scholar]
  69. Walsh, Katherine Cramer
    2002 “Enlarging Representation: Women Bringing Marginalized Perspectives to Floor Debate in the House of Representatives.” InWomen Transforming Congress, edited byCindy Simon Rosenthal, 370–396. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Waltz, Kenneth N.
    2010Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wodak, Ruth
    2003 “Multiple identities: the role of female parliamentarians in the EU Parliament.” The Handbook of Language and Gender, edited byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 671–98. Blackwell, Oxford. 10.1002/9780470756942.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  72. Youde, Jeremy
    2016 “High politics, low politics, and global health.” Journal of Global Security Studies1, no.2 (May): 157–70. 10.1093/jogss/ogw001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogw001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.21053.win
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.21053.win
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): double bind; gender; language; linguistics; Senate
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error