These differences hold up across written and spoken language and most other languages that we have studied. You can’t help but marvel at the fact that we are all bombarded by words from women and men every day of our lives and most of us have never “heard” these sex differences in language. Part of the problem is that our brains aren’t wired to listen to pronouns, articles, prepositions, and other “junk” words. When we listen to another person, we typically focus on what they are saying rather than how they are saying it.
Men and women use language differently because they negotiate their worlds differently. Across dozens and dozens of studies, women tend to talk more about other human beings. Men, on the other hand, are more interested in concrete objects and things. To talk about human relationships requires social and cognitive words. To talk about concrete objects, you need concrete nouns which typically demand the use of articles.
No matter what your sex, if you have to explain that Sally is leaving her husband because of her new lover, you have to make references to all the actors and you have to do some fairly complex cognitive analyses. If you have to explain why your carburetor in your car is broken, your causal analysis will likely be relatively pallid and will involve referring to concrete nouns.
COOK: You write about using this to analyze historical documents. Do you think this tool might be of any use to historians or biographers?
PENNEBAKER: Historians and biographers should jump on this new technology. The recent release of the Google Books Project should be required reading for everyone in the humanities. For the first time in the history of the world, there are methods by which to analyze tremendously large and complex written works by authors from all over the world going back centuries. We can begin to see how thinking, emotional expression, and social relations evolve as a function of world-wide events. The possibilities are breathtaking.
In my own work, we have analyzed the collected works of poets, playwrights, and novelists going back to the 1500s to see how their writing changed as they got older. We’ve compared the pronoun use of suicidal versus non-suicidal poets. Basically, poets who eventually commit suicide use I-words more than non-suicidal poets.
The analysis of language style can also serve as a psychological window into authors and their relationships. We have analyzed the poetry of Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning and compared it with the history of their marriage. Same thing with Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. Using a method we call Language Style Matching, we can isolate changes in the couples’ relationships.
COOK: What are some of the more unusual “texts” you have applied this technique to?
PENNEBAKER: Some of the more unusual texts have been my own. There is something almost creepy about analyzing your own emails, letters of recommendation, web pages, and natural conversations.
COOK: And what have you found?
PENNEBAKER: One of the most interesting results was part of a study my students and I conducted dealing with status in email correspondence. Basically, we discovered that in any interaction, the person with the higher status uses I-words less (yes, less) than people who are low in status. The effects were quite robust and, naturally, I wanted to test this on myself. I always assumed that I was a warm, egalitarian kind of guy who treated people pretty much the same.
I was the same as everyone else. When undergraduates wrote me, their emails were littered with I, me, and my. My response, although quite friendly, was remarkably detached -- hardly an I-word graced the page. And then I analyzed my emails to the dean of my college. My emails looked like an I-word salad; his emails back to me were practically I-word free.
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentFascinating ideas. I do think however on examining my own email records that the association of I words with status is perhaps slightly misunderstood. It appears to be more to do with the expected flow of information. A requester must generally use more I words to communicate the request than the responder needs to use to supply the answer. Status is involved because the higher status individuals are more likely to be the information source in any given interaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is interesting is the fact that I used to think I got to use more I's to make the conversation look active. But now I recollect (vaguely though) that I used I's when writing to supervisors and not to subordinates. And again I can see that subordinates use more I's when reporting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've also seen that better graded people use better vocabulary than others. Got to check whether it is noun specific.
Pretty interesting stuff.
I am wondering how this would relate to how Speech Language Pathologists teach pronouns to Autistic children... or if that's getting too technical? Personally, as a person with Asperger's, I tend to get the niceties of how I should speak in inferior/superior confused anyhow...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting! I teach communication and other skills to couples (and singles). We teach people to use 'I-messages' rather than 'you messages' in order to be more assertive, take responsibility for their own feelings and needs - and create less defensiveness in the listener. Personally, in my younger days as a clinical social worker I learned to be 'inclusive' by using 'we, us, our' instead of 'I, my, mine'. I have to wonder how these two issues factor into this. I listen for the 'inclusive' pronouns, probably due to my training. I believe I will go analyze some of my writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy grammar checker chewed me out for using more than three nouns in a row. Should I turn it off?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnderstanding what you have spoken about, has been a lifelong struggle for myself. My Girlfriend's father expressed that we should never start a sentence using "I". So, I have taken it upon myself, to deal with this evil little pronoun. Basically found myself unable to speak, and share feelings, in his presence. Today, I find it to be a practical tool. Really looking forward to purchasing your book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStylists generally advise that littering your writing with lots of noun clusters is a bad idea. Makes your writing inelegant and difficult to read. That's probably why your grammar checker is complaining.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhats obvious and not stated in the article is that the use of pronouns also indicates ownership. I also find that one can't equate a masculine and femanine generalization to specifics. As each person is as unique as their finger prints. And that includes the way they choose to express themselves through language. But then what value one can make of all this will have to be evaluated with results. Which is far from clear from the limited information contained in the article. All told this rates a seven out of ten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd love to see how pronoun use tracks in comments posted to an article the commenters agree with vs one they disagree with, to see if their comment is an attempt to establish themselves in hierarchy with the writer as a way of boosting or dismissing their statements. (And then I'd love to see how it works in a verbal argument, but writing seems like an easier start.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would wager that the reported correlation between language use in college admission essays and GPAs has more to do with the complexity of the grammatical structures used by the writers than with a simple count of the number of nouns and verbs they used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVerb use is not limited to the telling of stories, but rather plays a central role in determining the grammatical structure of a given sentence. Every sentence includes a verb--indeed that would have been a part of the definition of "sentence" provided by your English teacher. The number of nouns in a sentence actually depends on the verb that was chosen, varying with the complexity of the predicate being expressed by that verb. For example, a verb like "sleep," which describes the activity of one person, the sleeper, would occur in a sentence with only one noun ("she slept"), whereas a verb like "give" requires three nouns, the giver, the receiver, and the thing that was given ("she gave the book to him").
It is likely that the reason that students who end up with higher GPAs used more nouns in their admission essays is actually because they were using verbs that expressed more complex predicates, which require more complex grammatical structures, which require more nouns to fill them. GPA would then be tied to grammatical abilities rather than vocabulary size.
I can't remember the book or author, but I'm reminded of an intro to a feminist text I read once, where the well-known aversion to singular pronouns in academic writing (not using "I"), as well as the avoidance of emphases (italicized words), are actually masculine traits of objectiveness androcratically imposed on academic authors. I think it would do some good if emotion was allowed in formal writing, and may help laypeople gain more interest in perhaps otherwise dry academic papers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"attempt to establish"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat about simple correlation? is vs wannabe?
Ideas such as this are always interesting and always flawed, so one must always keep healthy skepticism handy. Example: What other variables were taken into account in each of the studies? Age? Personality type? Ethnic? Etc.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, but the most pertinent question remains: Will we eventually be able to derive an empirical analogy from Borat's expletive infixation "Wow wow wee waa!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes this eerily imply that males have a higher chance of admitting into prestigious colleges compared to females?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a retired English professor and honors director, I agree with your analysis. In the first session of a writing course, I'd ask students to look out the window, and then give them five minutes to get on paper what they saw. Alas, nine out of ten times, I could grade them for the course then and there. The clue to mature writing, I found, is the proper use of subordination. Of course, content counts too. Good writers are interested in stuff, observant, and venturesome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou aren't distant enough. Please go observe somewhere else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an apparently fully functional person with Asperger's it is likely that you are also highly intelligent. Based on that I'd say talk any way you want. If someone doesn't like it then they are likely too stupid to matter anyway. Academic achievement is nice but is hardly the only indicator of success in life. One of the most successful business owners I know has no college education at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am wondering if he is aware of David John Oates and his Reverse Speech?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.reversespeech.com/home.htm
All very very interesting!
I like to edit out as many I-words as possible in emails and letters, and include more you-words. What do you think the effect might be? Do you think this falls under the status interpretation of this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there a free/recommended tool that would let one run this type of analysis on text? (notice I said "one" not "me")?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a language teacher I agree with Jim Lacey's comment about coordination being critical to good writing: it demands putting ideas together in an ordered and directed manner, rather than just stringing along observations and arguments as if all were of equal importance or the same nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso: last I checked, 'mine' was a personal pronoun, 'my' a possessive adjective. But maybe I'm just out of date...
Interesting research however. Perhaps interesting to compare with Robin Lakoff's and Deborah Tannen's research in linguistics about men's vs. women's speech...
Dear Mr. Pennebaker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations for your inspiring work!
Wish you could read this post...
Could you please let us know how your discoveries may apply to different languages grammar structures?
In other words, since the order of a sentence elements (subject, verbs and adjetivs) are inverted in english and spanish, Can we extrapolate the existence of a different -or even an opposite- life perspective pre-disposition in each case?
(BTW: The use of right and left hand is another question that jumps to my mind right now: is a known fact that in antiquity both wrinting styles were accepted (from left to right and from right to left). Today Right handed writing is the dominating rule.)
Any comment is appreciated!
Regards,
JC
This is one of those ideas which I've never really understood. Since when did objectivity become a masculine trait? It is far more prejudice than fact that men demonstrate objective talents while women are confined to a limited form of emotional subjectivity. If certain authors want to call for a greater valuation of subjectivity in academic discourse, this is their right. But why cloak this sort of sentiment under the veil of "feminist dialogue"? It sounds pretty anti-feminist to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is being said here seems to be just common sense and very logical, i.e. broader culture brings a richer vocabulary of nouns and more active brains and in turn higher GPAs and a better success rate. But which comes first? It's a bit like the puzzle of the chicken and the egg. All the examples here bring to mind the same sort of simple explanations. Nonetheless, it is a new and exciting angle for looking at behavioral science data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople whose job depends on listening have observed differences in speech between men/ women; rich/poor; educated/ uneducated; different social and cultural norms,etc... since the the dawn of civilisation but never based on specific elements of speech.
(What about adjectives? I've noticed English female speakers use them profusely, especially when writing.)
Also, languages have different preferred fundamentals structures and it would be interesting to determine the equivalence between those from one language to another. i.e.: verbs are not as important in English as in, say, Latin Languages and some languages are more context-dependant (like English). Finally, in regard to pronouns, English is not very rich. Is this meaningful?.
Hi Dr. Pennebaker. I`ve appreciated your works for decades and integrated it into my clinical practice, as an adjunct to therapy. Had I stayed in academia I certainly would have pursued this line of research as well. My clinical observations of the use of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person pronouns by my clients are that they are quite predictive of therapeutic process and recovery. I encourage/make people speak about their personal experiences in 1st person, rather then using the royal `we` or objective descriptions in 3rd person tense. This will often bring them to tears and facilitate their recovery process, depending on what they are talking about. It is interesting to contemplate that for some of my clients, who always speak in 1st person pronouns, and are often overwhelmed by their experiences, it may be useful to help them learn to speak in 3rd person perspectives and take a more objective stance. Thanks for the tip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis all reminds me of Greer and Morris`s 1975 research in which they did a psychological assessment of 160 women prior to admission to hospital for breast biopsy. Cancerous biopsies were more likely to be associated with women who were either extreme emotional suppressors (i.e. too much 3rd person processing)or extreme expressers (i.e. too much 1st person processing). Interesting to think about anyway. Keep up the great work!
Yes, especially for scientific writing a common advice is to transform verbs into nouns and to "tell a story".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read this Pennebaker interview and then went looking (googling) for others: found them too. This scientist is onto something worthwhile. Thanks to Scientific American for giving Prof. Pennebaker the chance to share his discoveries about language use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor my own part: Pennebaker's statements about journaling struck a chord immediately. Years ago, I went through a series of personal disasters which were stressful and depressing. Completely out of impulse, I started journaling "to relieve my distress and get my head straight." Finally, all those filled journals taught me how to better react to and deal with these traumatic events over which I had no control. It's too bad there's no practical way for individuals to go through such a pile of journals to see exactly how our use of language reflects our changing perspective.
I may have missed it, but from this article I don't see anything about how Prof. Pennebaker is making available his methods to professions like teachers and other psychologists or even the public. It would be a boon for everyone to have a practical, affordable way to use his methods.
ego.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are a reflexive society. Many of those who write know conventions, stereotypes, and avoid expressions unpleasant to other people. A boss in front of his team does not want to come as overbearing or taking an ownership of his group achievements, and will use "we." A woman military Commander general would probably use pronouns similar to men. Are men on average more competitive than women? Are those who write aware of this? Among my scientific colleagues some consider "I discovered" as simply impolite. So I usually write "we," "our team." On the opposite, in some journals editors question this practice and insist on writing "I," when it is more truthful. Etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to know how various societies differ on these usages. Which usages are universal, and which indicate dominating conventions such as egalitarian vs. elitarian, or degrees of self-consciousness of populations. It is a part of an interesting field of study.
Best,
Leonid Perlovsky
Visiting Scholar, Harvard
Obviously, the use of personal pronouns might reveal something something personal about the user. You said nothing about the other pronouns. I expected something more subtle. I am disappointed in you, Dr. Pennypacker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAngus McTwoddie
@Tara I found your comment to be really interesting. I have taught pronouns to children with autism and it can be really confusing because the meaning changes depending upon who is using the pronoun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, turn it off, what is that grammar tool <a href="http://www.keepmeinspired.co.uk/">skin care</a> anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the same thing. When one sends out E-mails to those of high authority, it's usually because one is asking or requesting for something, hence the reason why the message would probably be peppered with "I"s i.e. I would like to ask for this or that form, I want to schedule with this or that person, et cetera.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this