









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
55

American Journal of  
Society and Law ( AJSL)

From Structure to Meaning: Gendered Communication in Philippine Political Landscapes
Daniel Geranco1*, Evangeline Alvarez1, Shiryl Ytoc1

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2835-3277 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v4i1.4436
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: January 31, 2025
Accepted: March 03, 2025
Published: May 08, 2025

This study examines sentence structures of  Chomsky and communication styles of  male and 
female senators through Tannen’s Genderlect Theory. The research reveals that male senators 
predominantly use simple sentences (26 occurrences), complex sentences (14 occurrences), 
and compound sentences (7 occurrences). In contrast, female senators favor varied 
structure, including compound-complex sentences (7 occurrences), simple sentences (23 
occurrences), complex sentences (6 occurrences), and compound sentences (5 occurrences). 
Furthermore, the frequencies of  Genderlect styles in male and female senators reveal distinct 
communication. The Information vs. Feelings is the most frequently occurring category, 
with a total of  111 occurrences. Furthermore, the Conflict vs. Compromise follows, with a 
total of  50 occurrences. In the Status vs. Support, female senators recorded 10 occurrences 
compared to six occurrences among male senators.  A similar trend is observed in Advice 
vs. Understanding where female senators registered seven occurrences, significantly higher 
than the one occurrence among male senators. In addition, the Orders vs. Proposals shows 
a relatively balanced distribution, with six occurrences among male senators and four 
among female senators. Lastly, Independence vs. Intimacy recorded the least number of  
occurrences, with only one instance, observed in male senators. The findings reveal that both 
genders adjust their linguistic choices based on political context, demonstrating flexibility in 
communication strategies. The study concludes that gender significantly influences discourse 
patterns, with male senators prioritizing assertiveness and status assertion, while female 
senators emphasize inclusivity and engagement. Future research should explore how these 
linguistic differences affect public perception, media representation, and policy outcomes in 
political communication.

Keywords
Genderlect Communication Style, 
Political Discourse, Structural 
Analysis, Transformational-
Generative Grammar

1 Agusan Del Sur State College of  Agriculture and Technology, Philippines
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: dgeranco89@asscat.edu.ph

INTRODUCTION
Imagine sitting in a Senate hearing and watching how 
politicians speak – it is like navigating a complex 
linguistic minefield where every word can make or break 
public trust (Teimouri, 2024; Wajdi & Asrumi, 2024). 
Female senators especially find themselves in a no-win 
situation, where speaking up too strongly can make them 
seem aggressive, but being too soft makes them appear 
ineffective (Crittendon, 2024). Recent studies show 
that women politicians have become incredibly skilled 
at a delicate communication dance, carefully balancing 
assertiveness and empathy to overcome deep-rooted 
gender stereotypes in political spaces (Martinez & Liu, 
2024). On the other hand, male senators are more direct 
and directly point to being aggressive when it comes to 
their utterances (Jacobi & Schweers, 2017).
The way politicians communicate is like an intricate 
chess game, where language becomes a powerful tool 
for establishing credibility and connection (Grice, 1991). 
Every sentence is a strategic move, carefully crafted to 
build trust, demonstrate expertise, and connect with 
different audiences (Lakoff, 2017). Hence, breaking 
down these communication patterns uncover how gender 
shapes the very way political leaders speak, revealing the 
hidden rules that can make or break a politician’s public 
image (West & Zimmerman, 2019).
Current literature highlights the role of  language in 

framing public perception, with sentence structures 
playing a crucial role in determining message tone, clarity, 
and effectiveness (Lusk, 2023; The Role of  Syntax in 
Effective Communication, 2024). Studies on political 
discourse have examined how officials use language 
strategies to convey authority, empathy, or assertiveness, 
reflecting underlying ideologies and social contexts 
(Taubaldiyev et al., 2024; Saaida, 2023). Scholars also 
emphasized that language choice is not neutral, often 
being purposefully tailored to address specific audiences 
or convey a particular stance (Van Dijk, 2009; Fairclough, 
2013; Buarqoub, 2019). Smith (2019) argues that gendered 
performance becomes highly visible, with male politicians 
often displaying more assertive and authoritative tones, 
while female politicians tend to incorporate strategies that 
highlight empathy and inclusivity (Johnson & Boylorn, 
2015). These findings align with studies of  Shaw (2020) 
and Talbot (2019), which shows that women in politics 
commonly adopt a more collaborative language style to 
create a relational tone.
Despite the growth of  studies, few explore the specific 
linguistic patterns and sentence structures used by male 
and female senators in the Philippines. Addressing this 
gap is critical, as sentence structure may influence how 
these senators convey power, empathy, and authority 
within the linguistics landscape. In addition, this research 
significantly aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable 



Pa
ge

 
56

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

Development Goal (SDG) 5 on Gender Equality, 
particularly in political representation and communication 
of  women in the government. Also, it addresses the 
implications of  these language choices in promoting 
transparency, inclusivity, and effective governance, 
aligning with SDG 16 on promoting peaceful, just, and 
inclusive societies. Additionally, SDG 11, Sustainable 
cities and communities, aligns with broader objectives 
of  promoting inclusive and resilient communities as 
how senators communicate with audiences contribute 
to understanding practices that foster inclusive and 
sustainable public engagement. 
Furthermore, the study supports SDG 4 - Quality 
Education by aiming to enhance understanding of  
equitable communication practices, encouraging 
accessible language that promotes inclusivity and lifelong 
learning opportunities through public discourse.
Lastly, this study contributes to broader understandings 
of  gendered political communication as it examines how 
male and female senators construct their public personas 
linguistically. This analysis enhances the discourse in 
linguistics and political communication by shedding light 
on the ways language strategies employed by the senators 
which shape both public engagement and perceptions on 
how gender affects the presentation of  political authority 
and accessibility.

Theoretical Lens
This study is anchored in the analysis of  Sentence 
Structure of  Noam Chomsky and Genderlect Style 
Theory of  Deborah Tannen which offers a linguistic and 
socio-political lens for examining how senators construct 
their messages to convey authority, empathy, and public 
engagement.
Sentence Structure Analysis provides the linguistic 
foundation for this study by categorizing and analyzing 
the types of  sentences used—simple, compound, 
complex, and compound-complex—and examining their 
syntactic features (Yu, 2021). Sentence structure plays a 
critical role in determining messages’ clarity, tone, and 
relatability (McCoy, 2024), where immediacy and brevity 
are valued. Assessing these structures explores how the 
choice of  sentence type and complexity affects message 
accessibility and audience engagement of  the senator 
during senate hearings. 
Furthermore, the Genderlect Theory, developed by 
Deborah Tannen (2015), posits that men and women have 
distinct communication styles shaped by socialization 
and cultural expectations. One core tenet is the Status vs. 
Support dynamic, where men use language to establish 
dominance and independence, while women seek 
affirmation and connection. Similarly, the Independence 
vs. Intimacy principle suggests that men prioritize 
autonomy, often making unilateral decisions, whereas 
women value collaboration and consultation. Another 
key aspect is Advice vs. Understanding, wherein men 
tend to offer solutions in conversations, viewing dialogue 
as a problem-solving mechanism, whereas women 

seek emotional validation and empathy instead. The 
Information vs. Feelings distinction further highlights 
that men focus on conveying facts and achieving 
objectives, while women emphasize emotional expression 
and rapport-building.
Another fundamental component of  Genderlect Theory 
is the contrast between Orders vs. Proposals, where men 
typically give direct commands, reflecting hierarchical 
communication, whereas women phrase requests as 
indirect suggestions to foster consensus. Additionally, the 
Conflict vs. Compromise principle illustrates that men are 
more comfortable with confrontation and assertiveness 
in debates, whereas women often seek to mediate and 
maintain relational harmony. These distinctions provide 
insight into gendered communication across various 
settings, from workplaces to personal relationships. 
Although the theory has faced criticisms for reinforcing 
binary distinctions and overlooking cultural variations, it 
remains a valuable lens for understanding and improving 
gendered discourse. Recognizing these patterns can help 
bridge communication gaps and foster more effective 
interactions between men and women.
These frameworks analyze gender interactions among 
Philippine senators by examining sentence complexity 
and syntactic features, highlighting their impact on 
clarity, tone, and audience engagement. Together, these 
frameworks offer valuable insights into the interplay 
between language, gender, and power dynamics in formal 
political discourse, contributing to broader discussions 
on communication strategies and their role in shaping 
public and political engagement.

Research Questions
This study explores gendered conversations by analyzing 
sentence structures and identifying the conversational 
maxims to reveal patterns in linguistic and pragmatic 
behavior of  the politicians, particularly; 

1. What types of  sentence structures are commonly 
used by participants of  different genders?

2. How is the Genderlect Style Theory reflected in the 
discourse of  male and female senators?

LITERATURE REVIEW
This review examines how politicians use language 
on social media to balance authority and relatability, 
highlighting sentence structure as a key factor in shaping 
tone, clarity, and public perception within gendered 
expectations of  political communication.

Linguistic Strategies in Political Communication
The structure of  sentences is foundational in shaping 
tone and conveying clarity in political communication 
(Ikrambayevna, 2024). Halliday’s Functional Grammar 
(1994) suggests that simple, compound, and complex 
sentences each have unique communicative functions 
that can project clarity, assertiveness, or nuance. 
Politicians who employ shorter, straightforward sentence 
structures often appear more relatable and accessible, as 



Pa
ge

 
57

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

shown by Heavey et al. (2020), who noted that simplified 
language tends to garner stronger public engagement 
due to its immediate clarity. For both male and female 
senators, the choice of  sentence structure can convey 
authority, relatability, or approachability, aligning with 
the rapid and concise nature, for example in social media 
communication. 
The rise of  social media has redefined political 
communication (Determ, 2024), allowing politicians 
to reach a broader audience, where the audience would 
see how the politicians use effective communication. 
Scholars emphasized that the social media creates a 
unique space where political figures can project a blend 
of  authority, relatability, and immediacy (Gbadamosi, 
2024; McCusker, 2015). This “hybrid” political persona is 
facilitated by the platform’s ability to support both official 
and personal messaging styles. Studies of  Lewis (2022) 
and Engelbert et al. (2022) suggest that politicians with 
clear and engaging sentence structures are more likely to 
foster a sense of  trust and openness among followers, 
which in turn enhances audience interaction and 
promotes transparency in governance. Politicians who 
adopt a straightforward style, characterized by shorter 
sentences and simplified language, tend to attract higher 
engagement, suggesting that sentence structure plays a 
crucial role in public reception and credibility, particularly 
on social media (Wolfsfeld, 2022; Talbot, 2019; Sahly et 
al., 2019).
Effective political communication relies on an engaging 
and accessible tone, with sentence structures that resonate 
with diverse audiences (Perloff, 2021; Wolfsfeld, 2022). 
Hence, there should be a balance between formality and 
informality, for example on social media with successful 
posts often using simple, dynamic sentence structures to 
maintain audience interest (Ikrambayevna, 2020; Calude, 
2023). Rastelli (2024) and Speechly (2019) emphasize that 
shorter sentences and clear syntax enhance readability, 
making the message more effective in the fast-paced 
digital environment. Additionally, Prior, (2019) and 
Kahne and Bowyer (2018) distinguished that politician 
who employ accessible language and direct sentence 
structures see higher engagement rates, as this aligns with 
digital audience expectations for quick and digestible 
information. For both male and female senators, finding 
the balance between relatability and authority is essential 
for fostering a positive online presence

Gendered Communication Styles
Research on gendered language patterns reveals that 
male and female politicians often adopt distinct linguistic 
strategies to fulfill societal expectations (Jones, 2016; 
Walsh, 2016; Talbot, 2019). According to McGee (2023), 
language use among women often includes softer, more 
polite expressions, shaped by cultural norms that expect 
women to maintain a non-aggressive tone. Crittendon 
(2024) noted that female politicians tend to blend 
assertiveness with inclusivity, using language that fosters 
collaboration and connection. These tendencies manifest 

in sentence structure, where women might employ 
conditional phrases or inclusive language to create a 
balanced tone, whereas men may favor more declarative 
or direct structures that project authority (Cameron, 
2023; Murray & Starr, 2018).
In the Philippines, Lei (2019) observed that female 
politicians often use sentence structures that align with 
cultural expectations of  femininity, such as conveying 
humility and empathy. Male politicians, in contrast, may 
employ more assertive language, projecting strength and 
directness (Parmanand, 2020). These gendered strategies 
impact public perception, as female senators often balance 
authority with approachability, while male senators may 
use language that reinforces traditional perceptions of  
political power. 
Furthermore, women’s communication often aims to 
build rapport, foster connections, and seek consensus, 
while men’s communication tends to assert dominance, 
emphasize individuality, and focus on conveying 
information or “reporting.” Studies by Kim and Del 
Prado (2019) and ChenFeng et al. (2017) support these 
observations, showing that women frequently use 
supportive and relational language to maintain harmony 
in conversations. This aligns with their tendency to ask 
questions, provide affirmations, and share personal 
experiences. Conversely, men’s communication often 
demonstrates assertiveness, with a focus on achieving 
goals and maintaining authority, frequently evident 
in direct commands, challenges, or expressions of  
independence (Angelakis et al., 2024).
In political discourse, these gendered patterns become 
more pronounced, as public platforms demand both 
collaboration and assertiveness. Research by Robinson 
(2024) on gendered speech in professional settings 
suggests that women in leadership roles often blend 
relational and assertive strategies to navigate power 
dynamics effectively. Meanwhile, men predominantly 
employ assertive and fact-focused language to establish 
authority (Guirguis & van Doorn-Harder, 2022). Such 
dynamics are evident in legislative debates, where 
male speakers often emphasize reporting facts and 
asserting dominance (Atkinson & Windett, 2019), while 
female speakers balance relational engagement and 
supportiveness (Nugent, 2019). These contrasting styles 
can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, particularly in 
high-stakes discussions, underscoring the need for greater 
awareness of  how gender influences communication.

Transformational-Generative Grammar and Political 
Discourse
Noam Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar 
(TGG) offers a powerful lens to analyze how sentence 
structures in political communication are generated and 
transformed to shape public perception (Harris, 2021). 
Chomsky’s theory explains how deep structures (the 
underlying meanings of  sentences) can be transformed 
into surface structures (the sentences we speak) 
through various syntactic rules. Recent studies have 



Pa
ge

 
58

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

demonstrated that politicians strategically manipulate 
these transformations to influence tone, clarity, and 
authority. For example, the use of  passive voice can 
obscure responsibility, as shown in the works of  Hansson 
(2015) and Ellis (2021), where political figures employed 
passive constructions to deflect blame or avoid direct 
confrontation. Additionally, embedded clauses and 
complex sentence structures can introduce nuance, as 
demonstrated by Kang (2024), who found that politicians 
who used more complex sentence forms appeared 
more knowledgeable and authoritative. These syntactic 
manipulations can influence how political messages are 
perceived, shaping the interaction between a politician 
and their audience, with implications for how authority 
and relatability are constructed.
Furthermore, TGG also provides valuable insights into 
how gender influences syntactic choices in political 
discourse. Research by McGee (2023) and Crittendon 
(2024) highlights that women politicians often 
employ more complex sentence structures, utilizing 
transformations such as embedded clauses, conditionals, 
or indirect speech to convey inclusivity and collaboration, 
aligning with societal expectations of  femininity. 
In summary, the use of  language in political discourse, 
particularly through the lens of  transformational-
generative grammar, reveals how sentence structures 
shape authority, clarity, and relatability. Chomsky’s 
theory of  syntactic transformations allows for a deeper 
understanding of  how politicians, through conscious 
manipulation of  sentence structures such as passive voice 
or embedded clauses, can influence public perception. 
Gendered language patterns further complicate this 
analysis, as female politicians often employ more 
complex and inclusive sentence structures to balance 
approachability with authority, while male politicians 
favor direct, assertive constructions. Findings from 
various studies underscore the role of  sentence structure 
in crafting political messages, with gendered strategies 
serving to reinforce societal norms around power and 
communication. Therefore, a thorough examination of  
both syntactic strategies and gendered language patterns in 
political communication reveals the significant influence 
of  sentence structure in shaping the political narrative and 
public engagement, highlighting the dynamic relationship 
between language, gender, and political authority.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study adopts a qualitative research design to examine 
the gendered sentence structures gender communication 

styles used by male and female senators in political 
discourse. Descriptive analysis approach, by definition, 
is defined as a process of  summarizing, organizing, and 
interpreting data to provide a clear and detailed account 
of  a phenomenon or subject under investigation (Mezmir, 
2020). It focuses on describing the data as it is, without 
manipulating or deeply theorizing the findings. Hence, 
the study aims to identify, classify, and compare these 
sentence structures and gender common across various 
political discourses. This research design facilitates an 
in-depth understanding of  language use in real-world 
political contexts, particularly in how gender shapes 
political figures’ communication tactics.
Furthermore, the primary research material consists 
of  transcriptions from four distinct political discourses 
involving male and female senators, including debates 
on farmlands being converted into subdivisions, heated 
Senate hearings, and exchanges involving prominent 
senators in the Philippines. These materials were 
selected for their relevance to gendered communication 
in political settings and for representing a variety of  
sentence structures. After transcribing the discourses, the 
sentences were coded and analyzed to categorize them 
into different types and evaluate their use in expressing 
authority, collaboration, or strategic ambiguity. Ultimately, 
the analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of  
how gender influences the communication styles of  male 
and female senators.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present study analyzes the sentence structures of  
male and female senators wherein this section divides 
into two sub-sections: 1) Types of  sentence structures 
commonly used by participants of  different genders, 
and 2) The Genderlect Theory in the discourse of  male 
and female senators. This analysis not only reveals the 
linguistic strategies employed by the senators but also 
provides insight into their communication styles, which 
are influenced by both their gender and the political 
context.

Types of  Sentences Structures Commonly Used by 
Participants of  Different Genders
The examination of  sentence structures used by male 
senators shows a varied use of  simple, compound, 
and complex sentences. Simple sentences appear 
most frequently (26 frequencies) followed by complex 
sentences (14 frequencies). Compound sentences, 
with seven frequencies, are also present but in fewer 

Figure 1: Types of  sentences used by male and female senators



Pa
ge

 
59

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

instances. Notably, no occurrences of  compound-
complex sentences are observed in their discourse. On 
the other hand, the analysis of  sentence structures used 
by female senators reveals that simple sentences that 
the most predominantly used in the conversation with 
23 frequencies. Notably, compound-complex sentences 
are used with considerable occurrences with seven 
frequencies. And the complex sentences are frequently 
employed (six frequencies), while compound sentences 
appear less often with only five frequencies.

Male Senators’ Sentence Structures
Simple Sentences 
One of  the most commonly used sentence structures by 
male senators is the simple sentence, which consists of  
a single independent clause (IC). Example, male speaker 
T1-P1L34 says “I’m not a businessman.” (Simple – single 
independent clause)

Figure 3 shows the sentence is divided into two main 
components, the NP (Noun phrase) and the VP (Verb 
Phrase). The NP serves as the subject and has pronoun 
“I”. The VP represents the predicate of  the sentence and 
is broken in three parts. First, the V (verb) is “am”, which 
functions as a linking verb. Second, the AdvP (Adverbial 
Phrase) contains “still”, as an adverb modifying the verb. 
Lastly, the NP acts as the complement of  the verb and 
includes two components, the determiner “the” and noun 
“chairman”.

Compound Sentences
As example, male speaker T4-P9L242 says “I apologize 
of  my word but Mr. President people died here.” 
(Compound Sentence) – The use of  a compound sentence 
is connected by a coordinating conjunction, “but” which 
is implied but explicitly stated. “I apologize of  my word” 
and “Mr. President people died here.”
Figure 4 notes the sentence is composed of  two 
independent clauses connected by the coordinating 
conjunction “but”. The first clause consists of  a noun 
phrase (NP) with the pronoun “I,” followed by a verb 
phrase (VP) containing the verb “apologize” and a 
prepositional phrase (PP), which includes the preposition 
“of ” and a noun phrase (NP) with the determiner “my” 
and the noun “word.” The second clause features an 
adjective phrase (AdjP) “Mr. President” and a sentence (S) 
containing a noun phrase (NP) with the noun “people” 
and a verb phrase (VP) with the verb “died” followed by 
an adverbial phrase (AdvP) “here.”

Figure 2: Tree Diagram of  Simple Sentence (L34)

Figure 2 shows simple sentence is divided into two main 
components, the NP (Noun Phrase) and the VP (Verb 
Phrase). The NP serves as the subject of  the sentence 
and consists of  the pronoun “I”. The VP represents 
the predicate of  the sentence and is further divided into 
three parts. First, the V (verb) is ‘am’, which functions 
as a linking verb. Second, the AdvP (Adverbial Phrase) 
contains the word “not”, which serves as a negation. 
Finally, the NP acts as the complement of  the verb and 
includes two components, the Det (determiner) “a” 
and the Noun “businessman”. As such, this is a direct, 
straightforward statement providing basic personal 
information. The simplicity of  the sentence here allows 
the participant to firmly establish his identity and position 
within the conversation, setting the tone for the points he 

Figure 3: Tree Diagram of  Simple Sentence (L131)

will continue to make.
Another example, male speaker  T2-P4L131 says “I’m still 
the chairman.” (Simple – single independent clause).

Figure 4: Tree Diagram of  Compound Sentence (L242)



Pa
ge

 
60

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

In addition, male speaker T3-P5L219 states “I also 
apologize for my behavior Mr. President; we’ve known 
each other since 1998.” This compound sentence with 

two independent clauses is connected by a semi-colon 
“;” which doesn’t need connecting words to connect the 
sentences (Samanci, 2010)

Figure 5: Tree Diagram of  Compound Sentence (L219)

Figure 5 displays the sentence consists of  two 
coordinated clauses. In the first clause, “I also apologize 
for my behavior, Mr. President,” the noun phrase (NP) 
“I” serves as the subject, and the verb phrase (VP) “also 
apologize” includes the adverb “also” modifying the 
verb “apologize.” The prepositional phrase (PP) “for my 
behavior” acts as a complement, with “my behavior” as 
the noun phrase. The phrase “Mr. President” functions 
as a direct address. In the second clause, “we have known 
each other since 1998,” the NP “we” is the subject, while 
the VP “have known” consists of  the auxiliary verb 
“have” and the main verb “known.” The noun phrase 

“each other” serves as the object, and the prepositional 
phrase “since 1998” indicates the time frame, with “1998” 
as the object of  the preposition. 

Complex Sentences 
Complex sentences combine an independent clause with 
one or more subordinate clauses (DC), allowing for more 
nuanced explanations or expansions of  an argument. For 
example, male speaker T4-P9L226 states “I don’t think that 
the gentlemen from Iloilo understand what is boxing.” 
This sentence allows participant T4-P9 to present clear 
point while also offering justification for his perspective.

Figure 6: Tree Diagram of  Complex Sentence (L226)

As shown in figure 6, the sentence is composed of  an 
Independent Clause (IC) and a Dependent Clause (DC). 
The IC consists of  the noun phrase (NP) “I” as the 
subject and the verb phrase (VP) “don’t think,” which 
includes the adverb phrase “don’t” which has do (aux) 
and not (adverb of  negation) and the verb “think.” The 
DC begins with the complementizer “that” and contains 
its own sentence structure. The subject of  the DC is 
the NP “the gentleman from Iloilo,” which includes 
the determiner “the,” the noun “gentleman,” and the 
prepositional phrase (PP) “from Iloilo.” The predicate of  
the DC is the VP “understand what is boxing,” where 
“understand” is the main verb, and “what is boxing” 

serves as an embedded noun clause. This embedded 
clause contains the pronoun “what” as its subject and 
the VP “is boxing,” where “is” is the linking verb and 
“boxing” is the predicate adjective.

Female Senators’ Sentence Structures
Simple Sentences 
The current study found out that female senators, like 
their male counterparts, use simple sentences to convey 
straightforward ideas. Example, female speaker T1-P2L8 
says “We only buy in cities and capital towns.” (Simple – 
single independent clause)



Pa
ge

 
61

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

The sentence begins (as show in figure 7) with the noun 
phrase (NP) “We,” which serves as the subject, followed 
by the verb phrase (VP) “only buy.” The adverbial phrase 
(AdvP) “only” modifies the main verb “buy,” indicating 
exclusivity. The prepositional phrase (PP) “in cities 
and capital towns” acts as a modifier, specifying the 
location of  the action. Within the PP, the preposition 
“in” introduces the compound noun phrase (NP) “cities 
and capital towns,” where “cities” is a noun, and “capital 
towns” is formed by the adjective “capital” modifying the 
noun “towns.” The coordinating conjunction “and” links 
the two elements in the compound noun phrase. Another 
example, female speaker T2-P3L162 says “We are in the 

process of  reviewing everything.”
Figure 8 shows that the sentence begins with the noun 
phrase (NP) “We,” which serves as the subject, followed 
by the verb phrase (VP) “are,” linking the subject to 
the predicate. The prepositional phrase (PP) “in the 
process” specifies the state or condition, with “in” as 
the preposition and “the process” as the noun phrase 
comprising the determiner “the” and the noun “process.” 
This is further modified by the prepositional phrase (PP) 
“of  reviewing everything,” where “of ” is the preposition, 
and “reviewing everything” acts as an adjective phrase 
(AdjP). In this phrase, “reviewing” functions as a gerund 
(verbal adjective), with “everything” as its object.

Figure 7: Tree Diagram of  Simple Sentence (L8)

Figure 8: Tree Diagram of  Simple Sentence (L162)

Compound Sentences
Female senators frequently use compound sentences, linking 
related ideas to provide a more coherent and contextual 

understanding of  an issue. Example, female speaker T1-
P2L57 says “We have to pay higher interest for those loans, 
so, it will be a loss for the Philippine government.”

Figure 9: Tree Diagram of  Compound Sentence (L57)



Pa
ge

 
62

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

The compound sentence as shown in figure 9, states the 
first independent clause, “We have to pay higher interest 
for those loans,” consists of  the subject “We” (NP), 
the verb phrase “have to pay” (VP), which includes the 
auxiliary verb “have,” the infinitive marker “to,” and 
the main verb “pay.” The direct object “higher interest” 
(AdjP) is modified by the adjective “higher,” while the 
prepositional phrase “for those loans” provides additional 
context, with “those” as the determiner and “loans” as 
the noun. The coordinating conjunction “so” connects 
this clause to the second independent clause, “It will be 
a loss for the Philippine government.” In this clause, the 
subject “It” (NP) is followed by the auxiliary verb “will,” 
the main verb “be,” and the complement “a loss” (NP). 
The prepositional phrase “for the Philippine government” 
adds specificity, with “the” as the determiner, “Philippine” 
as the adjective, and “government” as the noun. 

Complex Sentences 
Complex sentences are more frequently used by female 

senators, as they allow for deliberation, justification, and 
reasoning within a single utterance. Example, female 
speaker T1-P2L6 says “I want to tell you that we don’t 
buy agricultural land in the provinces.”  The complex 
sentence (figure 10) begins with the independent clause 
(IC), where the subject “I” (NP) is followed by the 
verb “want” (V) within the verb phrase (VP), which 
includes an infinitive phrase (InfinitiveP) containing “to” 
(Infinitive marker) and the verb “tell,” with “you” (NP) 
as its object. The dependent clause (DC), introduced 
by the complementizer “that,” serves as the object of  
“tell” and contains the subject “we” (NP), the adverb 
phrase “don’t,” which has the auxiliary “do” and the 
adverb of  negation “not” and the main verb “buy” (V) 
within the VP. The object of  “buy” is “agricultural land,’ 
where “agricultural” (Adj) modifies “land” (N), and the 
prepositional phrase (PP) “in the provinces” provides 
locative information, with “in” (Pre) as the preposition 
and “the provinces” (NP) as its object.

Figure 10: Tree Diagram of  Complex Sentence (L6)

Compound-Complex Sentences 
Female senators, on the current study, often employ 
complex sentences with conditional clauses to discuss 
possible outcomes, scenarios, or hypothetical situations. 

Example, female speaker T1-P2L28 says “Muntinlupa 
became a city, so, we finally develop our chicken farm 
because it is eight hectares.”

Figure 11: Tree Diagram of  Compound-Complex Sentence (L28)

Figure 11 illustrates the main clause, “Muntinlupa became 
a city,” consists of  a noun phrase (Muntinlupa) as the 
subject and a verb phrase (became a city) as the predicate. 
It is connected to a second clause, “we finally develop 
our chicken farm,” by the coordinating conjunction “so.” 
This clause includes the pronoun we as the subject, the 

verb “develop” modified by the adverb finally, and the 
noun phrase our chicken farm as the direct object. The 
subordinating conjunction “because” introduces the final 
clause, “it is eight hectares,” which contains the pronoun 
it as the subject, the linking verb is, and the adjective 
phrase eight hectares serving as the predicate nominative.



Pa
ge

 
63

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

The Genderlect Theory in the Discourse of  Male 
and Female Senators
The frequencies, as shown in figure 12, of  genderlect styles 
in male and female senators reveal distinct communication 
patterns based on Tannen’s Genderlect Theory. The 
Information vs. Feelings is the most frequently occurring 
category, with a total of  111 occurrences (62 male, 49 
female). This suggests that both genders frequently 
engage in conversations that convey either information 
or emotional expression, though male senators tend to 
lean more toward providing information.  Furthermore, 
the Conflict vs. Compromise category follows, with 
a total of  50 occurrences (33 male, 17 female). This 
indicates that males are more inclined to engage in conflict-
driven communication, while females tend to adopt a more 
compromising approach.  In the Status vs. Support category, 
female senators recorded 10 occurrences compared to six 
occurrences among male senators, suggesting that females 

tend to use language to seek support, whereas males are 
more likely to use it to assert status.  A similar trend is 
observed in Advice vs. Understanding where female senators 
registered seven occurrences, significantly higher than the 
one occurrence among male senators. This aligns with the 
idea that women often prioritize understanding and empathy 
in conversations, while men tend to offer direct advice less 
frequently.  
In addition, the Orders vs. Proposals category shows 
a relatively balanced distribution, with six occurrences 
among male senators and four among female senators. 
This indicates that both genders utilize direct commands 
or indirect suggestions in communication.  Lastly, 
Independence vs. Intimacy recorded the least number 
of  occurrences, with only one instance, observed in male 
senators. This suggests that, in this dataset, independence-
oriented communication was not a common feature, 
particularly among females.

Figure 12: Occurences of  genderlect styles in male and female senators

Information vs. Feelings
This category appears most frequently in the discourse of  
both male and female senators. Male senators primarily 
use factual statements to present evidence, reinforce 
arguments, and clarify positions. For example, statements 
in T1-P1L1 and T1-P1L46:  
“Lumiliit ng lumiit po ang ating farmland.” (Our farmland 
is getting smaller and smaller.) 
“So, mura po ‘yong mga bigas na dumarating dito.” (So, 
the rice that arrive are low in price.)
These utterances emphasize logical reasoning and provides 
additional factual information to support his argument 
rather than emotional appeals. On the other hand, female 
senators also use information-based language but often 
contextualize their points through explanatory narratives 
or personal anecdotes. A notable example is when female 
speaker says T1-P2L27:  
“I remember we have, when I was young, a big chicken 
farm in Muntinlupa.”  
This indicates that while both genders use information-
driven statements, women tend to integrate experiences 
or broader contextual framing, rather than simply stating 
facts. Hence, these suggests that men typically use 
language to report facts, while women use it to establish 
relationships and convey emotions. However, in the 
Senate, where discussions require fact-based arguments, 
female senators still prioritize contextual explanations 
rather than outright factual assertions. This aligns with 

the idea of  Tannen that while men emphasize direct facts, 
women embed these facts in narratives that make them 
more relatable.

Status vs. Support
This highlights that male senators assert authority, 
whereas female senators seek to reinforce credibility. Male 
senators often reestablish their status in a conversation, as 
seen in statements on T1P1-L21 and T2-P4L130:  
“Regardless. Ang pinag-uusapan po natin…” (Regardless. 
We are talking about...)
“I’m still the chairman.”
These statements reinforce hierarchy and dominance, 
hence, reasserts the focus of  the conversation without 
backing down. Female senators, however, demonstrate 
status through justification rather than outright assertion. 
For example, female speaker says in T1-P2L48 and T1-
P2L63-64:  
“I wrote the rice tariffication law.”
“So that is eight billion, so a total of  18 billion which is 
the collection of  the Rice Tariffication Law na rice tariff.”
These statements emphasize expertise particularly the 
role in policymaking, thus reinforcing authority and 
expertise but do not completely dismiss the listener’s 
viewpoint. Further, reinforcing the knowledge on the 
financial distribution with further details and concludes 
the financial explanation with a summary.  According 
to the Genderlect Theory, men tend to use language to 



Pa
ge

 
64

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

establish dominance, while women use language to seek 
mutual agreement. However, in political discourse, female 
senators do not necessarily seek affirmation but rather 
establish authority through expertise and explanation. 
The findings suggest that while men reinforce their 
hierarchical position, women legitimize their authority 
through knowledge-sharing. 

Orders vs. Proposals
This core tenet reveals a significant difference in how 
directives are given. Male senators tend to issue direct 
orders that demand immediate responses, such as in T1-
P1L3 and T2-P2L164:  
“Ano pong ginagawa ng DA tungkol dito?” (What does 
the DA doing about it?)
“Kailan matatapos ‘yong building?” (When will the 
building be finished?)
These statements directly demand action and 
accountability, reflecting a hierarchical communication 
style. In contrast, female senators also make requests but 
often frame them as proposals or inquiries rather than 
direct orders. For example, when female speaker says in 
T2-P3-L84:  
“Dumadaan ba sa inyo ang pera ng land cost?” (Does the 
money for the land cost go through you?)
This shows an attempt of  the female speaker to engage 
the listener in dialogue by demanding accountability 
through asking for financial documentation rather than 
issue outright commands. On this view, Tannen argues 
that men use direct, goal-oriented language, while 
women employ inclusive, participatory speech. In Senate 
discourse, this means male senators frame their speech in 
a way that asserts control, while women phrase questions 
in a way that encourages collaboration. However, in 
highly contentious discussions, female senators also adopt 
a more assertive tone asserted on the given example, 
showing that genderlect styles are not entirely rigid.

Advice vs. Understanding 
Male and female senators’ approach advice-giving 
differently. Wherein, male senators tend to advocate for 
policies and assert solutions, as seen in statement T1-
P1L16:  
“Kaya nga po ‘yon ang dahilan kung bakit gusto ko ng 
maipasa na po ang National Land Use Act.” (That is 
exactly the reason why I want the National Land Use Act 
to be passed.)
This presents a firm stance without inviting discussion. 
On the other hand, female senators provide rational 
explanations rather than rigid directives, as seen in T1-
P2L31:  
“If  somebody will buy your land at a bigger amount, 
maybe you can sell and buy another land that is cheaper 
somewhere else and build your farm there.”
Female senators frame solutions in a way that allows room 
for consideration and discussion instead of  demanding 
action. As such, Genderlect Theory posits that men give 
advice to establish expertise, whereas women prioritize 

understanding and validation. This is evident in the Senate 
discourse, where men present solutions as mandates, 
while women offer them as rational options, ensuring 
engagement rather than imposition.

Conflict vs. Compromise
The study highlights those men approach disagreements 
as debates to be won, while women prioritize maintaining 
relationships. The data supports this, as male senators 
frequently challenge opponents in a confrontational 
manner, engage in direct confrontation and assertiveness, 
often using aggressive rhetorical strategies in statements 
T2-P4L96 and T2-P4L123:  
“So, anong problema?” (So, what is the problem?)
“Mali nga kasi ang sinabi niya, hindi 5.7, it was 7 point 
something.” (What he said was incorrect, it’s not 5.7, it 
was 7 point something)
These statements dismiss opposing views outright 
and establish dominance by challenging the issue and 
presenting a direct confrontation, and corrects the 
misinformation, providing a factual statement. Female 
senators, however, demonstrate disagreement while 
maintaining diplomacy. Examples when female speaker 
says T1-P2L41 and T1-P2L43:  
“I tend to disagree with you.”
“And where were the people live if  you don’t build 
subdivision?”  
The female speaker expresses opposition while 
maintaining politeness, avoiding direct confrontation. 
Further, the female speaker questions the practicality 
of  opposing land development and presenting an 
argumentative standpoint. This shows that while female 
senators generally prefer compromise, and they adopt 
more assertive language when necessary and attempts to 
soften their rebuttals.

Independence vs. Intimacy 
This core tenet is less frequent but still relevant. Male 
senators emphasize autonomy and individual decision-
making, as seen when male speaker says in T1-P1L44:  
“Marami pong mga lugar na pwedeng pagtayuan ng 
subdivision, huwag lang po e take-over ‘yong mga farms.” 
(There are many places where subdivisions can be built, 
just don’t take over the farms.) 
This suggests a focus on self-reliance and independence 
from external influences and over collective decision-
making. In Senate discourse, this is evident in how male 
senators argue for individual decision-making.

Summary
In summary, study examines the sentence structures used 
by male and female senators to identify linguistic patterns 
and communication styles. Findings show that male 
senators predominantly use simple sentences, followed by 
complex and compound structures, while female senators 
frequently employ complex and compound-complex 
sentences alongside simple ones. Furthermore, the 
analysis aligns with Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Theory 



Pa
ge

 
65

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

suggests that men prioritize information-sharing and 
status assertion, whereas women integrate relational and 
explanatory elements into their discourse. Male senators 
often issue direct orders and engage in confrontational 
dialogue, while female senators frame their directives 
as proposals and maintain a more diplomatic tone. 
However, both genders adapt their speech depending on 
the political context.
The research further reveals that male senators emphasize 
autonomy and control in their speech, whereas female 
senators focus on collective decision-making and 
relational engagement. Male discourse is marked by 
dominance and direct factual reporting, as seen in their 
preference for simple and compound sentences. In 
contrast, female senators embed facts within narratives, 
fostering inclusivity and persuasion. The study confirms 
that men typically frame their arguments as competitive 
debates, while women prioritize compromise and 
elaboration. These findings reinforce Genderlect Theory’s 
core principles, demonstrating that while male and female 
senators exhibit distinct communication strategies, they 
also adapt their linguistic choices based on situational 
demands and rhetorical goals.

CONCLUSION
This study highlights the distinct linguistic strategies 
employed by male and female senators in their discourse, 
emphasizing the influence of  gender on communication 
styles. Male senators tend to use direct, assertive, and fact-
driven language, while female senators integrate relational 
and explanatory approaches. However, the ability of  
both genders to adapt their language to political contexts 
suggests that discourse strategies are influenced not only 
by gender but also by situational factors. The findings 
provide valuable insights into how language shapes power 
dynamics and communication effectiveness in political 
settings.
Future research should explore the implications of  these 
linguistic differences on legislative decision-making and 
policy development. Further studies can also examine 
how these gender-based communication styles affect 
public perception and media representation of  senators. 
Additionally, training programs can be developed to 
enhance effective communication strategies among 
politicians, ensuring that both assertiveness and inclusivity 
are balanced in political discourse.

REFERENCES
Angelakis, A., Inwinkl, P., Berndt, A., Ozturkcan, S., 

Zelenajova, A., & Rozkopal, V. (2024). Gender 
differences in leaders’ crisis communication: a 
sentiment-based analysis of  German higher education 
leaderships’ online posts. Studies in Higher Education, 
49(4), 609-622.

Atkinson, M. L., & Windett, J. H. (2019). Gender 
stereotypes and the policy priorities of  women in 
Congress. Political Behavior, 41, 769-789.

Buarqoub, I. (2019). Language barriers to effective 

communication. Redalyc. https://www.redalyc.org/
journal/279/27962177008/html/

Calude, A. S. (2023). The linguistics of  social media: An 
introduction. Taylor & Francis.

Cameron, D. (2023). Language, sexism, and misogyny. Taylor 
& Francis.

ChenFeng, J., Kim, L., Wu, Y., & Knudson‐Martin, C. 
(2017). Addressing culture, gender, and power with 
Asian American couples: Application of  socio‐
emotional relationship therapy. Family Process, 56(3), 
558-573.

Crittendon, S. L. (2024). A seat at the table: Examining 
the communicative strategies of  African American female 
politicians (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University).

Determ. (2024, May 31). How social media is transforming 
political communication. Determ. https://determ.com/
blog/how-social-media-is-transforming-political-
communication/

Department of  Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Goal 
16. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal16

Department of  Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Goal 
5. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5

Ellis, R. J. (2021). Presidential lightning rods: The politics of  
blame avoidance. University Press of  Kansas.

Engelbert, L. H., Van Elk, M., Kandrik, M., Theeuwes, J., & 
Van Vugt, M. (2022). The effect of  charismatic leaders 
on followers’ memory, error detection, persuasion, 
and prosocial behavior: A cognitive science approach. 
The Leadership Quarterly, 34(3), 101656. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101656

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In 
The Routledge handbook of  discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). 
Routledge.

Gbadamosi, E. (2024). The audacity of  hope: Examining 
the influences of  stable persona construction on 
political discourse in the United States. Persona Studies, 
10(3), 1-16.

Guirguis, M., & van Doorn-Harder, N. (2022). The 
emergence of  the modern Coptic papacy. American 
University in Cairo Press.

Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar 
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press Inc.

Hansson, S. (2015). Discursive strategies of  blame 
avoidance in government: A framework for analysis. 
Discourse & Society, 26(3), 297-322.

Harris, R. A. (2021). The linguistics wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, 
and the battle over deep structure. Oxford University Press.

Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Kyprianou, C., & Risius, M. 
(2020). How do strategic leaders engage with social 
media? A theoretical framework for research and 
practice. Strategic Management Journal, 41(8), 1490-1527.

Ikrambayevna, S. D. (2024). Classification of  functions 
of  communicative strategy and tactics in political 
communication. Miasto Przyszłości, 50, 548-553.

Jacobi, T., & Schweers, D. (2017). Justice, interrupted: 
The effect of  gender, ideology, and seniority at 
Supreme Court oral arguments. Virginia Law Review, 
103, 1379-1417.



Pa
ge

 
66

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 55-66, 2025

Johnson, A., & Boylorn, R. M. (2015). Digital media and 
the politics of  intersectional queer hyper/in/visibility 
in between women. Liminalities, 11(1). https://
liminalities.net/11-1/

Jones, J. J. (2016). Talk “like a man”: The linguistic styles 
of  Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013. Perspectives on Politics, 
14(3), 625-642.

Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2018). The political significance 
of  social media activity and social networks. Political 
communication, 35(3), 470-493.

Kang, S. (2024). Decoding Korean political talk: From data to 
debate. Taylor & Francis.

Kim, A. S., & Del Prado, A. (2019). It’s time to talk (and 
listen): How to have constructive conversations about race, 
class, sexuality, ability & gender in a polarized world. New 
Harbinger Publications.

Lei, C. K. (2019). The multiplicity of  identification and agency in 
Asian rhetoric: The analysis of  the US Congress speeches of  
Asian female political leaders through the feminine rhetorical 
style (Master’s thesis, San Diego State University).

Lewis, A. (2022, October 26). Good leadership? It all 
starts with trust. Harvard Business Publishing. https://
www.harvardbusiness.org/good-leadership-it-all-
starts-with-trust/

Lusk, J. (2023, March 22). The power of  words: How 
language shapes our perception of  the world. 
LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-
words-how-language-shapes-our-perception-world-
james-lusk/

McCoy, J. (2024, September 9). What is grammar and why 
does it matter? Workmind - Blog. https://workmind.ai/
blog/what-is-grammar/

McCusker, M. (2015, August 20). The political significance 
of  social media. August. https://www.weareaugust.
ca/blog/the-political-significance-of-social-media/

McGee, P. (2023, August 25). The language women use in 
the workplace and what it means. Stem Women. https://
www.stemwomen.com/the-language-women-use-in-
the-workplace-and-what-it-means

Mezmir, E. A. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: An overview 
of  data reduction, data display, and interpretation. 
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(21), 15-27.

Murray, S. E., & Starr, W. B. (2018). Force and 
conversational states. In New work on speech acts (pp. 
202-236). Oxford University Press.

Nugent, M. K. (2019). When does he speak for she? Men 
representing women in Parliament (PhD dissertation, 
Rutgers University, Political Science).

Parmanand, S. (2020). Duterte as the macho messiah: 
Chauvinist populism and the feminisation of  human 
rights in the Philippines. Review of  Women’s Studies, 
29(2), 1-30.

Perloff, R. M. (2021). The dynamics of  political communication: 
Media and politics in a digital age. Routledge.

Prior, M. (2019). Hooked: How politics captures people’s interest. 
Cambridge University Press.

Rastelli, S. (2024). Plain language: A psycholinguistic approach. 
Taylor & Francis.

Robinson, C. M. (2024). The power of  her voice: An 
interpretative phenomenological study exploring the career 
experiences of  women middle-level leaders (Doctoral 
dissertation, Antioch University).

Saaida, M. (2023). The role of  social media in shaping 
political discourse and propaganda. 3, 1-8. https://
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10841870

Sahly, A., Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2019). Social media 
for political campaigns: An examination of  Trump’s 
and Clinton’s frame building and its effect on audience 
engagement. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 2056305119855141. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119855141

Samanci, E. S. (2010). Teaching simple and compound 
sentences with computers (Master’s thesis, Sosyal Bilimler 
Enstitüsü).

Shaw, S. (2020). Women, language and politics. Cambridge 
University Press.

Smith, J. (2019). Gendering political leadership: A case study of  
the UK, examining media and voter perceptions (Doctoral 
dissertation, Birkbeck, University of  London).

Speechly, A. K. (2019). Writing for mobile media: The 
influences of  text, digital design, and psychological 
characteristics on the cognitive load of  the mobile 
user.

Talbot, M. (2019). Language and gender. John Wiley & Sons.
Talbot, M. (Ed.). (2019). Language and power in the modern 

world. Edinburgh University Press.
Tannen, D. (2015). Genderlect styles [Electronic]. In A 

first look at communication theory (10th ed., pp. 384–395). 
McGraw-Hill. https://www.afirstlook.com/docs/
genderlect.pdf

Taubaldiyev, M., Kulmanov, S., Amirbekova, A., 
Azimkhan, Y., Zhonkeshov, B., Utemissova, G., & 
Ospanov, Y. (2024). Terminology in political discourse 
as a means of  language representation of  the image 
of  the country. Eurasian Journal of  Applied Linguistics, 
10(1), 186-198. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.10117

Teimouri, E. (2024). Persuasive linguistic strategies in news 
media: A pragmatic study of  CNN and Fox News headlines 
and the rhetorical grammar components of  their associated 
texts (Master’s thesis, UIS).

The role of  syntax in effective communication. (2024, 
September 16). Ryteup. https://ryteup.com/blog/the-
role-of-syntax-in-effective-communication/

Van Dijk, T. (2009). Society and discourse: How social context 
influences text and talk [Online]. Cambridge University 
Press.

Wajdi, M., & Asrumi, A. (2024). Analysing the slogan 
“LUBER” in Indonesia’s 2024 general election: A 
critical discourse analysis. Journal of  Language and 
Pragmatics Studies, 3(1), 53-65.

Walsh, C. (2016). Gender and discourse: Language and power in 
politics, the church and organisations. Routledge.

Wolfsfeld, G. (2022). Making sense of  media and politics: Five 
principles in political communication. Routledge.

Yu, X. (2021). A study on the role of  sentence structure 
analysis in English learning. OALib, 08(09), 1–14. 
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107859


