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