Revisiting Deborah Tannen`s Genderlect Theory by Mine Erkaya, Spring 2018 Introduction Being a PhD student in communication field of study, getting more familiar with communication theories in time, I can say almost each theory is somewhat after for how the meanings are formed within people and/or social formations. In his Visible Signs: An introduction to Semiotics in the Visual Arts book David Crow has the quote of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy saying: “Except for the immediate satisfaction of biological needs, man lives in a world not of things but of symbols.” ( Crow, 2010, p. 7). According to symbolic interactionism theory of Herbert Mead, a sign, a language for instance, is the stimulus, which possesses learned meanings for people (Griffin, 2006). At first, we need some kind of a symbol, in this case a language, to interact with each other but then, thought process takes the role of communication within people. Therefore, it is not only the symbol that forms the meaning, but also the whole process completes with the ability of people to extract meanings from those engagements ( 2010). The meaning of the sign for people change according to their background, education, culture and previous experiences within the social formation they live in ( 2010). According to sociolinguistic Deborah Tannen, the meaning of a sign for people, which is “conversational style” in her case, change according to “gender”. Besides searching for meaning making, communication theories also aim to decrease the misunderstandings within people by achieving unbiased decision-making in personal and group relationships. For instance, Social Judgment Theory by Muzafer Sherif displays how people judge one another whenever they hear a message (Griffin, 2006). Moreover, the Functional Perspective on Group Decision-Making Theory by Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran displays the requisite functions for effective decision-making in-group communications for a better understanding (2006). Critical Theory of Communication