Analyze the difference between how men and women use language.

Comparative Analysis
The issue of the difference between how men and women use language has received a lot of attention with many researchers giving different findings. Liberman’s article, “Sex on the Brain,” explore the different findings, specifically on the difference of the number of words that men and women use. On the other hand, Stephenson’s article, “Turn on, tune in, veg out,” discusses the difficulty of understanding science fiction. The underlying concepts in the two articles is that the authors who have suggested that women use more words than men may be faulty while many people do not understand science fiction despite loving the genre.
Many authors suggest that women use more words than men. Liberman uses the approach of explaining the findings of several authors and the flaws that the authors committed. Finally, Liberman comes to the conclusion that the current literatures arguing that women use more words than men are wrong. The truth could be the opposite: men use more words than women. The difference between the two articles lies in the approach that the authors use. Liberman makes the article convincing by showing the volumes of literature that suggest different and unrelated findings on the issue of how men and women use words. On the contrary, Stephenson’s article elaborates the difficulty of understanding science fiction by exploring different films and how they are difficult to understand.
The two articles begin by attracting the reader’s attention. Liberman starts his articles by giving the different findings about Eskimos. “Experts tell us the Eskimos have about four dozen words for snow. Or is it 200? Or seven? Or may be four?” (Liberman 1). Liberman’s introduction captures the reader’s attention because he presents different findings about what experts have found out concerning the words the Eskimos have for snow. The introduction implies that the experts have not found the accurate number of words that the Eskimos have for snow. The authors states that, “Most of the people who throw Eskimo snow-word numbers around don’t know anything about it, and have not bothered to look it up,” (Liberman 1). The reader, therefore, reads the article, anticipating finding the accurate number of words that the Eskimos have for snow.
Stephenson also begins his article in a way that attracts the attention of the reader. However, the reader feels that Liberman’s introduction is more attractive than Stephenson’s introduction. The reason is Stephenson uses an event that is in the past. The reader feels that the issue that the author narrates in his story is out of the present time. Unlike Liberman who uses contrasting findings to capture the reader’s attention, Stephenson narrates a plane incident about how they travelled to Iowa to watch the science fiction film, “Star Wars.” However, the distance that they covered (forty miles) makes the reader feel interested in reading the story. The reader gets the impression that many people love science fiction.
Liberman’s article uses a lot of statistical evidence to prove the different findings that the researchers have made on the issue of the number of words that women and men use. The statistical data makes Liberman’s article alive. The reader can compare the differences between the different findings. Liberman gives the example of Dr. Scott Halzman who states that, “Women use about 7,000 words a day, and men use about 2,000 words,” (Liberman 1). Liberman also gives evidence from Ruth Masters who argues that, “Women use an estimated 25,000 words per day, and men use an estimated 12,000 words per day,” (1). James Dobson, on the other hand, suggests that God gives women 50,000 words each day and men 25,000 words each day (Liberman 1).
Liberman’s article places the statistical suggestions together, enabling the reader to identify the large disparities between the findings. Although the findings show the trend that women use about twice the number of words that men use, the large disparities between them makes the reader to doubt their accuracy. Liberman explains that the estimations do not use tangible research: “Bur a bit of deeper research reveals that none of authors of these claims seems to have counted, and none cites anyone who seems to have counted either,” (Liberman 1). Liberman shows that the issue has become a chorus, and the people who join it give statistics that favor the idea that women use more words than men. The most recent person who joined the chorus, according to Liberman, is Dr. Brizendine. The professor of psychiatry suggests that women use 20,000 words while men use 7,000 words a day.
Stephenson’s article is different from Liberman’s article because it uses theoretical (not statistical) accounts to explain why many people do not understand science fiction. The author proves that many people do not understand the science fiction, Star Wars because when he asks them about the movie, “Everyone reacts in the same way: with a sudden intake of breath and a sideway dart of the eyes, followed by lengthy cogitation,” (Stephenson 1). The reaction shows that although the people love and watch the science fiction movies, most of them do not understand the movies. The reader wonders what makes the movies hard to understand. In fact, Stephenson states that, “Some even confess they have no idea (what the film was about)” (1).
It is true that Stephenson’s article uses theory while Liberman backs his argument with statistics. However, the reader finds Stephenson’s article more engaging because the author involves the reader’s imagination in the narration. Stephenson (1) states, “If you have ever watched these cartoons, or if you have enjoyed some of the half-dozen “Clone wars” novels.” Such a narration technique is more engaging because the narrator refers to the reader. Stephenson uses two phenomena to explain why many people do not understand the science fiction movies.
The first phenomenon is “Geeking out.” It refers to how people immerse themselves into the fiction movies. The immersion develops to the extent that it becomes distinctly abnormal (Stephenson 2). Critically applying the phenomenon of “geeking out” to how people perceive science fiction, people begin watching the movies by immersing themselves into the movies. One imagines that they follow the movies closely and understand them. However, the immersion does not mean understanding the movies. The phenomenon that follows geeking out is “vegging out.” “To veg out, by contrast, means to enter a passive state and allowing sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much with what it all means,” (Stephenson 2). When people “veg out,” the implication is that the ideas in the film are abstract and they cannot comprehend them.
Stephenson concludes his article by showing that the love for science fiction rests on the premise that many people do not understand them. The authors states that if people will continue watching the films for the next century, it will be because of the parables of their state of affairs. Young people will continue looking for answers in the science fiction movies (Stephenson 3).
On the contrary, Liberman concludes his article by giving the findings of his research that give contrary results. His research is different from the inconsistent findings that the previous authors have given. Liberman explains that in their study, they document the procedures that they used in tabulating and analyzing the results. The author states that although the number of participants they used in their study may be unrepresentative, the findings are reliable. The findings of their study found that the men in the English and Chinese telephone conversations spoke at a rate that was 2% higher than the females. The empirical research findings show that there is no large disparity between how men and women use words in their speech. In fact, the findings indicate that men may use more words than women.
Liberman’s conclusion does not support the data in the body of the article. He concludes his article in a manner that is contrary to the body. The conclusion shows that the authors have given false knowledge, and that Liberman’s research disapproves the hypothesis that women use more words than men. On the contrary, Stephenson’s conclusion supports the body of his article. His conclusion shows that it is true that many people do not understand science fiction movies. The fact they do not understand the movies is what supports their continued love for the movies. They struggle to find answers to their questions about the movies. Fiction movies also address the future state of technology in abstract ways. Young people, therefore, continue watching them to predict the future of technology.
In summary, Liberman and Stephenson approach their articles differently. Liberman’s article uses statistical data to support its claims. Stephenson’s article uses theoretical explanations and phenomena to explain its claims. Liberman introduces his article using the contrasting statistics of Eskimos’ words for snow. The introduction creates anticipation in the reader who wants to know the accurate number of words that the Eskimos have for snow. Stephenson, on the contrary, introduces the article using a narration in the distant past. Liberman’s conclusion gives data that disapproves the claim that women use more words than men. Stephenson’s conclusion supports the hypothesis that people love science fiction movies yet they do not understand them.

Works Cited
Liberman, Mark. “Sex on the Brain,” September 24, 2006. The Boston Globe.
Stephenson, Neal. “Turn on, Tune in, Veg out,” June 17, 2005. The New York Times.