تحلیل انتقادی بصری نمادهای جنسیت در مواد درسی آموزش زبان انگلیسی از دیدگاه چند بعدی

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

توران آهور ¹ ( Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran )
پردیس زعفرانی ² ( Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran )

Received: 2016-12-02 Accepted : 2016-12-02 Published : 2016-12-02

Keywords: تحلیل انتقادی بصری, مواد آموزشی زبان انگلیسی, نمادهای جنسیتی, دیدگاه چند بعدی,

Abstract :

دراین تحقیق محتوایی با بکارگیری دیدگاه چند بعدی و تحلیل انتقادی بصری نماد های جنسیتی در سری کتابهای تاپ ناچ که  از پرکاربردترین کتابهای آموزش زبان انگلیسی در ایران میباشند، مورد بررسی قرارگرفته است.  برای این منظورشش تصویر از این کتاب ها انتخاب شده و از لحاظ حالت های معنایی "بازنمادی"، "تعاملی" و "ترکیب بندی" مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته اند. نتایج حاصله نشان داد که هیچ گونه پیش بینی قالبی و کلیشه ای در مورد جنسیت وجود ندارد و هر دو جنس مذکر و مونث عاملان اجتماعی در وضعیت برابری نشان داده شده اند. تحلیل انتقادی تصاویردر این تحقیق می تواند برای برنامه ریزان مواد آموزشی و نیزمسئولین انتخاب کتب  آموزشی بطور کلی و کتب آموزش زبان انگلیسی بطور خاص اهمیت داشته باشد

References:

Belknap, P. & Leonard, W. M. (1991). A conceptual replication and extension of Erving Goffman’s study of gender advertisements. Sex Roles, 25, 103-118.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin Books.

Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2009).Visualizing English: a social semiotic history of a school subject. Visual Communication, 8, 247-262.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, Y. ( 2010). Exploring dialogic engagement with readers in multimodal EFL textbooks in China. Visual Communication, 9 (4), 485-506.

Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dominguez, L. M. (2003).Gender textbook evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 289-318.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Farooq, M. H. (1999). Examing sexism in an EFL textbook. Retrieved from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq6.pdf

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. New York: Tavistock.

Giaschi, P. (2000). Gender Positioning in Education: A Critical Image Analysis of ESL Texts. Journal of TESL CANADA, 18(1), 32-46.

Godeo, E. G. (2009). British men‟s magazines‟ scent advertising and the multimodal discursive construction of masculinity: A preliminary study. EstudiosIngleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, 9-36.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. London: Macmillan.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48, (4), 315-328

Jewiit, C. & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewiit (Eds.),  Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134-156). London: Sage

 Kang, M. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37(12), 979–996.

Kordjazi, Z. (2012). Images matter: A semiological content analysis of gender positioning in contemporary English-learning software applications. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1),59-80.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.London: Routledge.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching.  New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MartínezLirola, M. (2010). Positive aspect of women of different cultures: An analysis of two multimodal covers. The Poster, 1(1), 77-93.

Manolache, M. (2010). A semiotic analysis of the gender equality paradigm. Case study: The gender pay gap campaign. Styles of Communication, 2, 75-88.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589–618.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ricento, T. (2000). Ideology, politics and language policies: Introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 1-8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3^rd ed). London: Pearson Education.

Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. London: Sage.

Saslow, J. M., Ascher, A., & Ruzicka, D. (2006). Summit 2: Teacher's Edition and Lesson Planner (Top Notch S). Longman Publishing Group. Newyork: Pearson-Longman.

Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237-246.

 Tahririan, M. H., & Sadri, E. (2013). Analysis of Images in Iranian High School EFL Course Books Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 16 (2), 137-160

Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Oxford, England: Polity Press.

Unsworth, L. & Wheeler, J. (2002). Re-valuing the role of images in reviewing picture books. Language and Literacy 36 (2), 68-74.

 Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schaffner, & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language and Peace (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishin.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: new tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford.

Van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage.