Gendered Language: Men’s vs Women’s Uses of Address Terms within New Interchange Series
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
امیر بهروان
1
(گروه انگلیسی، واحد سبزوار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سبزوار، ایران)
مرجان وثوقی
2
(گروه انگلیسی، واحد سبزوار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سبزوار، ایران)
کلید واژه: gender, Address Terms, men’s talk, supremacism, women’s talk,
چکیده مقاله :
This study set out to check the addressing behavior within men’s and women’s talk in the written conversations in English language textbook series titled ‘New Interchange book’ by Richards, Hull and Proctor, (1998) from Cambridge University Press. In line with this aim, the present researchers initially prepared descriptive tables for both formal and informal contexts in three theme categories (Social, Cultural & Economic) vis a vis four case appropriations (men*men, men*women, women*men, women*women). The distributions of interlocutors were coded through content analysis techniques. The major findings indicated that the highest percentage of detected address terms belonged to pronouns (67.7%). The proportions for gender appropriations between interlocutors for this address term showed that the case condition with women to men (52.3%) and men to women (36.4%) had the highest rates as compared with other cases. Then, in the final stage, the datasets were scrutinized in terms of theories on gender disparity in the instructional materials. This paper has some pedagogical implications in terms of addressing term inequality as mapped on gender status within ELT books, which might indirectly change the balance against full and rich contexts for effective learning to occur.
این مطالعه با هدف بررسی صورت های خطابی در گفتگوی گویندگان زن و مرد در مکالمات مکتوب به زبان انگلیسی در مجموعه کتابهای درسی با عنوان "New Interchange Series" نوشته ی ریچاردز ، هال و پراکتور (1998) از انتشارات دانشگاه کمبریج انجام شد. در راستای این هدف ، محقق حاضر در ابتدا جداول توصیفی را در محیط رسمی و غیررسمی موضوع بندی شده در سه محور اجتماعی، فرهنگی و اقتصادی و در رابطه با صورت های خطابی که شخصیت های زن و مرد در چهار مورد تخصیص شامل (مرد/مرد، مرد/زن، زن/زن و زن/مرد) استفاده می کردند تنظیم نمودند. بر این اساس ، توزیع داده ها هنگام استفاده از صورت های خطابی نشان داد که در کل بیشترین درصد صورت های خطابی مربوط به ضمایر (67.7٪) است. نسبت تخصیص جنسیت بین گویندگان مکالمات نیز نشان داد که نوعا، تخصیص زن با مرد(52.3٪) و مرد به زن (36.4٪) در استفاده از ضمایر شخصی به عنوان صورت خطابی بیشترین میزان را در مقایسه با سایر موارد دارند. در نهایت، مجموعه داده ها از نظر تئوری های مربوط به نابرابری جنسیتی در مواد آموزشی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.
Ahmad, M., & Shah, S. K. (2019). A critical discourse analysis of gender representations in the content of 5th grade English language textbook. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 1-24.
Aliakbari, M., & Toni, A. (2013). The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study. Linguistik online, 35(3).
Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(2), 1-9.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In:Sebeoki,Thomas A. (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge, MA.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). "Why be normal?": language and identity in practices. Language in Society, 28(2), 308-312.
Bucholtz, M. (2003). Theories of discourse as theories of gender: Discourse analysis in language and gender studies. The handbook of language and gender, 43-68.
Butler, J., & Trouble, G. (1990). Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Gender trouble, 3, 1-25.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (1996). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis: Psychology Press.
Daraz, U., Ahmad, A., & Bilal, M. (2018). Gender Inequality in Education: An Analysis of Socio-Cultural Factors and Impacts on the Economic Development of Malakand. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 2(2), 50-58.
Dabbagh, A. (2016). Gender representation under critical image analysis: The case of Iranian ELT textbooks. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 4(4), 39-52.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). LOCALLY: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-490.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology (Vol. 8). Sage: London.
Eisenman, R. (1997). Men, women and gender differences: the attitudes of three feminists–Gloria Steinem, Gloria Allred and Bella Azbug. Retrievedfromhttp://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www..../eisenman.html+men+women+differences&ht=e
Gaur, A., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 280-289.
Ghazanfari-Moghaddam, N., & Sharifimoghaddam, A. (2014). Translating genderism, a way of manipulating gender norms. International Journal of Women's Research, 3(2), 217-240.
Giles-Mitson, A. (2016). Address terms in New Zealand English: Tracking changes to the social indexicality of gendered terms of address. (Unpublished Master's thesis).Victoria university of Willington, New Zealand.
Grey, C. (1998). Towards an overview on gender and language variation. Retrieved from http://www.eche.ac.uk/study/schsubj/ human/English/rh/modules/337-1.htm
Hashemian, M. (2014). A pragmatic study of requestive speech act by Iranian EFL Learners and Canadian native speakers in hotels. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(2), 1-25.
He, Z., & Ren, W. (2016). Current address behaviour in China. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(2), 163-180.
Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and Controversy: value conflicts and social choices(2nd ed., pp. 476-489).New York: Academic.
Holmes, J. (1992). Women's talk in public contexts. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 131-150.
Kaplan, N., & Farrell, E. (1994). Weavers of webs: A portrait of young women on the net. The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture, 2(3). Retrieved from www.infomotions.com/serials/aejvc
Kates, J. (2018). Talk! As historical practice. History and Theory, 57(4), 145-167.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Hard and Row.
Lantz, M. M., Pieterse, A. L., & Taylor, T. O. (2018). A social dominance theory perspective on multicultural competence. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 1-21.
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97–104). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Litosseliti, L. (2002). Gendered repertoires in newspaper arguments. Gender identity and discourse analysis, 2, 129-148.
McElhinny, B. S. (Ed.). (2008). Words, worlds, and material girls: Language, gender, globalization (Vol. 19). Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference?. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Musumeci, D. (1991). Ciao, professoressa! A study of forms of address in Italian and its implications for the language classroom. Italica, 68(4), 434-456.
Nemati, A., & Bayer, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in the use of linguistic forms in the speech of men and women: A comparative study of Persian and English. Language in India, 7(9), 1-16.
Oyetade, S. O. (1995). A sociolinguistic analysis of address forms in Yoruba. Language in Society, 24, 515–535.
Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 982-1002.
Parkinson, J. (2020). On the use of the address terms guys and mate in an educational context. Journal of Pragmatics, 161, 81-94.
Palmén, R., Arroyo, L., Müller, J., Reidl, S., Caprile, M., & Unger, M. (2020). Integrating the gender dimension in teaching, research content & knowledge and technology transfer: Validating the EFFORTI evaluation framework through three case studies in Europe. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101751
Placencia, M. E. (2015). Address forms and relational work in E-commerce: The case of service encounter interactions in Mercado Libre Ecuador. In M. Hernández-López & L. Fernández-Amaya (Eds.), A multidisciplinary approach to service encounters (pp. 37–64). Leiden: Brill.
Petraki, E., & Bayes, S. (2013). Teaching oral requests: An evaluation of five English as a second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499-517.
Pollock, G. (2019). Feminism and Language. A Companion to Feminist Art, 261-281.
Razmjoo, S. A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill communicative language teaching principles in the Iranian context. Asian EFL journal, 9(4), 126-140.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (1998). New Interchange Level 3 Student's Book 3: English for International Communication (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Sally J., & Ulrike H. M.(1997). Language and masculinity (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Swallowe, J. (2003). A critical review of research into differences between men and women in the use of media for interpersonal communication. Retrieved from
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/students/jos olo2.doc
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation . New York: Morrow
Uchida, A. (1992). When “difference” is “dominance”: A critique of the “anti-power-based” cultural approach to sex differences. Language in society, 21(4), 547-568.
Ugwu, N. U., & de Kok, B. (2015). Socio-cultural factors, gender roles and religious ideologies contributing to Caesarian-section refusal in Nigeria. Reproductive health, 12(1), 1-13.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1992). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1792. The Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, 5, 79-266.
Zhao, J., & Jones, K. (2017). Women and leadership in higher education in China: Discourse and the discursive construction of identity. Administrative Sciences, 7(3), 21.
