Gender and Politeness in an ESL Language Academic Context - Research Paper Example

 Gender and Politeness in an ESL Language Academic Context Introduction In this document, analysis of politeness and gender in English second language within academic institution will be scrutinized. The characteristics of politeness among learners and among people of different gender will be highlighted. The effects of politeness in language used by native speakers will also be analyzed. This will include data collection and supportive analysis of other peer reviewed articles in relation to the topic. Literature review Politeness made by non native English speakers varies depending on the language background of an individual. This may be studied through ranking and contextualizing conditions. The use of semantic features is key in this analysis in theoretical literature. There exists a correlation between native English speakers and non natives. When it comes to politeness there is an evident perception of high level of politeness among non native speakers than native speakers. This is an indication of over sensitivity to semantic distinction forms. The hierarchy of politeness indicates that there should be differentgrammaticalpatterns emphasis when handling natives and non-natives in an educational environment (Leavell & Hong-Nam 2006). There are cultural values that still implicit in composition of non native writers. Through a review of four principles of and practices, individualism of the non native writers may be determined in terms of voice, critical thinking and peer reviews of the texts. A comparison of the findings made with those of native indicates a variation in politeness. The cultural approaches adopted by non native speakers may not comport with the principles and practices in different ways. The cross cultural writing research rationale leads to self knowledge of non- native speakers. In writings done by non native speakers, there are ofteninappropriate elements evident in the pieces of writing according to judgments made by teachers or lecturers who are native speakers. An analysis of essays written by non native speakers supports the view that the aspect of politeness dominates among non native speakers. The choice of words with unintended results does not depict rationality for readers. The advancement of factual claims in linguistics within the word sentence and beyond indicates politeness. Through a study that involves investigations on interaction styles, videotaped compositions for non English native speakers was conducted. This was done for consecutive weeks and the individualsvideotaped were met for interviews. This was done for Chinese and Spanish speaking students for comparison. A recursive examination of the patterns and themes in the language command and characteristics for the students was done (Atkinson & Ramanathan 1999). The Chinese scripts reflected a social goal while in maintaining harmony in the group. This included high level of politeness in the group. The Chinesestudents always appear to be reluctant in initiating comments. At any point they made comments they appeared to be careful on making mistakes in their composition and speech. The monitoring of self led to the evasion of criticism from peers who are native speakers. They also appeared to avoid disagreement with comments made by peers in the writing. The reason behind the position taken by non- native speakers is the lack of confidence among the students compared to other students who are native speakers. The Chinese students opt to use polite words for acceptance among peers. The language learning strategyapplied by students who are not English native speakers include the application of different linguistic backgrounds and culture. The key consideration is the interpersonal communication skills that encompass knowledge in cognitive academic language proficiency. There are differences applied across gender and nationality in becoming proficient in English. According to Snow, Met, & Genesee (2012), the use of metacognitive strategies and memory strategies aids in the learning process. In the research, it is mentioned that female like using effective social strategies at a frequent rate than males these results to the perception that they use more polite language in the social arena than their male counterparts in the learning process. A proposal of conceptual frameworks in the integration of language and the delivery of content in a class of non English native speakers considers vocabulary. Language teaching objectives are used in the process of concept discussion. There are consideration made that include content obligatory language and content compatible language. In both language uses, politeness is observed the setting where the conceptual framework applies includes the mainstream and the foreign language immersion, as well as the ESL class (Beverly & Carrell 2006). The implication of integration of languages for these groups includes an easier comprehension of the concepts shared in the class. Response in the classes includes a relatively high level of politeness among non native speakers. Factors that form the pillars of understanding the distinctions among students in politeness strategies mark the commencement of research in this field. Students respond to questions in different ways that results to the classification of politeness and impoliteness. Misunderstanding results to perceived impoliteness among non native speakers. The perception of impoliteness across gender results from cultural views (Brown& Levinson 1987). Women tend to use apologies and indirect requests more than men. Gender difference relates to linguistic politeness. There is the use of strategies in blaming victims as a cultural implication. An investigation into the tutorial dominance within academic writing in the institutional discourse also supports the view of politeness dominating in the non English native speakers. The aspect of integration of languages in teaching non native speaker and an evaluation of the class responses highlights on polite responses by the students (Brown& Levinson 1987). In academic tutorial writing, the gender of the tutor and the gender of the tutee together with the language proficiency emerge as the exponents of the interacting domination. This may be viewed as either a directive or frequency influence in the interaction. Personal communication among students includes more politeness among non native speakers when they speak to their native speaker counterparts. The societal transformation of gender meanings is a factor that determines politeness in some communities. The differences are prominent in the Arab world and Japan, where the non native speakers are different cultural backgrounds. Females like using the avoidance strategy in facing natives. This marks the difference in gender and politeness among males and females who are not native speakers and those who are native speakers. Culture influences the perception of the speaker in determining politeness or impoliteness. Both polite and impolite actions are considered concurrently.in a better classroom management, an understanding of the perception of various members of the class from diverse background is a requirement. Gender has different reactions as a result of different community practices. Politeness also relates to discourse and culture. What may be considered polite in one culture may not sound polite in a different culture. Female students indicate a high level of collaborating with teachers in the classroom setting. Males exhibit defiant characteristics as a result of social practices. There are distinct societal attitudes concerning gender. Students at higher level most do not support what may be considered impolite. This is as a result of developing mental capability and the ability to choose between wrong and write. Non native speakers have the characteristic. The dominance of the tutor remains relativelyconstant. This is an indicator that institutional context dominates over gender and language. The tutees changed in dominance of the behavior among males and females (Thonus 2012). A change was also noted among native and non native speakers.It becomes known that females indicated politeness as a dominant character that changed over time. As they developed, the politeness reduced. Non natives also showed a dominant character of politeness. This seamed not to change over time contrary to what was seen in the case of gender. Gender counts among the factors that influence the ability of learning English. There are inconsistent results that are associated with studies in gender and vocabulary learning. The specific tasks in learning that are confound in membership between gender, second language learning strategy and results may be used in analyzing the role of gender and politeness among different gender. A survey conducted for female students prove to be better than their male comrades in vocabulary learning (Gu 2002). This correlates to success in second language learning. The background factor also plays role in the learning process. There are strategicdifferences evident between genders. Female learners appear to be quick at grasping vocabulary applications the implications of the evident obtained result is amore active female non native earners than the make learners. Methods In this research, data was collected based on voluntary information collected from 21 participants between the age of 20 and 30. Half male and half female multi-lingual students who taketheir studies at the interlink language center in the university of North Carolina. Four of the participants study at the WinstonSalem state university. The data was collected by the use of questionnaires which were duly filled by the participants. The questionnaires had two sections, the first section focused on opinions of the participants about the most polite behavior. The design of the questioner also requires an observation of polite responses in the process of teacher –student interaction. The second section required response to five polite questions. This was aimed at determining the reliability of the responses giving in the first section. Results and discussion Statement Strongly Agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. You come in late and walk silently to your seat 2. You sit quietly in your seat and then talk to your friend 3. The teacher looks at you and you keep talking 4. Then you ask the teacher, “What are we doing today?” 5. The teacher does not answer you 6. Then a student calls out that you are disturbing the class 7. You focus on what the teacher is explaining 8. The teacher asks the class a question and you raise your hand 9. A student calls out the answer 10.The teacher asks the student to raise her/his hand 11. You tell the student to stop calling out the answer 12. A few of the students start talking among themselves 13. The teacher asks the students to leave the class 14. The teacher lectures the students on paying attention 15. One student tells the teacher to continue the class lecture 16.The teacher continues the lecture 17. There is a lot of talking in the class 18.The teacher asks the talkative students to meet with him/her alone 19. The teacher continues the lecture 20. The teacher dismisses the class giving them an assignment 21. The late student in 1. Apologizes privately for being late 22. A student tells the teacher that she/he should be stricter 23. The teacher answers that this is not the students’ business 24. A few students complain to the teacher about other students 25. The teacher listens attentively and says she/he will investigate From the data collected in the questioner, 56% of females indicated high level of politeness in their response.44percent males’ non native speakers indicated politeness in their response. This is in concordance with the reviewed researches discussed in the previous sections. The number of females who give polite response remains higher than that of males. Second section According to Questions 1 to 7 on the survey What do you do? According to Questions 12 to 15 on the survey What do you tell the teacher According to Questions 16 to 21 on the survey What do you tell the teacher According to Questions 22 to 26 on the survey Do you agree with the teacher’s reaction and how polite is it The level of politeness among native and non native speakers according to the response indicate that more females respond politely more than males. This result is concordant with results seen in the reviewed articles. An analysis of the sincerity of the respondents, it is noticed that more than half of the respondents were sincere in responding to the asked questions. Responses vary in accordance with gender and the first language used. Conclusion From the research it became apparent that there are differences in politeness among people of different gender in English second language academic context. Females appear to be more polite than males. Challenges faced in the research included poor response in terms of time considerations. Some of the respondents failed to deliver their responses. The academic content of the writings made by non native speakers lacks authority as a result of overexpressed politeness in the texts. In academic communication, the textual choice and wording used define the course of writing. According to Thonus (2012), lack of surety in the content of the writing may lead to unintended perception of the reader on the writer. According to Ebsworth& Kodama (2011), this is based on the analysis of non native undergraduate student textual responses. Issuance of more questionnaires than considered helped in solving the issue. Limitations of the studding include the small data sample used. There is need for a more specific research on the topic rather than the generalization seen in this research. In conducting future researches, strategies of politeness in various cultural settings should be done. Focus on academic politeness among students is another area that requires further research. The role of gender in politeness also indicates a general trend of females being more polite than male. References Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calvert, S. L. (2002). Identity construction on the internet. Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on Development, 5, 57-70. Ebsworth, M. & Kodama. N. (2011). The pragmatics of refusals in English and Japanese: Alternative approaches to negotiation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 208, 95-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2011.014 Renn, M. (2008). Issues and observations: Debunking generational differences. Leadership in Action, 28, 23-24. Leavell. A. G., & Hong-Nam, K. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. Science direct, 34, 3. Snow, M.A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (2012). A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction. Tesol quarterly, 23(2) 201-217. Thonus, T. (2012). Dominance in Academic Writing Tutorials: Gender, Language Proficiency, and the Offering of Suggestions. Discourse and society, 10(2), 225-248. Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, Academic Major, and Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Chinese Efl Learners. RELC Journal, 33(1), 34-54. Atkinson, D. & Ramanathan, V. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers, 8(1), 45-75 Beverly, H. K. & Carrell, P. L. (2006). Politeness: Comparing Native and Nonnative Judgments. Language Learning, 31(1), 17-30. Read More