The Practice of English Language Teaching - Literature review Example

Language and Gender Name Course Lecturer Date Teaching English in countries where it is commonly a second language may manifest various gender issues which are attributable to social contexts in the society. As Silberstein (2001) argues, the language through communication strategies and linguistic forms apply to articulation, construction and deconstruction of gender phenomenon. In general there are no individuals who use the language the same way, but specifically this is manifest in gender conscious communities. According to McKay & Hornberger (1996), gender tends to be embedded in actions, desires, beliefs and institutions such as schools. This maps language usage through interaction, communication and social order establishment. This paper dialogues the links between social and linguistic under which the gender is defined, constructed and propagated. Silberstein (2001) further observes that, men and women are expected to speak differently since gender is an influence on how language varies. The patterns are shaped by social norms in gendered language use. Varieties of speech may be associated with a particular gender. In countries where men dominate such as Saudi Arabia Islamic country, the different understanding and practices of their social world that shape differentiations and segregations fundamentally reflect in language. Girls commonly use registers that are reveals their inferior roles in their society. The social orientation and forces require them to use linguistic forms that reinforce and reflect their subordinate roles. In most cases girls in schools use tag questions as a way to give the other parties options and beg for agreement. They use tags like you think so, are you sure and the fact that they are polite make them tentative giving the listener opportunity to affirm or reject. Unlike girls, boys who take dominant roles tend to use competitive illocutionary force. For instance boys mostly start a question by ‘I want to ask…’ which show demand or ordering. Politeness is rare among boys who tend to take dominance roles that require less consent, more so from women. Women in general and girls in particular are less forceful when asking questions as they use low intonation in extreme cases. The boys on the other hand are commandeering and forceful in questioning specifically when dealing with those under aged and their gender counterparts. The arrangements of gendered and social opportunities having taken roles like control and police forces on men make them more used to strong directives compared to women’s weak directives (Hornberger & McKay, 2010). Since female sex is a subordinate group due to male supremacy and effects of patriarchy the difference in speech and communicative styles results. However, the English language is not primarily male-centered as it is not considered the standard. The differences are manifest of social inequality as boys and girls are socialized into different sub-cultures since childhood. The result is varying styles of communication rooted in cultural differences. In comparison of conversation and its goals, boys commonly use report style as a way of communicating factual information. Girls and women in general tend to use rapport style as a way of building and maintaining their relationships. However to some extent individual speakers may utilize differently as they find it fitting. In schools and colleges the pervasive differences are seen across speech, face-to-face conversation, secondary schools written essay, walls and toilet graffiti. As Hornberger & McKay (2010) argues, social contexts where there are lines of separation between boys and girls learning and out-school training emphasize on emotional labor where girls are expected to smile, express intonation, show rapport or empathy and give minimal responses when dealing with seniors and in services industries. Girls are more polite and tend to use words like excuse me, please, thank you and sorry. Politeness is taught right from the beginning it is a social role. The integration of social locus in linguistic practice and system is deployed by gender categories. The situations are more pronounces where the school system separate boy and girls. Communicative style develops in those contexts; gender differences in such single-gender groups permeate (Coulmas, 2005). This is unlike in mixed schools where mixed-gender; boys and girls the linguistic differences are limited. Fundamentally, apart from social prescribed notions that manifest in English language there are manifest patterns in lexical, phonological and gender-specific vocabulary differences (Coulmas, 2005). Girls efficiently take new and media related terms and master them easily. They also use and move toward the use of Standard English mostly used in media and in school. This tends to be so to those schools dominated by foreign lecturers and teachers in the schools which afford to get them. Most boys on the other hand use non-standard which enable them to fit well in their routine relationships. It also helps them avoid stigma of trying to dissociate from ‘normal’- in this case the common pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. The common way of language is manifestation of masculinity and a way of aggression which in most cases differentiate performance whereby girls perform well in spoken and written English than boys. According to Silberstein (2001), gender differences in language are also experience in areas such as lexicon, syntax and dialect. Where English is a second language, girls are observant and rightly use prefixes and suffixes such as un-, dis-, re-, -ful, -ness, and so on. Boys on the other hand, mix them mostly in less used terms. In writing girls excellently master the use of comas, apostrophes, quote marks, colon and semi-colons. They are also less likely to misspell words as compared to their counterparts. They master the use of exclamations and conjunctions more than boys. This makes story and essay writing more appealing and explanation for girls than boys. Boys commonly code-switch English with national language like Arabic as a way of excluding the third party or pride of their nationality. It also shows authority or desire to emphasize a point (Holmes, 2007). This marks their intentions, where marked use is mostly for exclusion. Girls are less likely to code-switch in school scenario but outside the school as a way of showing others that they are educated. Sometimes girls exhibit intra-sentential code-switching but less likely to use inter-sentential but both are mostly in use by boys. Generally boys run toward the informal styles in the continuum while girls move toward the formal. Boys spoken and written English is more of slang while the girls’ use jargon. In both cases most students has both the standard and non-standard and regularly switch dialects using the two varieties; the English acquired through earning and the other acquired through contact (Multilingual Matters). As Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (2003) argues, consciously or unconsciously both boys and girls manifest generic use of pronouns in the order of he/she than she/he. Gender speech contrast is observable in phonology, grammar, vocabulary, movements and body stances that accompany speech. Phonologically, boys pronounce vowels in a more centrally manner while girls more peripherally. Girls’ vocabulary and grammar reveal a tendency of being careful of uneducated speech; boys adopt less standard class speech with few exceptions of those pursuing media studies and international related courses in technical colleges. There are pronunciation makers where sounds present in language are absent in ethnicity. English grammar is affected by ethnicity where concord agreement specifically between nouns and verbs is common. Traditionally and in Saudi Arabia, girls less forceful and use polite expressions like oh dear, goodness and use of adjectives with words like adorable, sweet, charming, cute, lovely and divine compared to boys who use terms like damn, hell, shit and so on. There are manifest differences in terms used in different fields such as sports and fashions. Girls incline more and have multiple terminologies for fashions, color and cosmetics while men are more familiar with sports terms and automobiles. Another difference is seen in words that are spoken quickly or slowly where girls tend to master quickly than boys (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003). Recognizing and managing them. According to Holmes (2007) a challenge exists to recognize, identify and deal with the social settings that are gender mapped. Gendered attributes involved in linguistic labeling include such functions as the articulation of gendered phonological, pragmatic, semiotic and onomatopoeic function and linguistic features. This exhibits in projection of self and other , attitude and stance, affective flow of talk and ideas coloring, tone and pitch of the voice that elicit gendered overtones. There is also choice of vocabularies which serve gendered inferences and discourse, metaphor, grammar and euphemisms patterns. However, it is complex for categories to get noticed and labeled with controversy over labels and categories, their support, localization and perpetuation of gender practice. According to McKay & Hornberger (1996), gendered issues in language can be dealt with by an attempt to use linguistic together with non linguistic practices which conflate various gendered specific categories and shifts towards a more collaborative and accommodating trends. Since communication styles are products of contexts, where gender differences are most pronounced with single-gender groups, it is possible as a teacher in mixed-gender contexts to drive differences in language towards overarching style of person in the interaction. As Harmer, (2007) observes, as a way to anchor these concepts which are in gender discourse, it requires community participation within the practices which involve learning of various values and fields attached to these categories. As Crystal (1997) argues, another way to counter these variations is encouraging students to pursue higher education. As students move geographically they are exposed to foreign language speakers and they assimilate the differences moving closer to the formal and standard styles. References Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: CUP. Eckert, P., McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: CUP Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4th ed.). Harlow: Longman. [ch.1]. Holmes, J. (2007). An introduction to sociolinguistics. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Hornberger, N. H, & McKay, S. Lee (2010) (eds.). Sociolinguistics and language education. McKay, S. L., & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Silberstein, S. (2001). Sociolinguistics. In Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (eds). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 100-106). Cambridge: CUP. Read More