Language And Gender: Toward A Critical Feminist Linguistics

Sri Mulyani

Abstract


This article attempts to map out the development of language and gender research and studies from its early stage to recent trend. The early language and gender research is inclined to essentialist view; and it subsequently changes its direction into a more non-essentialist perspective. Both essentialist and non-essentialist perspectives on language and gender research are not necessarily affiliated with feminist linguistics. Their research findings mostly conclude that women’s language is inferior and women are not capable users of language. In a response to such “sexist” findings, various feminist scholars across the disciplines venture to rethink and redefine gender and language. Among many different approaches that they employ are two notable views, namely, the “dominance” and “difference” perspectives. One views man-woman differences in language use as a reflection of their power relation: the dominant and the subordinate. Meanwhile, the other sees this different linguistic use as a result of the different ‘sub-cultures’ of their social environment (Coates, 2000: 413 and also Litosseliti, 2006:27). This shift toward a critical feminist linguistics is in fact informed by the current theories in critical thinking and feminist perspectives.

 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Coates, J. (ed.) (2000) Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Cameron, D. (ed.) (1998) The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London: Routledge.

Daly, C. (2000) “Gender Differences in Achievement in English: a Sign of the Times?” in J. Davidson and J. Moss (eds) Issues in English Teaching, London: Routledge, 224-242.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1994) “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language And Gender as Community-Based Practice” in C. Roman, S

Juhasz, C, Miller (eds.) The Women and Language Debate: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 432-460.

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000) “Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender, and Power All Live” in J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 484-494.

Gao, X. (2006) “Understanding Changes in Chinese Students’ Uses of learning Strategies in China and Britain: A Socio-cultural Re-interpretation.” System, 34, 55-67.

Lim, A.M. (2004) “Introducing a critical pedagogical curriculum: A Feminist Reflexive Account” in B. Norton and K. Toobey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 271-290..

Litosseliti, L. (2006) Gender and Language: Theory and Practice, New York: Hodder and Arnold.

Micciche, L. R. (2001) “Contrastive Rhetoric and the Possibility of Feminism” in C.G. Paneta (ed) Contrastive Rhetoric Revisited and Redefined, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 79-89.

Pavlenko, A. (2004) “Gender and Sexuality in Foreign and Second Language Education: Critical and Feminist Approaches” in B. Norton and K. Toobey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 53-71.

Peirce, B.N. (1995) “Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning.” TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9-31.

Sunderland, J. (2004). “Classroom Interaction, Gender, and Foreign Language Learning” in B. Norton and K.Toobey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 222-241.

Sunderland, J.(1992) “Gender in the EFL Classroom” ELT Journal, 46, 81-91.

Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructural Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang



This Proceedings is Currently indexed by:

Google Scholar.

The Proceedings of International Seminar on English Language and Teaching is registered at LIPI