A LINGUISTIC POLITENESS: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SPEAKING CLASSROOM

  • Syafrizal Syafrizal Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa
  • Fianika Sya'bana Putri
Abstract views: 315 , pdf downloads: 251
Keywords: gender differences, linguistic politeness, pragmatic, communicative competence

Abstract

Communicative competence underlines that grammatical knowledge is not enough to interact adequately, and thus includes pragmatic skills. For example, several communication errors, for confusion, may take place without logical understanding. Furthermore, politeness is an essential component of pragmatic competence. Many work has been carried out in this area, but few have shown the differences between the linguistic politeness of the language of male and female in the speaking classroom, while its primary findings are statements. Such work is carried out in the speaking classroom of university students, in particular in the sense of global foreign affairs. The statement is based on the Bacha, Bahous & Diab (2012) translation from DCT. In addition, certain politeness hypotheses are used to interpret the results. The studies have shown that women are more respectful than male students in general. Finally, teachers will comprehend this reality since they do not require male students to be as respectful as girls, they are practically peculiar.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abertova, a. (2012). Aspects of politeness in a clasroom of english as a second language. Prague: charles university in prague.

Alavi, T., Moradi, S., & Taggaddomi, M. S. (2013). Difference(s) between Male and Female Speakers Turkish Regarding Politeness Norms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1332-1337.

An, Q.(2009). An Empirical Study Based on College English Teaching with the Background of Networks. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 3,58-62.

Bacha, N. N., Bahous, R., & Diab, R. L. (2012). Gender and Politeness in a Foreign Academic Context. International Journal of English Linguistics, 79-96.

Brown. (1980). How and why are women more polite : some evidence from a mayan community. In B. McConnel-Ginnet, Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136). Oxford: Bleckwell.

Climate. (1997). Men and Women talking: the differential use of speech and language by gender. London: Routladge.

Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics The Study of Speakers' Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fauziati, E. (2016). Applied Linguistics Principles of Foreign Language Teaching, Learning, and Researching. Surakarta: Era Pustaka Utama.

Fraser. (1983). The Domain of Pragmatics. In J. Richards, & Scmidt, Language and Communication (pp. 29-59). New York: Longman.

Garces-Conejos, P., & Sanchez-Macarro. (1998). Scientific Discourse as An Interaction: ScientificArticles vs Popularizations. Lingistics Choices Acroos Gender, 173-190.

Garces-Conejos, P., & Torbelanca-Lopez, M. (1997). Emphasis and mitigation strategies in the speech of non native English teacher. Grammar and Pragmatic, 113.

Keikhaie, Y., & Mozaffari, Z. (2013). A Socio-linguistic Survey on Females' Politeness Strategies in the Same Gender and in the Cross-Gender Relationship. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 51-82.

Lorenzo-Dus, & Bou-Franch. (2003). Gender and Politeness: Spanish and British Undergrauate Perception of Appropriate Request. In Santaemilia, Genero, lenguaje y traduccion (pp. 187-199). Valencia : Universitat de Valencia.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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. International Journal of Appied Linguistic, 185-201.

Richards, S. (2013). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. New York : Routladge.

Rosetti, P. (1998). Gender Differences in E-mail Communication. The TESL Journal, 4(7), 1-6.

Ryoo, Hye-Kyung. (2005). Achieving friendly interactions: A study of service encounters between Korean shopkeepers and African-American customers. Discourse and Society. V (16) : 79-105.

Syafrizal & Haerudin. (2018). THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VOCABULARY BUILDING STRATEGY IN TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY TO YOUNG LEARNERS. Journal of English Language Teaching, 2 (1), 41-48.

Syafrizal, S. et al. (2019). INDONESIAN TEACHER’S CODE SWITCHING AND MIXING IN EFL CONTEXT. English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 1 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v1n1p1

Steele,S., Tanz, C. (2002). Language, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men conversation. New York : William Marrow.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction. London : Longman.

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language (3rd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Published
2020-10-29
How to Cite
Syafrizal, S., & Putri, F. S. (2020). A LINGUISTIC POLITENESS: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SPEAKING CLASSROOM. English Education:Journal of English Teaching and Research, 5(2), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.29407/jetar.v5i2.14436