LANGUAGE STYLES USED BY MALE AND FEMALE TEACHERS IN SCHOOL INTERACTION.
LANGUAGE STYLES USED BY MALE AND FEMALE
TEACHERS IN SCHOOL INTERACTION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
ISRA MITARI
Registration Number: 8126111013
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
LANGUAGE STYLES USED BY MALE AND FEMALE
TEACHERS IN SCHOOL INTERACTION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
ISRA MITARI
Registration Number: 8126111013
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Mitari, Isra. Language Styles Used By Male and Female Teachers in School
Interaction. A Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study Program.
Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2015.
The objective of this study is to describe the language style used by male and female
teachers in school interaction. The research was designed with qualitative descriptive
method. The source of the data was male and female teachers in Kingston School
who graduated from education department and have more than two years
experiences in teaching. The data were obtained by implementing participant
observation and interview. The analysis of this research was done by applying Miles
and Huberman approach. The research finding shows that there were four language
styles used by male and female teachers in school interaction, they were formal,
consultative, casual and intimate styles. Male and female teachers did not use frozen
style in their language in school interaction. Male and female teachers dominantly
used casual style in their language in school interaction. Male teachers used
consultative style and formal style more than female teachers did and female
teachers used intimate style more that male teachers did. The way of communication
of male teachers in school interaction have all categories of male-like; status,
independence, advice, information, order and conflict, and some categories of
female-like, namely; support, intimacy, understanding, feeling and compromise, but
they did not show “proposal” in their way of communication. Then, the way of
communication of female teachers in school interaction have all categories of
female-like, namely; support, intimacy, understanding, feeling, proposal and
compromise, and some categories of male-like, namely; advice, information, order
and conflict, but they did not show “status” and “independence” in their way of
communication. The factors of language styles used by male and female teachers in
school interaction based on the setting, participant, topic and function. Based on the
analysis also, there were some factors which considerate belong to participants; they
were gender, status, personalities, intimate relationships and background.
ABSTRAK
Mitari, Isra. Penggunaan Gaya Bahasa antara Guru Laki-laki dan Guru
Perempuan dalam Interaksi di Sekolah. Tesis: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan
Bahasa Inggris. Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2015.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk meneliti gaya bahasa yang digunakan oleh
guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di sekolah. Penelitian ini
dilaksanakan dengan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif. Sumber data penelitian ini
adalah guru laki-laki dan perempuan di sekolah Kingston School yang lulus dari
jurusan kependidikan dan mempunyai pengalaman mengajar selama dua tahun atau
lebih. Data di penelitian ini diperoleh melalui observasi dan wawancara. Analisis
penelitian tersebut dilaksanakan dengan menerapkan pendekatan Miles dan
Huberman. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada empat gaya bahasa yang
digunakan oleh guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di sekolah,
yaitu gaya bahasa formal, konsultatif, kasual dan intim. Para guru laki-laki dan
perempuan tersebut tidak menggunakan gaya bahasa baku dalam berinteraksi di
sekolah. Guru laki-laki lebih dominan menggunakan gaya bahasa konsultatif dan
formal daripada guru perempuan, dan guru perempuan lebih dominan menggunakan
gaya bahasa intim daripada guru laki-laki. Cara berkomunikasi guru laki-laki dalam
berinteraksi di sekolah mempunyai semua kategori cara laki-laki berkomunikasi,
yaitu; status, kemandirian, nasehat, informasi, perintah dan konflik, dan beberapa
cara perempuan berkomunikasi, yaitu; dukungan, keintiman, pengertian, perasaan
dan kompromi, tetapi tidak ada yang menunjukkan “anjuran” dalam cara mereka
berkomunikasi. Kemudian, cara guru perempuan berkomunikasi dalam berinteraksi
di sekolah mempunyai semua kategori cara perempuan berkomunikasi, yaitu;
dukungan, keintiman, pengertian, perasaan, anjuran, dan kompromi, dan beberapa
kategori cara laki-laki berkomunikasi, yaitu; nasehat, informasi, perintah dan
konflik, tetapi tidak ada yang menunjukkan “status” dan “kemandirian” dalam cara
mereka berkomunikasi. Faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan perbedaan gaya bahasa
yang digunakan oleh guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di
sekolah adalah latar, lawan bicara, topik dan fungsi. Berdasarkan analisis juga
ditemukan bahwa beberapa faktor yang termasuk dalam kategori lawan bicara, yaitu
jenis kelamin, status, kepribadian, hubungan dekat dan darimana lawan bicara
berasal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like
to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the almighty who has given her blessing health,
strength and patience in the process of completing this thesis in the title “Language Style
Used by Male and Female Teachers in School Interaction” as a partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied
Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence without the help
of a great many people. In particular, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr.
Eddy Setia, M. Ed, TESP., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., her first and second
adviser for their so generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on
supervising and guiding this thesis.
The writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied
Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., her secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S and Mr Farid who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during
the process of her study in the postgraduate program. Special thanks to the all lecturers of the
English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan who have given their
valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.
Thanks are due to her proposal reviewers and examiners,
Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S.,
Dr. Didik Santoso, M. Pd., and Dr. Rahmat Husein, M. Ed., for their appropriate and helpful
commentaries and constructive suggestions.
She would also like to express her gratitude to the all informants in Kingston School
Medan, especially for the principal; Mrs Helen Victoria B.Yin and the teachers who have
generously given their time and chance, and supplied her with information for analysis of this
study, particularly in supporting this thesis.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like dedicate her love and
sincerest gratitude to her parents, Sukayat and Subety, brothers and sisters for their sincere
and most reliable comfort, and above all, their love and support.
It is honor for her to convey thanks to her colleagues for their helps and supports.
Special thanks to her beloved friends Reza, Kara, Minda, Icha, Zizah, Amri, and Ricky and
also other AURORA families for their motivation and support. Lastly, the writer offers her
regards and blessings to all of those who supported her in any respect during the completion
of this thesis.
Medan,
January 2015
The writer,
Isra Mitari
Registration
8126111013
Number:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................
i
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................
iv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................
1
1.1 The Background of the Study ....................................................................
1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ........................................................................
6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study .......................................................................
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study .............................................................................
7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ...................................................................
7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................
9
2.1 Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................
9
2.2 Language Style ...........................................................................................
9
2.3 Language and Gender ................................................................................ 15
2.4 Gender Differences in Communication .................................................... 18
2.5 Factors in Language Styles ........................................................................ 21
2.6 School Interaction………………………………………………………..
25
2.7 Relevant Studies……………………………………………………...….. 26
2.8 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………..
27
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ................................................... 29
3.1
Research Design .................................................................................... 29
3.2
Data and Data Source ............................................................................. 30
3.3
Research Setting ..................................................................................... 30
3.4
Technique of Data Collection ................................................................. 31
i
3.5
Data of the Study .................................................................................... 31
3.6
Procedure of Data Collection ................................................................. 32
3.7
Technique of Data Analysis ................................................................... 33
3.8
Trustworthiness of the Study .................................................................. 35
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .. 37
4.1 The Data and Data Analysis ...................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Types of Language Styles Used by Male and Female Teachers ... 37
4.1.2 Different Ways of Communication between Male and
Female Teachers……………………………….…...…………..... 41
4.1.3 The Factors of Language Styles Used by Male and Female Teachers
….................................................................................................... . 49
4.2 Research Findings ...................................................................................... 55
4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................... 59
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 59
5.2 Suggestions ................................................................................................ 60
References ....................................................................................................... 61
Appendix ......................................................................................................... 64
ii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. The Identity of the Participants’ of Language Styles Used by
Male and Female Teachers in School Interaction …………..…….62
Appendix 2. Transcript of Participants’ of Language Styles Used by Male and
Female Teachers in School Interaction ………………………..….63
Appendix 3. Language Styles in Male Language…. ……………………..…….81
Appendix 4. Language Styles in Female Language.. ……………………..….... 84
Appendix 5. The Ways of Communication in Male Teachers’ Language ....….. 87
Appendix 6. The Ways of Communication in Female Teachers’ Language ….. 91
Appendix 7. The Teachers’ Interview Sheet of Language Styles Used by Male
and Female Teachers in School Interaction……..…………......… 97
ii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Language is a very complex human phenomenon. Chowdhury (2012: 17) states
“language is an „organized noise‟ used in actual social situation”. Sociolinguistics is an
extremely broad field within linguistics. This study deals with communication in society. It
includes variety of features, or variables, in the languages and dialects with which they work;
they may be lexical, phonological or grammatical, or features of discourse or of code
selection. It incorporates topics as different in scope as the study of policy in multilingual
states, the role of “linguistic markets,” the different linguistic behavior of male vs. female,
middle-class vs. working-class and other social groups, and the analysis of individual
conversations. Sociolinguistic factors are relevant to the understanding of linguistics features
at a variety of different gender. Holmquist (2008: 18) states “gender as a factor typically does
not act alone but rather in association with other social factors such as age, class, and ethnic
or network groupings.”
Language is an inherently social phenomenon and can provide insight into how men
and women approach their social worlds. Ning (2010: 127) state that for most women,
language is mainly helpful to establish harmonious interpersonal relationship, for most men it
is a means to preserve authority and maintain status in a competitive society and the reason
for their different communication styles is that in fact the purposes they use language in
conversation are not the same. Women used more words related to psychological and social
processes. Men referred more to object properties and impersonal topics. Within the social
sciences, an increasing consensus of findings suggests that men, relative to women, tend to
1
use language more for the instrumental purpose of conveying information; women are more
likely to use verbal interaction for social purposes with verbal communication serving as an
end in itself (Newman, 2008: 233).
Language use is one of the important elements in conveying effective communication
in the environment. It is the key to developing and maintaining positive interactions and
relationships with others. Joos (1967: 278) states there are two types of variations in
language, first variations according to the user (defined by variables such as social
background, geography, sex and age), and variations according to use, in the sense that each
speaker has a range of varieties and choices between them at different times. The variation is
called by style. It is a range of varieties and choices between one speaker to another speaker
at different time. In addition, Joss (1967: 278) states there are five language styles, such as:
frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate style. Here are the examples of the
utterances which uttered by male and female teachers in school interaction;
Here are examples of formal style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said “Ada suatu pertanyaan yang susah untuk dijawab dengan
pemikiran kita sebagai manusia.” (There is a question which is hard to answer for us
as a human).
A female teacher said “Diberitahukan kepada semua guru untuk menghadiri rapat
yang akan membahas tentang sistem baru penilaian hasil ujian siswa” (Kindly
informed for all teachers to attend the meeting about new scoring system of the
students‟ result examination).
Here are examples of casual style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said ““Pulang sekolah nanti kita nonton rame-rame yuk, terus kita
makan, kan besok udah liburan sekolah” (Let‟s go to the theatre after school, then we
take a meal because tomorrow is holiday).
A female teacher said “Dah siap ngolah niai anak-anak kalian? Malas kali pun ku
rasa.” (Have all of you done computed student‟s grades? I feel so lazy).
Here are examples of intimate style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said ““Hadoh… malas kali kalau udah ekskul!” (Hadoh...I am so lazy
to teach extracurricular activity).
A female teacher said “Jadi gimana masalah diklat di Binjai tuh?” (So, what about
the diklat which is held in Binjai?).
Based on the examples of utterances uttered by male and female teachers in different
language styles, there must be the difference between male and female teachers in presenting
their language in communication. This study will find the difference between them and also
the factors which affect it.
Holmes (2006: 6) states context is crucial as the evident throughout in the discussion
of the many examples analyzed. But gender is an important component of that context.
Gender may move into the foreground or retreat into the background at different points in an
interaction, but it is an omnipresent influence, and always potentially relevant to the
interpretation of the meaning of an interaction. We may use language in ways which index
femininity or masculinity at different points in any interaction at work, and the styles of
discourse which predominate in a particular community of practice contribute to the
impression of a relatively feminine or relatively masculine workplace culture. Effective
employees, both female and male, draw extensively on both normatively masculine and
feminine discursive resources and gendered norms to achieve their transactional and
relational objectives in different workplace contexts, and such flexibility is undoubtedly
advantageous in managing workplace interaction. The management literature suggests that, in
many contexts, masculine norms continue to prevail, „and women are expected to adjust to
this male model if they are to be successful in the workplace‟. In male-dominated
workplaces, then, with masculine norms of interaction, the feminist question is essentially
„the difficulties for women to develop skills in adversarial and confrontational ways of
responding in discussion‟.
Further, Holmes (2001: 8-9) suggests there are four factors affecting language style,
they are setting, participant, topic and function. The main differences between
communication styles of men and women are as follows: Men are goal-oriented; they define
their sense of self through their ability to achieve results. Women, on the other hand, are
relationship oriented as they define their sense of self by their feelings and by the quality of
their relationships. Men and women also differ in their communication style when they are
faced with resolving a crisis or coming to a mutual conclusion (Gray, 1992: 87). Further,
Tannen (1992: 62-77) finds six differences between male and female in terms of
communication, they are; status versus support, independence versus intimacy, advice versus
understanding, information versus feelings, orders versus proposals and conflict versus
compromise.
In line with the research about language style and gender, Gustiany (2012: 60) found
that frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate style used in Facebook status. The
language style dominantly used by male and female Facebook users in their status is
consultative style. She also found that the ways of male communicating are giving advice,
information and raise conflict, while the ways of female communicating are understanding,
feeling and compromise.
School is one of the workplace interactions which have employee‟s men and women.
At school educators need to demonstrate mutual respect towards each other and value the
contributions made by each educator. This enables the work group to maintain positive
relations and model the type of communication they want to develop. Educators also need to
use positive communication with others educators at school in order to create a responsive
and inclusive environment for all. Community Child Care Victoria (2008: 11) states
educators need to practice positive and respectful communication with each other in order to
communicate effectively with each other. This helps to build a consistent and cohesive team
approach within the service and provides a role model for the type of communication they
want children to develop. The interaction between teacher and student at school as the
learning environment needs to be placed on the development of positive teacher–student
interaction effects on students‟ academic outcomes and behavior, because a positive
interaction between teachers and students is the fundamental aspect of quality teaching and
student learning (Liberante, 2012: 8). Language style used by educators especially teachers at
school are considered as models for the students, because school is a formal situation as the
second environment for the students. So, the teachers tend to use formal style in teaching
learning process in the classroom, while the interaction among teachers at school is
considered as the interaction in the workplace. Based on the explanation above, it is as
challenge to conduct a study about language style used by male and female teachers in school
interaction.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The problems which explored in this study are formulated as follow;
1. What types of language style is used by male and female teachers in school
interaction?
2. How are language style used by male and female teachers in school interaction?
3. Why do male and female teachers use language style in school interaction?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Based on the research problems formulated above, this study has some objectives as
follow;
1. To describe the language style used by male and female teachers in school interaction.
2. To explain the ways of language style used by male and female teachers in school
interaction.
3. To explain the factors cause the differences of language style used by male and
female teachers in school interaction.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This research is limited to the language uttered by male and female teachers at a
school. The language observed and recorded at school.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
This research is expected to have both theoretical and practical significance for the
readers.
a. Theoretically
1. The result of the study is considered to provide valuable understanding and to
enrich the theories of gender and language style in linguistic study.
2. The result of the study can be used as reference for those who want to conduct a
study in gender and language style.
b. Practically
The result of this study is expected to contribute faithful information about gender
and language for students, teachers or lecturers, researchers.
1. Firstly, for the students, so they can enrich their knowledge about gender and
language style.
2. Secondly, for the teachers and lecturers, so they can use it to support the
teaching and learning materials related to the gender and language style.
3. Thirdly, the result of the study can be useful for researcher to gain a deep
insight especially in gender and language style used in school interaction.
4. Fourthly, the result of this study can be useful for teachers to enhance their
awareness to be more appreciative with their language.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data of language style used by male and female teachers’
interaction in school interaction, some conclusions are drawn as the following.
a) There were four language styles used by male and female teachers in school
interaction, they were formal, consultative, casual and intimate style. It was found that
male and female teachers dominantly casual style in their language in school
interaction.
b) In ways of communication, the male teachers in school interaction have all categories
of male-like (status, independence, advice, information, order and conflict) and some
female-like (support, intimacy, understanding, feeling and compromise). It showed
that the male teachers did not have “proposal” in their way of communication. The
way of communication of female teachers in school interaction has some categories of
male-like (advice, information, order and conflict) and all female-like (support,
intimacy, understanding, feeling, proposal and compromise). It showed that the
female teachers did not have “status” and “independence” in their way of
communication.
c) There were some factors of language styles used by male and female teachers in
school interaction; they were setting, participants, topic and function. Based on the
analysis also, there were some factors which considerate belong to participants; they
were gender, status, personalities, intimate relationships and background.
5.2 Suggestions
Related to the conclusions above, some suggestions are pointed out in the following.
a) It is suggested that the lecturers who play an important role in teaching sociolinguistics,
gender, language and communication can add this research to be the additional resources
in teaching since lecturers are the important models in improving the level of education.
b) To the other researcher, it is expected to do more research about language and gender in
the scoop of education from different emphasis.
REFERENCES
Adhalina, N. 2011. “The Different Language Style and Language Function Between Students
and Teachers in Updating Their Status In Facebook Webpage”. An Unpublished
Thesis. Semarang: English Department Faculty of Humanities Diponegoro
University
Bernard, J. 1972. The Sex Game. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. 1978. Language Development and Language Disorders. New York:
Wiley.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allan
and Bacon
Bryman, A. 2000. Triangulation. Leicestershire: Loughbourough University
Press.
Chowdhury, S. 2012. Code-Mixing as a Strategy Used by Radio Jockey’s on Radio-Mirchi
93.9 F.M. (Pune). The Criterion An International Journal in English. Vol. III.
Issue. IV, 1-13.
Community Child Care. 2008. Educator Interactions and Relationships with Children in
Children’s Services Self-Guided Learning Package. Australian Government
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations under the Inclusion
and Professional Support Program.
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Intoduction Entering The Field of
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Qualitative
Gray, J. 1992. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving
Communication and Getting What You Want in A Relationship. HarperCollins: New
York
Gustiany, A. 2012. Gender’s Language Style in Facebook Status. An Unpublished Thesis.
Medan: English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Post Graduate School, State
University of Medan.
Haas, A. 1979. Male and Female Spoken Language Differences: Stereotypes and Evidence.
Department of Speech Communication. State University of New York College at New
Paltz Psychological Bulletin 1979, Vol. 86, No. 3, 615-626
Hockett, C.F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London
Holmes, J. 1998. Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals. Language and
Gender: A Reader. Oxford: 461-483
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd Ed). London: Longman.
Holmes, J. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work, Constructing Social Identity Through Workplace
Interaction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. UK.
Holmquist, J. 2008. Gender in Context: Features and Factors in Men’s and Women’s Speech
in Rural Puerto Rico. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. Temple
University
Joos, M. 1967. The Five Clocks. Harcout, Brace & World: New York.
Kibort, A & Greville G. C. "Gender." Grammatical Features. Accessed on October 2013
http://www.features.surrey.ac.uk/features/gender.html.
Kirsner and Mandell. 1978. Basic College Writing. New York: N.W. Northon
Leech & Short. 2007. Style in Fiction; A Linguistics Introduction to English Fictional and
Prose (2nd Ed). United Kingdom; Longman.
Liberante, L. 2012. The Importance Of Teacher–Student Relationships, As Explored Through
The Lens Of The New Quality Teaching Model. University of Wollongong,
Australia. Journal of Student Engagement: Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2–9.
Loukas, A. 2007. What Is School Climate? High-Quality School Climate Is Advantageous for
All Students and May Be Particularly Beneficial for At-Risk Students. Leadership
Compass, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. London
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. Jahrom
Azad University, Iran Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore
Newman, M.L. et al. 2008. Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text
Samples. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Arizona State University,
Oxford University Press New York.
Ning, H. 2010. On Gender Difference in English Language and Its Causes. Taishan
University. Foreign Languages School, Ludong University. China.
Niswa, K. 2013. Language Style Used in Indonesia Television Talk Show Program. An
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Post
Graduate School, State University of Medan.
Tannen, D. 1992. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
Ballantine Books, New York
Zulaekho, S. 2011. Language Styles of Muluk in Alangkah Lucunya Negeri Ini Movie Jornal.
An Unpublished Thesis, Semarang: Diponegoro University.
TEACHERS IN SCHOOL INTERACTION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
ISRA MITARI
Registration Number: 8126111013
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
LANGUAGE STYLES USED BY MALE AND FEMALE
TEACHERS IN SCHOOL INTERACTION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
ISRA MITARI
Registration Number: 8126111013
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Mitari, Isra. Language Styles Used By Male and Female Teachers in School
Interaction. A Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study Program.
Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2015.
The objective of this study is to describe the language style used by male and female
teachers in school interaction. The research was designed with qualitative descriptive
method. The source of the data was male and female teachers in Kingston School
who graduated from education department and have more than two years
experiences in teaching. The data were obtained by implementing participant
observation and interview. The analysis of this research was done by applying Miles
and Huberman approach. The research finding shows that there were four language
styles used by male and female teachers in school interaction, they were formal,
consultative, casual and intimate styles. Male and female teachers did not use frozen
style in their language in school interaction. Male and female teachers dominantly
used casual style in their language in school interaction. Male teachers used
consultative style and formal style more than female teachers did and female
teachers used intimate style more that male teachers did. The way of communication
of male teachers in school interaction have all categories of male-like; status,
independence, advice, information, order and conflict, and some categories of
female-like, namely; support, intimacy, understanding, feeling and compromise, but
they did not show “proposal” in their way of communication. Then, the way of
communication of female teachers in school interaction have all categories of
female-like, namely; support, intimacy, understanding, feeling, proposal and
compromise, and some categories of male-like, namely; advice, information, order
and conflict, but they did not show “status” and “independence” in their way of
communication. The factors of language styles used by male and female teachers in
school interaction based on the setting, participant, topic and function. Based on the
analysis also, there were some factors which considerate belong to participants; they
were gender, status, personalities, intimate relationships and background.
ABSTRAK
Mitari, Isra. Penggunaan Gaya Bahasa antara Guru Laki-laki dan Guru
Perempuan dalam Interaksi di Sekolah. Tesis: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan
Bahasa Inggris. Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2015.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk meneliti gaya bahasa yang digunakan oleh
guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di sekolah. Penelitian ini
dilaksanakan dengan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif. Sumber data penelitian ini
adalah guru laki-laki dan perempuan di sekolah Kingston School yang lulus dari
jurusan kependidikan dan mempunyai pengalaman mengajar selama dua tahun atau
lebih. Data di penelitian ini diperoleh melalui observasi dan wawancara. Analisis
penelitian tersebut dilaksanakan dengan menerapkan pendekatan Miles dan
Huberman. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada empat gaya bahasa yang
digunakan oleh guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di sekolah,
yaitu gaya bahasa formal, konsultatif, kasual dan intim. Para guru laki-laki dan
perempuan tersebut tidak menggunakan gaya bahasa baku dalam berinteraksi di
sekolah. Guru laki-laki lebih dominan menggunakan gaya bahasa konsultatif dan
formal daripada guru perempuan, dan guru perempuan lebih dominan menggunakan
gaya bahasa intim daripada guru laki-laki. Cara berkomunikasi guru laki-laki dalam
berinteraksi di sekolah mempunyai semua kategori cara laki-laki berkomunikasi,
yaitu; status, kemandirian, nasehat, informasi, perintah dan konflik, dan beberapa
cara perempuan berkomunikasi, yaitu; dukungan, keintiman, pengertian, perasaan
dan kompromi, tetapi tidak ada yang menunjukkan “anjuran” dalam cara mereka
berkomunikasi. Kemudian, cara guru perempuan berkomunikasi dalam berinteraksi
di sekolah mempunyai semua kategori cara perempuan berkomunikasi, yaitu;
dukungan, keintiman, pengertian, perasaan, anjuran, dan kompromi, dan beberapa
kategori cara laki-laki berkomunikasi, yaitu; nasehat, informasi, perintah dan
konflik, tetapi tidak ada yang menunjukkan “status” dan “kemandirian” dalam cara
mereka berkomunikasi. Faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan perbedaan gaya bahasa
yang digunakan oleh guru laki-laki dan guru perempuan dalam berinteraksi di
sekolah adalah latar, lawan bicara, topik dan fungsi. Berdasarkan analisis juga
ditemukan bahwa beberapa faktor yang termasuk dalam kategori lawan bicara, yaitu
jenis kelamin, status, kepribadian, hubungan dekat dan darimana lawan bicara
berasal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like
to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the almighty who has given her blessing health,
strength and patience in the process of completing this thesis in the title “Language Style
Used by Male and Female Teachers in School Interaction” as a partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied
Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence without the help
of a great many people. In particular, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr.
Eddy Setia, M. Ed, TESP., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., her first and second
adviser for their so generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on
supervising and guiding this thesis.
The writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied
Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., her secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S and Mr Farid who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during
the process of her study in the postgraduate program. Special thanks to the all lecturers of the
English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan who have given their
valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.
Thanks are due to her proposal reviewers and examiners,
Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S.,
Dr. Didik Santoso, M. Pd., and Dr. Rahmat Husein, M. Ed., for their appropriate and helpful
commentaries and constructive suggestions.
She would also like to express her gratitude to the all informants in Kingston School
Medan, especially for the principal; Mrs Helen Victoria B.Yin and the teachers who have
generously given their time and chance, and supplied her with information for analysis of this
study, particularly in supporting this thesis.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like dedicate her love and
sincerest gratitude to her parents, Sukayat and Subety, brothers and sisters for their sincere
and most reliable comfort, and above all, their love and support.
It is honor for her to convey thanks to her colleagues for their helps and supports.
Special thanks to her beloved friends Reza, Kara, Minda, Icha, Zizah, Amri, and Ricky and
also other AURORA families for their motivation and support. Lastly, the writer offers her
regards and blessings to all of those who supported her in any respect during the completion
of this thesis.
Medan,
January 2015
The writer,
Isra Mitari
Registration
8126111013
Number:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................
i
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................
iv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................
1
1.1 The Background of the Study ....................................................................
1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ........................................................................
6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study .......................................................................
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study .............................................................................
7
1.5 The Significance of the Study ...................................................................
7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................
9
2.1 Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................
9
2.2 Language Style ...........................................................................................
9
2.3 Language and Gender ................................................................................ 15
2.4 Gender Differences in Communication .................................................... 18
2.5 Factors in Language Styles ........................................................................ 21
2.6 School Interaction………………………………………………………..
25
2.7 Relevant Studies……………………………………………………...….. 26
2.8 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………..
27
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ................................................... 29
3.1
Research Design .................................................................................... 29
3.2
Data and Data Source ............................................................................. 30
3.3
Research Setting ..................................................................................... 30
3.4
Technique of Data Collection ................................................................. 31
i
3.5
Data of the Study .................................................................................... 31
3.6
Procedure of Data Collection ................................................................. 32
3.7
Technique of Data Analysis ................................................................... 33
3.8
Trustworthiness of the Study .................................................................. 35
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .. 37
4.1 The Data and Data Analysis ...................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Types of Language Styles Used by Male and Female Teachers ... 37
4.1.2 Different Ways of Communication between Male and
Female Teachers……………………………….…...…………..... 41
4.1.3 The Factors of Language Styles Used by Male and Female Teachers
….................................................................................................... . 49
4.2 Research Findings ...................................................................................... 55
4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................... 59
5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 59
5.2 Suggestions ................................................................................................ 60
References ....................................................................................................... 61
Appendix ......................................................................................................... 64
ii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. The Identity of the Participants’ of Language Styles Used by
Male and Female Teachers in School Interaction …………..…….62
Appendix 2. Transcript of Participants’ of Language Styles Used by Male and
Female Teachers in School Interaction ………………………..….63
Appendix 3. Language Styles in Male Language…. ……………………..…….81
Appendix 4. Language Styles in Female Language.. ……………………..….... 84
Appendix 5. The Ways of Communication in Male Teachers’ Language ....….. 87
Appendix 6. The Ways of Communication in Female Teachers’ Language ….. 91
Appendix 7. The Teachers’ Interview Sheet of Language Styles Used by Male
and Female Teachers in School Interaction……..…………......… 97
ii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Language is a very complex human phenomenon. Chowdhury (2012: 17) states
“language is an „organized noise‟ used in actual social situation”. Sociolinguistics is an
extremely broad field within linguistics. This study deals with communication in society. It
includes variety of features, or variables, in the languages and dialects with which they work;
they may be lexical, phonological or grammatical, or features of discourse or of code
selection. It incorporates topics as different in scope as the study of policy in multilingual
states, the role of “linguistic markets,” the different linguistic behavior of male vs. female,
middle-class vs. working-class and other social groups, and the analysis of individual
conversations. Sociolinguistic factors are relevant to the understanding of linguistics features
at a variety of different gender. Holmquist (2008: 18) states “gender as a factor typically does
not act alone but rather in association with other social factors such as age, class, and ethnic
or network groupings.”
Language is an inherently social phenomenon and can provide insight into how men
and women approach their social worlds. Ning (2010: 127) state that for most women,
language is mainly helpful to establish harmonious interpersonal relationship, for most men it
is a means to preserve authority and maintain status in a competitive society and the reason
for their different communication styles is that in fact the purposes they use language in
conversation are not the same. Women used more words related to psychological and social
processes. Men referred more to object properties and impersonal topics. Within the social
sciences, an increasing consensus of findings suggests that men, relative to women, tend to
1
use language more for the instrumental purpose of conveying information; women are more
likely to use verbal interaction for social purposes with verbal communication serving as an
end in itself (Newman, 2008: 233).
Language use is one of the important elements in conveying effective communication
in the environment. It is the key to developing and maintaining positive interactions and
relationships with others. Joos (1967: 278) states there are two types of variations in
language, first variations according to the user (defined by variables such as social
background, geography, sex and age), and variations according to use, in the sense that each
speaker has a range of varieties and choices between them at different times. The variation is
called by style. It is a range of varieties and choices between one speaker to another speaker
at different time. In addition, Joss (1967: 278) states there are five language styles, such as:
frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate style. Here are the examples of the
utterances which uttered by male and female teachers in school interaction;
Here are examples of formal style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said “Ada suatu pertanyaan yang susah untuk dijawab dengan
pemikiran kita sebagai manusia.” (There is a question which is hard to answer for us
as a human).
A female teacher said “Diberitahukan kepada semua guru untuk menghadiri rapat
yang akan membahas tentang sistem baru penilaian hasil ujian siswa” (Kindly
informed for all teachers to attend the meeting about new scoring system of the
students‟ result examination).
Here are examples of casual style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said ““Pulang sekolah nanti kita nonton rame-rame yuk, terus kita
makan, kan besok udah liburan sekolah” (Let‟s go to the theatre after school, then we
take a meal because tomorrow is holiday).
A female teacher said “Dah siap ngolah niai anak-anak kalian? Malas kali pun ku
rasa.” (Have all of you done computed student‟s grades? I feel so lazy).
Here are examples of intimate style at school interaction which is spoken by male and
female teachers;
A male teacher said ““Hadoh… malas kali kalau udah ekskul!” (Hadoh...I am so lazy
to teach extracurricular activity).
A female teacher said “Jadi gimana masalah diklat di Binjai tuh?” (So, what about
the diklat which is held in Binjai?).
Based on the examples of utterances uttered by male and female teachers in different
language styles, there must be the difference between male and female teachers in presenting
their language in communication. This study will find the difference between them and also
the factors which affect it.
Holmes (2006: 6) states context is crucial as the evident throughout in the discussion
of the many examples analyzed. But gender is an important component of that context.
Gender may move into the foreground or retreat into the background at different points in an
interaction, but it is an omnipresent influence, and always potentially relevant to the
interpretation of the meaning of an interaction. We may use language in ways which index
femininity or masculinity at different points in any interaction at work, and the styles of
discourse which predominate in a particular community of practice contribute to the
impression of a relatively feminine or relatively masculine workplace culture. Effective
employees, both female and male, draw extensively on both normatively masculine and
feminine discursive resources and gendered norms to achieve their transactional and
relational objectives in different workplace contexts, and such flexibility is undoubtedly
advantageous in managing workplace interaction. The management literature suggests that, in
many contexts, masculine norms continue to prevail, „and women are expected to adjust to
this male model if they are to be successful in the workplace‟. In male-dominated
workplaces, then, with masculine norms of interaction, the feminist question is essentially
„the difficulties for women to develop skills in adversarial and confrontational ways of
responding in discussion‟.
Further, Holmes (2001: 8-9) suggests there are four factors affecting language style,
they are setting, participant, topic and function. The main differences between
communication styles of men and women are as follows: Men are goal-oriented; they define
their sense of self through their ability to achieve results. Women, on the other hand, are
relationship oriented as they define their sense of self by their feelings and by the quality of
their relationships. Men and women also differ in their communication style when they are
faced with resolving a crisis or coming to a mutual conclusion (Gray, 1992: 87). Further,
Tannen (1992: 62-77) finds six differences between male and female in terms of
communication, they are; status versus support, independence versus intimacy, advice versus
understanding, information versus feelings, orders versus proposals and conflict versus
compromise.
In line with the research about language style and gender, Gustiany (2012: 60) found
that frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate style used in Facebook status. The
language style dominantly used by male and female Facebook users in their status is
consultative style. She also found that the ways of male communicating are giving advice,
information and raise conflict, while the ways of female communicating are understanding,
feeling and compromise.
School is one of the workplace interactions which have employee‟s men and women.
At school educators need to demonstrate mutual respect towards each other and value the
contributions made by each educator. This enables the work group to maintain positive
relations and model the type of communication they want to develop. Educators also need to
use positive communication with others educators at school in order to create a responsive
and inclusive environment for all. Community Child Care Victoria (2008: 11) states
educators need to practice positive and respectful communication with each other in order to
communicate effectively with each other. This helps to build a consistent and cohesive team
approach within the service and provides a role model for the type of communication they
want children to develop. The interaction between teacher and student at school as the
learning environment needs to be placed on the development of positive teacher–student
interaction effects on students‟ academic outcomes and behavior, because a positive
interaction between teachers and students is the fundamental aspect of quality teaching and
student learning (Liberante, 2012: 8). Language style used by educators especially teachers at
school are considered as models for the students, because school is a formal situation as the
second environment for the students. So, the teachers tend to use formal style in teaching
learning process in the classroom, while the interaction among teachers at school is
considered as the interaction in the workplace. Based on the explanation above, it is as
challenge to conduct a study about language style used by male and female teachers in school
interaction.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The problems which explored in this study are formulated as follow;
1. What types of language style is used by male and female teachers in school
interaction?
2. How are language style used by male and female teachers in school interaction?
3. Why do male and female teachers use language style in school interaction?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Based on the research problems formulated above, this study has some objectives as
follow;
1. To describe the language style used by male and female teachers in school interaction.
2. To explain the ways of language style used by male and female teachers in school
interaction.
3. To explain the factors cause the differences of language style used by male and
female teachers in school interaction.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This research is limited to the language uttered by male and female teachers at a
school. The language observed and recorded at school.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
This research is expected to have both theoretical and practical significance for the
readers.
a. Theoretically
1. The result of the study is considered to provide valuable understanding and to
enrich the theories of gender and language style in linguistic study.
2. The result of the study can be used as reference for those who want to conduct a
study in gender and language style.
b. Practically
The result of this study is expected to contribute faithful information about gender
and language for students, teachers or lecturers, researchers.
1. Firstly, for the students, so they can enrich their knowledge about gender and
language style.
2. Secondly, for the teachers and lecturers, so they can use it to support the
teaching and learning materials related to the gender and language style.
3. Thirdly, the result of the study can be useful for researcher to gain a deep
insight especially in gender and language style used in school interaction.
4. Fourthly, the result of this study can be useful for teachers to enhance their
awareness to be more appreciative with their language.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data of language style used by male and female teachers’
interaction in school interaction, some conclusions are drawn as the following.
a) There were four language styles used by male and female teachers in school
interaction, they were formal, consultative, casual and intimate style. It was found that
male and female teachers dominantly casual style in their language in school
interaction.
b) In ways of communication, the male teachers in school interaction have all categories
of male-like (status, independence, advice, information, order and conflict) and some
female-like (support, intimacy, understanding, feeling and compromise). It showed
that the male teachers did not have “proposal” in their way of communication. The
way of communication of female teachers in school interaction has some categories of
male-like (advice, information, order and conflict) and all female-like (support,
intimacy, understanding, feeling, proposal and compromise). It showed that the
female teachers did not have “status” and “independence” in their way of
communication.
c) There were some factors of language styles used by male and female teachers in
school interaction; they were setting, participants, topic and function. Based on the
analysis also, there were some factors which considerate belong to participants; they
were gender, status, personalities, intimate relationships and background.
5.2 Suggestions
Related to the conclusions above, some suggestions are pointed out in the following.
a) It is suggested that the lecturers who play an important role in teaching sociolinguistics,
gender, language and communication can add this research to be the additional resources
in teaching since lecturers are the important models in improving the level of education.
b) To the other researcher, it is expected to do more research about language and gender in
the scoop of education from different emphasis.
REFERENCES
Adhalina, N. 2011. “The Different Language Style and Language Function Between Students
and Teachers in Updating Their Status In Facebook Webpage”. An Unpublished
Thesis. Semarang: English Department Faculty of Humanities Diponegoro
University
Bernard, J. 1972. The Sex Game. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. 1978. Language Development and Language Disorders. New York:
Wiley.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allan
and Bacon
Bryman, A. 2000. Triangulation. Leicestershire: Loughbourough University
Press.
Chowdhury, S. 2012. Code-Mixing as a Strategy Used by Radio Jockey’s on Radio-Mirchi
93.9 F.M. (Pune). The Criterion An International Journal in English. Vol. III.
Issue. IV, 1-13.
Community Child Care. 2008. Educator Interactions and Relationships with Children in
Children’s Services Self-Guided Learning Package. Australian Government
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations under the Inclusion
and Professional Support Program.
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Intoduction Entering The Field of
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Qualitative
Gray, J. 1992. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving
Communication and Getting What You Want in A Relationship. HarperCollins: New
York
Gustiany, A. 2012. Gender’s Language Style in Facebook Status. An Unpublished Thesis.
Medan: English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Post Graduate School, State
University of Medan.
Haas, A. 1979. Male and Female Spoken Language Differences: Stereotypes and Evidence.
Department of Speech Communication. State University of New York College at New
Paltz Psychological Bulletin 1979, Vol. 86, No. 3, 615-626
Hockett, C.F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London
Holmes, J. 1998. Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals. Language and
Gender: A Reader. Oxford: 461-483
Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd Ed). London: Longman.
Holmes, J. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work, Constructing Social Identity Through Workplace
Interaction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. UK.
Holmquist, J. 2008. Gender in Context: Features and Factors in Men’s and Women’s Speech
in Rural Puerto Rico. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. Temple
University
Joos, M. 1967. The Five Clocks. Harcout, Brace & World: New York.
Kibort, A & Greville G. C. "Gender." Grammatical Features. Accessed on October 2013
http://www.features.surrey.ac.uk/features/gender.html.
Kirsner and Mandell. 1978. Basic College Writing. New York: N.W. Northon
Leech & Short. 2007. Style in Fiction; A Linguistics Introduction to English Fictional and
Prose (2nd Ed). United Kingdom; Longman.
Liberante, L. 2012. The Importance Of Teacher–Student Relationships, As Explored Through
The Lens Of The New Quality Teaching Model. University of Wollongong,
Australia. Journal of Student Engagement: Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2–9.
Loukas, A. 2007. What Is School Climate? High-Quality School Climate Is Advantageous for
All Students and May Be Particularly Beneficial for At-Risk Students. Leadership
Compass, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. London
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. Jahrom
Azad University, Iran Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore
Newman, M.L. et al. 2008. Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text
Samples. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Arizona State University,
Oxford University Press New York.
Ning, H. 2010. On Gender Difference in English Language and Its Causes. Taishan
University. Foreign Languages School, Ludong University. China.
Niswa, K. 2013. Language Style Used in Indonesia Television Talk Show Program. An
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistic Study Program, Post
Graduate School, State University of Medan.
Tannen, D. 1992. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
Ballantine Books, New York
Zulaekho, S. 2011. Language Styles of Muluk in Alangkah Lucunya Negeri Ini Movie Jornal.
An Unpublished Thesis, Semarang: Diponegoro University.