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
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
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.
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
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.
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
i
2.4 Gender Differences in Communication ... 18
ii
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
4.1The 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
4.2Research Findings ... 55
4.3Discussion ... 56
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 59
5.1Conclusions ... 59
5.2Suggestions ... 60
References ... 61
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
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The 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 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
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
„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.
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?
1.3The Objectives of the Study
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.
1.4The 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.
1.5The 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.
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
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.
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
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 Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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
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.
Zulaekho, S. 2011. Language Styles of Muluk in Alangkah Lucunya Negeri Ini Movie Jornal.
