Author

Shahrekord University

Abstract

This study aims at investigating the linguistic representation of male and female social actors in the Four Corners 4 textbook, drawing on CDA. More specifically, van Leeuwen’s (1996) framework, which highlights the connection of linguistic and social practices, is used as the analytical framework to examine gendered social actors in this English language teaching (ELT) textbook. To this end, content analysis was done to explore the frequency and proportion of each social actor. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis showed that there were some differences, though not statistically significant, between males and females regarding substitution, individualization, and activation. Males, in contrast with females, were included more as active and famous actors in social circumstances and they were more individualized. In addition, they were more activated through circumstantialization and participation. On the other hand, the case of formalization was mostly observed for males. Moreover, males and females were distributed equally in the textbook in terms of classification, genericization, and collectivization. The results reveal that the gender bias still exists, though to a small degree, in this ELT textbook, which is taught as a substitution for the previous ELT textbooks in many language schools in Iran.

Keywords

; "> Alemi, M., & Jafari, H. (2012). Gender and
culture analysis in EFL textbooks as
measured by personal proper names.
Advances in Asian Social Science Journal,1(2), 237-243.
Amal Saleh, E., Sajjadi, S., & Yarmohammadi L. (2006). The representation of social actors in the EFL high school textbooks in Iran. MEXTESOL Journal, 30(1), 9-23.
Amini, M., & Birjandi, P. (2012). Gender bias
in the Iranian high school EFL textbooks. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 134-147.
Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2003). Subliminal sexism in current ESL/EFL textbooks. Asian
EFL Journal, 5(1), 200-241.
Bahman, M., & Rahimi, A. (2010). Gender representation in EFL materials: an analysis
of English textbooks of Iranian high schools. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,
273-277.
Birjandi, P., & Soheili, A. (1999). Right path to English I and II. Iran, Tehran: Ministry of
Education, Center for the Publication of University Textbooks.
Eckret, P., & McConnell, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, J. (2002). Strengthening subservience: Gender bias in West Bengal school
textbooks. Manushi, 128, 23-24.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse studies. A Multidisciplinary
Introduction (vol. 2, pp. 258-84). London: Sage Publications.
Florent, J., & Walter, C. (1989). A better role for women in TEFL. ELT
Journal, 43(3), 180-184.
Hruska B. L. (2004). Constructing gender in an English dominant kindergarten: Implications
for second language learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 38, 450-485.
Karimaghaei, Z., & Kasmani, M. (2013). The representation of social actors in Top Notch
2A and 2B. Asian Journal of Social Sciences
and Humanities, 2(1), 27-38.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Malek, L. A., (2009). Critical discourse analysis of ELT textbooks. The Iranian EFL Journal, 5, 6-19.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Peat, J. (2001). Health science research: A handbook of quantitative methods. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 784-807). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Bohlke, D. (2012). Four Corners 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2005). Interchange (3rd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sahragard, R., & Davatgarzadeh, G. (2010). The representation of social actors in
Interchange Third Edition series: A critical discourse analysis. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(1), 67-89.
Samuel, M. (2012). Gender equality in and through education in Nigeria: Gender
representation in learning materials.Unpublished project report, Sheffield
Hallam University, Sheffield.
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006). Summit:English for today’s world. New York:
Pearson Longman:Shirvani, J. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The representation of social actors in summit
series. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 85-95.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse
analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors in discourse. In CaldasCoulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.),
Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-70). London:
Routledge.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yaghoubi-Notash, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2012). Gender representations in focus: The
case for a marketized EFL syllabus.International Research Journals, 3(1), 80-86.