Cinsiyet ve İngilizceyi ikinci ve yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler tarafından İngilizce kişi zamirlerinin kullanımı arasındaki ilişkinin bir analizi

Yıl 2020, Sayı: Ö8, 693 - 704, 21.11.2020

Didem Koban Koç

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.816660

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı cinsiyet ve kişi zamirleri arasındaki ilişkiyi toplum dilbilmsel açıdan incelemektir. Calışma, Türkiye’nin İzmir şehrinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin öğretmenlik bölümünün birinci sınıfında öğrenim görmekte olan İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenciler ve ayrıca Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin New York şehrinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin hazırlık programında İngilizceyi ikinci dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin olduğu eğitimsel bir ortamda yapılmıştır. Veri, kişi zamiri kullanımı açısından iki grup arasindaki farkı ve kadınlar ve erkekler arasında anlamlı farklılıkların olup olmadığını analiz etmek icin öğrenci kompozisyonlarından elde edilmiştir. Ayrica, veri zamirlerin sosyal anlamlar taşıyıp taşımadığını anlamak için de incelenmiştir. Bağımlı Örneklem T-testinin sonuçları İngilizceyi ikinci dil olarak öğrenen ve ayrıca kadın ve erkek ögrencilerin ‘ben’ kişi zamirini diğer zamirlerden anlamlı olarak daha fazla kullandığını göstermistir. Fakat her iki grupta bulunan kadınlar ve erkekler arasında kişi zamiri kullanımı açısından anlamlı bir fark görülmemiştir. Sonuçlar, kişi zamirlerinin kullanılmasına yönelik sosyal motivasyonlar açısından tartışılmıs ve yazma derslerinde kişi zamirlerinin ögretilmesine yönelik tavsiyelerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplum dilbilim, cinsiyet, kişi zamirleri, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce, ikinci dil olarak İngilizce

An analysis of the relationship between gender and the use of English personal pronouns by ESL and EFL learners

Öz

The purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between gender and personal pronoun usage from a sociolinguistic perspective. The study was conducted in an educational setting with Turkish learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) enrolled in the first year of an undergraduate teacher training program at a government university in Izmir, Turkey and learners of English as a second language (ESL) attending an Immersion Program at a government university in New York, U.S. Data were collected via essays, which were analyzed for any significant differences among personal pronoun usage by both groups and between males and females in their use of the pronouns. Data were also examined to find out whether the use of pronouns carried any social meanings. The results of the paired-samples t-tests showed that the ESL learners as a whole as well as the male and female ESL learners used ‘I’ at a significantly higher rate than the other pronouns. No significant differences were observed between males and females in both groups regarding the use of personal pronouns. The results are discussed in accordance with the social motivations for the use of certain pronouns and recommendations are provided with respect to the teaching of personal pronouns in writing classrooms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sociolinguistics, gender, personal pronouns, English as a foreign language, English as a second language

Kaynakça

• Ahmad, I. & Mehmood, A. (2015). Gender differences in the use of parts of speech in Pakistani English newspaper columns: A critical discourse analysis. New Media and Mass Communication, 36, 10–15.
• Al-Faki, I. M. (2014). Political speeches of some African leaders from linguistic perspective (1981–2013). International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4 (3), 180–198.
• Alward, A. (2019). Exploring self-mention in the Yemeni EFL argumentative paragraphs across three proficiency levels. Issues in Language Studies, 8(2), 48-60.
• Andersson, L. (2012). Personal pronouns in editor’s letters – A gender-based study. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). School of Language and Literature, Linnaeus University.
• Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Retrieved from http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/papers/male- female-text- nal.pdf
• Carter, R., (1993). Introducing applied linguistics. Penguin English.
• Dahnilsyah, D. (2017). The implied power through the use of personal pronouns in Obama’s speeches: Critical Discourse Analysis. International Journal of Educational Best Practices (IJEBP),
1(2), 59-71.
• Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992) Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 461–490.

• Freeman, R. & McElhinny, B. (1996). Language and gender. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp.218-280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodwin, H. M. (1980). Directive-response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In R. Borker, N. Furman, and S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds). Women and Language in Literature and Society, 157–173. New York: Praeger Publishers.
• Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Higgins, C. (2010). Gender and language. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (eds.) Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 370-397). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Hofstede, G. (1979). Value systems in forty countries: interpretation, validation and consequences for theory. In Lutz H. Eckensberger, Walter J., Lonner, Ype, H. Poorlinga (Eds.), Contributions to Psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swet & Zeitlinger
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
• Ishikawa, Y. (2015). Gender differences in vocabulary use in essay writing by university students. The Proceedings of 2nd Global Conference on Conference on Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching, 192, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.078
• Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Unwin Brothers Ltd.
• Jones, J. J. (2015). Talk like a man: The linguistic appeal of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Retrieved from: http://wpsa.research.
• pdx.edu/papers/docs/jjjones_HRC_talk_like_a_man_3_30_15.pdf
• Lakoff , R. (1975). Language and woman’s place: text and commentaries. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
• Larner, L. R. (2009). The role of feminine rhetoric in male presidential discourse: achieving speech purpose. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/102
• Lenard, D. B. (2016). Gender differences in the personal pronouns usage on the corpus of congressional speeches, Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 3(2). 161-188.
• MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11-30). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Norton, B. & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Gender and English language learners. TESOL Inc.: Alexandria, VA.
• Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Schwartz, A. L. (2009). Latinos' collectivism and self-disclosure in intercultural and intractultural friendships and acquaintanceships. Unpublished master’s thesis. Utah State University. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=etd
• Skarphol, K. S. (2000). The fusion of populist and feminine styles in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. In Brenda DeVore Marshall & Molly A. Mayhead (Eds.) Navigating boundaries: the rhetoric of women governors, 59-82. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand! Women and men in conversation. London: Virago.
• Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford University Press. .......................
• Ye, R. (2010). The interpersonal metafunction analysis of Barack Obama's victory, Speech. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 146-153.