Gender in the EFL classroom Jane Sunderland

The following article is an overview of issues and research in three areas in which gender manifests itself in the EFL classroom: the English language, materials (grammars, textbooks, dictionaries, and teacher's guides), and processes (learning styles and strategies, and teacher-learner and learnerlearner interaction). The article also briefly examines some implications of gender in materials and classroom interaction for language acquisition.

Downloaded from at Aston University on February 7, 2011

'Gender' closely observed

'Gender in the EFL classroom' is a phrase which may conjure up in teachers' minds no more than complaints about the use of he, or about textbooks being sexist. Closer examination, however, suggests that gender operates at more than the level of materials. Other levels include the English language itself; and classroom processes, including learning processes, teacher-learner interaction, and learner-learner interaction. These levels interact, always within a particular political, sociolinguistic, and educational context (see Figure 1). One feature of the workforce in this context is that it tends to be characterized by 'gendered division', what Pennycook (1989: 610) describes as 'a hierarchically organized division between male conceptualizers and female practitioners'. Also pertinent to gender is proficiency—does one gender have a superior ability to learn foreign languages? The following, then, is an overview of the areas in which gender operates in the world of EFL, and of arguments and research associated with them. (In all except the section on 'The English language', I am using 'gender' to mean culturally- (though not deterministically-) influenced characteristics of each sex; 'sex' to mean whether a person is biologically female or male. And though I will be referring throughout to English as a foreign language, much may apply to the teaching and learning of other foreign, and second languages. It may also have implications for, inter alia, ethnicity and race in the language classroom).

The English language

Gender tends to be seen as unimportant in English, and as 'natural', i.e. corresponding to sex. Yet the traditional, prescriptive 'rule' of using he, him, etc., after sex-indefinite pronouns and to refer to a person of unknown sex illustrates that it can also be grammatical. That this may be changing is relevant to both learners and teachers of English. Much has been written over the last two decades about sexism in the English language (e.g. Kramer, 1975; Cameron, 1985), and about nonsexist language change (e.g. Bate, 1978; Cooper, 1984). Linguistic sexism at code level has been identified in the pronoun system ('generic' he, him, his, himself); 'generic' man; masculine and feminine
ELT Journal Volume 4611 January 1992 © Oxford University Press 1992 81

or of the sociolinguistic context in which they have occurred. in English grammar. 1984). the use of sihe. 'singular they'' (which is not new).org at Aston University on February 7. and Ms.oxfordjournals.g. for example (Cooper. Jane Sunderland 82 . over-lexicalization (e. and its changes? I am referring particularly to the portrayal of alternatives to the 'generic' he. What does this mean for the teacher. firefighter). overtly or otherwise. the number of verbs used disparagingly for women talking and of nouns referring to sexually active women). -person words. Discussions of change focus on. they may ask the teacher to explain and judge them. master/mistress. and though there is less evidence for change in spoken English. 1975) are not so now. etc. chairperson.g. Ms. There is evidence of change in written English: 'androcentric generics' may be disappearing. There are implications for both teacher education and materials here. underlexicalization (*husband-swapping party). which through 'semantic derogation' (Schulz.Figure 1: Gender in the EFL classroom CONTEXT sociolinguistic Downloaded from eltj. Pedagogic (and other) grammars How do pedagogic grammars represent and evaluate 'gendered English'. Yet the teacher may not be aware of the changes. 2011 political educational 'equivalents'. nouns which are 'gender-neutral' (e. personal observation indicates this is happening in some contexts. inter alia. and 'male firstness' (men and women). manager/manageress).g. more familiar 'neutral' forms: e.g. flight attendant. the feminine being often less prestigious and/or having sexual connotations (e. Materials a. and alternative.. one of whose roles is promoting competence. and who is often seen as a model of the target language her/himself?1 Students living in an environment which includes little or no English may come across new 'gendered' items in school reading or listening texts.

['generic'] his is considered by many people to be offensive since it has a gender bias. . even though it is no longer acceptable to many speakers in many contexts (Purnell. Cooper. and a new grammar. 1986) I looked at twenty-two recent English grammars. Illustrative here is the change over editions of Practical English Grammar (Thomson and Martinet. In principle. 'unwieldly'. In informal speech and writing. and slhe are often deemed stylistically inferior.. 1980). however. Bate. 1990:174) are. author. (Van Ek and Robat. 1984. etc. or his/her) or to use the plural (their). There is a general tendency in English today to avoid sexist language. 1985: 315) -person words were mentioned more in the more recent of the twenty-two grammars. 'heavy'. authoress) are no longer in normal use. pedagogic grammars have an obligation to describe new forms which are in reasonably common usage and do not flout the rules of English syntax. However. and whether a given item is selected. 2011 . 32) The most recent of the twenty-two grammars. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage (Leech et al. including twenty pedagogic grammars.). in AmE) to introduce sex-neutral forms . (Quirk et al. (ii) what was said about them. The -ess decline (in. efforts have been made (esp. 1985). 1984: 3. and 'awkward. 1978. . described variously as 'pedantic'. 'cumbersome'. e.' They after an indefinite pronoun ('Everyone brought their own lunch') may be approved as an informal alternative in speaking. positive about he and she and 'singular they'. poetess) was mentioned only in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language—not a pedagogic grammar but a book often available to teachers: Some optional forms (poetess.g. Using English Grammar: Meaning and Form (Woods and McLeod. the use of their. . Two ways of avoiding it are either to use both the feminine and the masculine (her or his. In order to avoid sexual bias in language. but students may be discouraged from using it in writing. and. etc.oxfordjournals. and useful advice: . but were often portrayed as somewhat deviant. will depend very much on the individual author. is the most usual way to deal with the problem. they must also be selective. the alternatives of his or her. 9) we read: Gender in the EFL classroom 83 Downloaded from eltj. Cameron. to find out if (i) the above items were included. 1978. For example: The use of plural pro-forms to refer to singular nouns premodified by each or every is not uncommon but often avoided by careful writers. Examples of 'generic' he still appear in grammars. In formal writing. .In my own study (Sunderland. as well as what is said about it. the second at Aston University on February 7. In the third edition (p. if so. the latter providing an accurate explanation and description. the first alternative is more common. 1989: 424—5). However. being replaced by the dual gender forms (poet.

etc. for example. of course. (Thomson and Martinet. portray the two sexes—something normally associated with course books (see below). they encode non-sexist changes.] by using -person instead of -man. [This] emerges insidiously. 1990: 92.. chairman.oxfordjournals. referring to nouns which do not have the same form for masculine and at Aston University on February 7. and clitoris. A more general concern is that 'Dictionaries .Recently there has been an attempt to desex [salesman. she notes: Perhaps the most amusing (or upsetting) portrayal is of woman as an alcoholic and a drug addict. however. spokesperson. and how. 1986: 2) Ms was likewise mentioned more in the newer grammars—though.98). 1980: 212). 2011 Ms is used to refer to women who do not wish to have to say whether they are married or not. Practical English Usage (Swan. etc. to use 'well-worn stereotypes' and to present a 'disturbing and sometimes sinister picture of female objectification and passivity' (Stephens. foster the illusion that words have a limited number of meanings which can be listed out of context'—which may hinder understanding of masculine and feminine 'pairs' and subtleties of connotation. . In particular. (my italics) The fourth edition (1986). saleswoman. This fashion may not last. since Ms is used at least as often to address women (especially in writing) as to refer to them. or in examples of words with little connection with drugs or alcohol. some comments were not encouraging. often in extra information which could have been omitted. unfeminine. Dictionaries Dictionaries are of interest not only for the extent to which. One reading of this is that there is something a little strange about these women. Grammars also. but sometimes -person is used instead of -man. Kaye criticizes the examples in the otherwise praiseworthy Collins COBUILD English Dictionary which 'build up a picture showing women in a poor light' (1989:192)—that it is women rather than men who are used in examples illustrating muddle(d). The examples in University Grammar of English (1973) have been found to under-represent females numerically. includes the straightforward Also salesman. . like grammars. to have females as the subject of dynamic verbs only rarely. Janet Holmes (personal communication) observes that the sentence is also misleading. . Cameron (1985: 83) cites problematic dictionary definitions of woman. reads Downloaded from eltj. saleswoman. -woman: salesperson. The examples in more recent grammars may be less stereotypical without improving much as far as numbers of females are concerned. b. . again. even that they are being deliberately evasive or coy. This may be especially so for those 84 Jane Sunderland . but also for other definitions and examples. chairwoman.

Class discussion of the relevant sections of pedagogic grammars can promote an understanding that there are relationships between language and society. Course books Discussion of course books has focused not so much on 'sexist language' as on the more subtle image questions of (i) relative invisibility of female characters. as well as an actual example of modern language change. 1984. connotation. and (iii) language as discourse: What is the gender composition of the dialogues? Who speaks most in a mixed-sex dialogue? Who speaks first? What language functions do the males/the females exemplify? Females tend to be relatively rare. often very small ones! Pedagogic grammars and dictionaries play an important role in language awareness as far as English gender is concerned. in which respondents graded sexist features of EFL course books according to their (non-) offensiveness. The actual items are also important. 2011 . gender stereotyping was rated worse than both invisibility of female characters and 'exclusive vocabulary' in the form of masculine 'generics'— though course books were criticized for the use of 'generic' he in the rubric.oxfordjournals. more often defined in relationship to the opposite sex. 1990). and relatively inactive. and individuals' and groups' use of hew items and avoidance of others illustrates the existence of language variation among native speakers of English. New uses thus need to be reflected in grammars and dictionaries with their traditional variants in an accurate and helpful way. and that changes in gender in one are related to changes in gender in the other. 1980. And students need to recognize both Ms as a legitimate honorific. at Aston University on February 7. Talansky.4 The prioritizing of course book stereotypes may be because stereotypes are seen by both sexes as restricting Gender in the EFL classroom 85 Downloaded from eltj. for example. Productively. in some contexts (e. and age. we do not want students who are coming to an Englishspeaking country speaking in a markedly old-fashioned way: 'generic' he can easily sound out of date. or even denotation.3 Can these concerns be prioritized? In a recent international questionnaire study of male and female EFL teachers. 1986. Gupta and Yin. Also important is understanding why 'gendered English' is changing. status. Porecca. Zografou. and being responders in rather than initiators of conversation (Ethel. shown by visuals as well as text.g. of lower-status occupations. and quieter. 1990. the denotative equivalent of Mr. and 'singular they' as an alternative to he or she—because they are likely to encounter them. speaking proportionately less. actions. in the ELT Journal) it is actually outlawed. Non-sexist reforms provide a reminder that language is constantly changing. (ii) stereotypes in gender roles greater than stereotyping in society in occupations. relationships.2 c. More advanced students need to understand that in some contexts male and female 'equivalents' are not equivalent at all—in number of meanings.EFL learners who place great reliance on and trust in their dictionaries.

alienated. or made to feel marginalized by this and subsequently demotivated. 1977). can EFL materials. And any unconscious influence of female characters who play restricted social. and children's books can have an unconscious influence on audiences as agents of socialization. Thirdly. videos.oxfordjournals. Thirdly. Such a text can be used for discussion. models of language can become classroom practice. if female learners are conscious of the female characters in their course book as relatively few. research might establish the extent to which course book models actually do become classroom practice. Firstly. 2011 . The most criticized books were Streamline English (the British more than the American series) and the Kernel series. a 'non-credible' text does not automatically hinder language learning—it depends what is done with it. for example. computer games. and lacking in professionalism. if TV. Firstly.opportunities for both sexes. western course books used by students coming to an Englishspeaking country should presumably be some sort of reflection of life in that country—however incredible and unpalatable this may be. Secondly. Functions ofEnglish ( at Aston University on February 7. so presumably. not only giving them more practice in 'initiating a conversation'. The above possibilities have to be addressed in relation to questions of credibility and cultural appropriacy. was found to have a male initiating each mixed-sex dialogue (ETHEL. but also giving the whole class a model of conversational discourse characterized by 'male firstness'. for example. Again. and are offended. behavioural. and I would also like to make three points here. and perhaps most importantly. irrelevant. may there not be shades of racism in the claim that '[Group X] students wouldn't like this book'?7 86 Jane Sunderland Downloaded from eltj.5 Why does sexism in EFL materials matter? Convincing reasons must be offered to publishers. 1980). and linguistic roles does not suggest cognitive and communicative empowerment for female learners. and teachers if change is to occur. This could happen in three ways. Secondly. Saying 'I and some other teachers don't like the sexism in these books' only invites the responses 'most teachers don't care' and 'the students are not complaining' and objections are likely to be perceived as trivial. it is likely that both in any demonstration of the dialogue and in pairwork practice male students would speak first. films. with limited roles. newspapers. administrators. There is need and scope for research into such affective influences. or as the stimulus for written argument.6 The most convincing reason would be that course books' (and dictionaries' and grammars') representations of gender potentially affect students as language learners and users. this is more likely to hinder than facilitate their learning. Used in a mixed class. Locallyproduced course books for students who are unlikely to work or study abroad are another matter.

this could be glossed for the benefit of the teacher. a. be presented unselfconsciously. but rather promote with due sensitivity equal male-female participation. but significantly more highly by women. and learning by talking to friends in English were all rated highly by both sexes. found that liking to learn many new words. writers and publishers could perhaps aim not for a 'genderblind' policy. Critical reading and listening may thus become a regular part of the suggested pedagogy.oxfordjournals. 2011 Processes 'Processes' here refers to what happens in the classroom because of people's gender. investigating learning style ('any individual learner's natural. These attempts to include the female sex and contemporary gender-related issues may be well-meaning. comment on this. the more recent Writing Games (Hadfield and Hadfield. and teacher-learner and learner-learner interaction. 1990) in which male and female perceptions of the same historical events are explored. and Ehrman. 1981). Teacher's guides It would be hard to make a case for teacher's guides being discriminatory. Learning processes There may be gender (or even sex) differences in language learning styles and strategies. say.It is noteworthy that gender as a topic has not been ignored in textbooks. for example. 1974) and 'Women's Lib' in Communicate in Writing (Johnson. d. for example in the units 'A Woman's Place' in Viewpoints (O'Neill and Scott. raise awareness of the likelihood of teachers paying more attention to male students (see 'Processes') and. with warmth and humour—see. The topic can. learning words by doing something. When I asked thirty non-native speaker teachers of English on an in-service course for their opinions about gender differences in language learning and teaching. 1985) has a unit on equal opportunities. Streamline English Directions (Viney. where the input of the course book reflects sexist practices or attitudes. Here I look at learning processes. learning words by seeing. And Oxford. of course. but they are no substitute for a realistic distribution and qualitatively fair representation of female characters throughout the book. and preferred way of learning' (1988: 1)) in adult migrants in Australia. a man changing a nappy (an image which some EFL teachers claim would be unsuitable in a book for students from certain cultures). which includes a rather confusing exercise on non-sexist language change.8 Willing. And if there is a picture of. at Aston University on February 7. Downloaded from eltj. but has in the past rather been singled out for special treatment. Nyikos. if culturally appropriate. (Other gender differences were seen as less important). fourteen thought their male and female students had different styles and strategies. reviewing studies of strategies ('the steps or actions taken by students to improve their own language learning') found Gender in the EFL classroom 87 . However.

and the minimum time with boys 58 per c e n t . Study 4. . . . . This false perception is not only experienced by the teacher. this tendency can cut down on the time available for all girls. studies . what seems like 'equal time for the girls'. . . showed sex differences in authentic language use and in searching for and communicating meaning .g. . 1987. .and tertiarylevel teachers of mixed classes to pay more attention to male students ( at Aston University on February 7. . Out of ten taped lessons . . . It is of considerable concern that 'more time for the boys' can become 'naturalized'. .significant sex differences . 1989). 1982: 56. 2011 b. . thought I have gone too far and have spent more time with the girls than the boys. Skehan. . feedback). Downloaded from eltj. the primary difference was in women's greater use of social behaviors for language learning . Teacher-learner interaction Lesson transcripts made from tapes have shown secondary. frequency and variety of strategy use was significantly greater for women . reported that 'the boys . the maximum time I spent interacting with girls was 42 per cent and on average 38 per cent. of course. Stanworth. 1982: 22)—even when the teachers are committed not to doing so and even when they think they are distributing their attention equally. . . In Study 1. these findings might mean that males get more speaking practice and more feedback on their utterances—and this can be the case. But the tapes have proved otherwise.e. There are. presumably answers to their own questions (i. . . and whether training in strategies is feasible and beneficial (see. and more practice in question-related language functions. . Insidiously. Wenden and Rubin. Underlying all these lies a model of discourse of males both speaking and initiating more. reflecting greater use of language learning strategies by females . . (Spender 1982: 56). . For though not all boys will get more attention than all girls.oxfordjournals. In Study 3. sometimes I have . e. were complaining about me talking to the girls all the time'. . quite possibly feedback in response to their answers. In three . many further ways teachers can treat female and 88 Jane Sunderland . . . 326) If these results are generalizable. . found that the adult male students both responded more to the teachers' questions and asked more questions themselves—thus getting more speaking practice. or even perceived as the girls getting more can actually be less: . (1988: 321. Holmes (1989). pedagogical questions are whether different styles and strategies are or can be catered for. . Applied to the EFL classroom. analysing data from ESL classrooms in Australia and New Zealand. . women [showed] significantly more frequent use of conversation/input elicitation strategies . . . It is nothing short of a substantial shock to appreciate the discrepancy between what I thought I was doing and what I actually was doing (Spender 1982: 56). One teacher who had spent 34 per cent of her time with the girls.

org at Aston University on February 7. even encouraging them. How much do they reflect gender roles in the students' background cultures? How much do they reflect power rather than gender? Does what seems like disadvantage perhaps represent female students letting the males do all the work. other questions.oxfordjournals. for example. Yet these classroom gender differences also beg questions. 1974). and learning from it?—for we cannot assume that classroom oral production is the most effective path to proficiency.male students differently.g. of course. 2011 . varying the level of difficulty of questions by gender. is that women and girls are discoursally if not socially marginal. and on what is it based? If 'correct'. the roles of intelligence and aptitude. These may be neither intentional nor recognized. Edelsky. and employing double standards for. including selection (who asks/answers a question? who demonstrates?). and a little research supports this in some respects (e. Yet in pair and group work male students have been found to speak more frequently and take longer turns than the females. hopefully. by either teacher or students. Proficiency I will conclude by returning to the question of foreign language learning proficiency and gender—how does this relate to gender in the English language. Learner-learner interaction 'Learner-learner interaction' here refers to pair work or group work involving all the students in the class at the same time. and. in materials and in learning processes? There is an apparent contradiction here: while some educational folklore claims that females are the better learners.9 One message both teacher-learner and learner-learner interaction can carry. spoken interaction in particular. surely. and formal (classroom) versus informal routes to proficiency. but getting little conversational encouragement themselves. 1981). then. There are. What does the claim that females are better language learners really mean. error identification and treatment. c. since individual needs and other differences must be catered for. research into classroom processes. and acceptable classroom behaviour. materials. 1989. Burstall. develop proficiency. who provide more feedback— echoing findings with mixed-sex groups of native speakers of English (Holmes. These female students were providng a good supportive environment for the males' language practice. And what would a 'non-discriminating' classroom look like? Not one in which each student got an equal amount of teacher attention. and the English language itself suggests females to be at least potentially rfwadvantaged. Gender in the EFL classroom 89 Downloaded from eltj. presentation of written work. is this partly because of neurological differences (and thus a matter of sex rather than gender)? Reference must also be made to possible more general cognitive gender differences: do males and females learn differently? and to what extent is foreign language learning a special form of learning? This in turn raises the questions of the relationship between first and subsequent language learning. It is intended to increase opportunities for classroom communication in general.

'Male-female intonation patterns in American English'. for example. Writing Games. 1990. N. but express horror and amazement at the discovery of 'singular they' which goes against all they have learned about number concord. 'Large Classes' is also of concern to teachers rafter than learners—and no-one would claim it is not an important issue. whereas the reverse is not true. Windsor: NFER. with suggested 'Guidelines for Inclusive Language'. found female native and non-native speaker teachers of English more willing to use chairperson than males from the same group (Sunderland. (b) (an expectation that) male students are unwilling to read about female characters. B. (c) male textbook writers are unaware of the phenomenon and are simply accepting a 'genre norm' (Gupta and Yin. 1985.oxfordjournals. B. ten in the way they treated their male and female students. 1975. but teachers' gender may also affect their choice of individual linguistic items. 1986)— there may be variation in teachers' choice of other 'gendered' and 'non-gendered' items. to the Publishers' Association ELT Committee. C. 1981. It has been suggested (Ruth Brend. 6 Significantly. and Henley. Cameron. In Thome. and A. 1974. 50: 5-20. 3 Possible reasons for this gender inbalance are: (a) the concept of 'male as norm' in conjunction with the fact that most textbook writers are male.' International Journal of Social Language. F. Received February 1991 Downloaded from eltj. must have.Any claims involving innate sex differences would have to be assessed against the different environmental influences on gender: attitudes. Brend. 'The avoidance of androcentric generics. Stemming as these differences are likely to do from configurations of factors. Primary French in the Balance. ETHEL. ELT Department. My own questionnaire study suggests the preferences of native speakers of English to be the other way round (Sunderland. Cambridge University Press). this would allow for the complexity anything to do with gender. London: Macmillan. References Bate. 2 It is presumably because non-native speakers of English respect their grammars so much that they seem to take happily to his or her. Gupta. C. R. S. 4 This survey has undertaken by 'Women in EFL Materials' (Convenor Annemarie Young. C. Yin. 1986). 2011 Notes 1 Teachers' own models of both gendered and nongendered English may in fact not only vary with their accuracy and fluency. 1978. A.] Cooper. Edelsky. Language and Education All: 29-52. Mass. et al. 9 They may of course have benefited from the larger amount of input thus available to them. D. 1984.' Journal of Communication 28: 139— 149.: Newbury House. societal norms (Loulidi. . 'Non-sexist language use in transition. (eds. [A newsletter for feminist teachers of EFL: no longer in publication. My own study. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson. and J. 7 I am grateful to Jenny Glynn for this observation. The results were presented. 1990: 41). 1990). L. 1990. in or out of foreign language learning. and career opportunities. Hadfield. It would be very valuable to have a study of (say) post-1985 ELT course books to see if the situation of stereotyping and female invisibility has at Aston University on February 7. and it may rather be the existence of possible gender differences in language learning styles and strategies which represents a more productive direction for research. R. 1980. Rowley. but also with their own gender. 1975) that female teachers' intonation may be inappropriate for their male students. Hadfield. Attempts to assess the superiority of one gender over the other in foreign language learning proficiency may not be productive. 'Ethel in genderland' 5. 8 Eleven perceived gender differences in the proficiency of their learners. expectations. 90 Jane Sunderland 5 This must be partly—though not entirely— because these books are so widely used throughout the world. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Burstall. 'Who's got the floor?' Language in Society 10:383^121.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. and only five felt that being male or female had made any difference to their own foreign language learning.

Oxford: OUP. Swift. London: Prentice-Hall. 1986. P. Zografou. and J. 'The grammar book and the invisible woman. 'Explore the way language supports and generates sexist values. 1990. G. Johnson. London: Longman. Skehan. Spender. 1989. Streamline English Directions. London: Longman. A. 1975. V. J. Svartvik. K. 2011 The author Jane Sunderland works in teacher training at the Institute for English Language Education. R. K. Greenbaum. and N. 1989.' TESOL Quarterly 23/4: 589-617. Robat 1984. S. 'Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies'. 1987. Leech.' Perspectives XI/3: 32-42. 1978. at Aston University on February 7. 1990. 'Is language learning really a female business?' Language Learning Journal 1: 40-43. Practical English Usage. London: The Women's Press. Downloaded from eltj. J. K. Longman: London. (eds. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. Adelaide: NCRC. D.: Newbury House. P. J.. 1984. Sunderland. C. and M. L. 1986. A Practical English Grammar. She is also working for a PhD on the topic of "The Social Construction of Gender in the Foreign Language Classroom and Implications for Foreign Language Acquisition'. Cambridge: CUP. Wenden. Winter: 150155. Oxford: OUP. A Comprehensive Grammar ofthe English Language.' Unpublished essay. 1982. 1985. 1974. 'Sexism in current ESL textbooks. Oxford: OUP. Greenbaum. Learning Styles in Adult migrant Education. London: Edward Arnold. Ehrman. and A. Martinet 1980 (3rd edition) and 1986 (4th edition). 1975. Nyikos. '"Women are alcoholics and drug addicts'. London: Prentice Hall. 1990. Quirk. Using English Grammar: Meaning and Form.' MA dissertation (unpublished). 1977. S. Loulidi. 1989. N." EH Journal 43/3: 192— 195. London: Edward Arnold. 1983. Woods. A. J. R. M.' CLE Working Papers 1: 91-107. Oxford: Blackwell. 1988. Willing. N. K. 1973. E. 1989. O'Neill.oxfordjournals. Miller. S. Porecca. Stanworth.' In Thome. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. and Henley . S. Invisible Women. 1989. 1981. M. Harlow: Longman. Functions of English. Swan. Gender in the EFL classroom 91 . 1971 [1746]. Stephens. Lancaster University. J. Communicate in Writing. Scott. concepts and models in the ELT textbook Turning Point. P.' Proceedings of the ATESOL 6th Summer School. The Handbook ofNonsexist Writing. Quirk. says dictionary. R. Viney. J. G. Thomson. 1990. S. McLeod. London: The Women's Press. London: Hutchinson. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. 1989. Rowley. Kramer. 'Stirring up the dust: the importance of sex as a variable in the ESLclassroom. interested knowledge. Sydney. R. et al. B. and N. Pennycook.' TESOL Quarterly 18/4: 705-724. 'Women's speech: separate but unequal?' In Thorne. "The world of John and Mary Smith: a study of Quirk and Greenbaum's University Grammar of English. A New English Grammar. M. 1985. 1/4: 4-39. M. (eds. Gender and Schooling. Rubin. B. Oxford. Mass. Rowley. Kaye. Van Ek.Holmes. 1980. "The concept of method. 1988. Purnell. 'Politically speaking. A. Jones. do women exist?' Journal of Communication. R. and K.. Lancaster University. and S. Talansky. "The semantic derogation of women.: Newbury House. A University Grammar of English. and R. Viewpoints.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Lancaster University. and Henley.) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. 'Sex role stereotyping in TEFL teaching materials. Foreign Language Annals 21/4: 321-329. A. Mass. Kirkby. Leech. and the politics of language teaching. The Student's Grammar of English. and R. Schulz. Menston: The Scholar Press.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful