A STUDY ON GENDER AND LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES IN WRITTEN TEXTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33603/rill.v2i2.2028Keywords:
gender difference, language difference, written textsAbstract
This study aims at investigating gender differences in written texts using Halliday’s framework about the functions of language. Halliday claimed that females’ writing style is, what he described as, ‘involved’ while males’ writing style is more ‘informative’. The results of the study do not confirm Halliday’s assumptions about gender differences in writing. No significant differences were found between males and females in the frequencies of the use of nouns, prepositions, numerals and modifiers. The only significant difference that was found is the use of pronouns, which is not enough to account for the assumptions. This paper also aims to investigate the differences between Arabic and English in the average sentence length, lexical density, and readability. To measure readability, the Gunning-Fog index formula was used. The results show that there was no significant difference between Arabic and English in the average sentence length, but there were significant differences in lexical density and readability.References
Bormuth, J. R. (1967). Cloze Readability Procedure. CSEIP Occasional Report (1).
Coleman, Meri; and Liau, T. L. (1975); A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 283–284.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (2006a). A formula for predicting readability. In W. DuBay (Ed.), The Classic Readability Studies (pp. 63-74). Costa Mensa: Impact Information.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (2006b). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. In W. DuBay (Ed.), The Classic Readability Studies (pp. 75-94). Costa Mensa: Impact Information.
Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change. 1(3), 245–268.
Failasofah, F., & Dayij Alkhrisheh, H. T. (2018). Measuring indonesian students’ lexical diversity and lexical sophistication. Indonesian Research Journal in Education, 2(2), 97-107.
Fitzsimmons, P. Michael, B. Hulley, J. Scott, G. (2010). A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 40 (4): 292–6.
Flesch, R. (2006). A new readability yardstick. In W. DuBay (Ed.), The Classic Readability Studies. Costa Mensa: Impact Information.
Gunning, R. (1952). The techniques of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. 1st ed. [Waurn Ponds], Vic: Deakin University.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3).
Ishikawa, Y. (2015). Gender differences in vocabulary use in essay writing by university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 593-600.
Johansson, V. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers in Linguistics.
Kako, E. (2018). The Readability of EFL Texts: Teacher’s and Students’ Perspectives. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/37254404/The_Readability_of_EFL_Texts_Teacher_s_and_Students_Perspectives [Accessed 22 Oct. 2018].
Key, M. R. (1975). Male/female language. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press.
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2), 205-254.
Laufer, B. and Nation P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.
Lukin, A., Moore, A. R., Herke, M., Wegener, R. & Wu, C. (2011). Halliday's model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 187-213.
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N. and Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading — a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
Meara, P.M. and Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect 16 (3), 5-19.
Mladen, A. (2006). Text analyzer - text analysis tool - counts frequencies of words, characters, sentences and syllables. Available at: https://www.online-utility.org/text/analyzer.jsp [Accessed 21 Oct. 2018].
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruddell, M. R. (1994). Vocabulary knowledge and comprehension: a comprehension-process view of complex literacy relationships. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark: International Reading Association.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1, 179–95.
Uchida, A. (1992). When difference is dominance: A critique of the anti power-based cultural approach to gender differences. Language in Society, 21, 547-568.
WebFX. (2018). Free readability score test tool - readable. [online] Webpagefx.com. Available at: https://www.webpagefx.com/tools/read-able/readability-score.html [Accessed 21 Oct. 2018].
Yazdani, P & Samar, R.G. (2010). Involved or informative: a gender perspective on using pronouns and specifiers in efl students’ writing. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguitics, 2(5), 354-378.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Upon receiving the proofs, the Author/Editor agrees to promptly check the proofs carefully, correct any errors, and authorize the publication of the corrected proofs.
