A Critical Visual Analysis of Gender Representation of ELT Materials from a Multimodal Perspective

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

This content analysis study, employing a multimodal perspective and critical visual analysis, set out to analyze gender representations in Top Notch series, one of the highly used ELT textbooks in Iran. For this purpose, six images were selected from these series and analyzed in terms of ‘representational’, ‘interactive’ and ‘compositional’ modes of meanings. The result indicated that there are no stereotypical predictions of any genders, and that both female and male social actors were represented on an equal footing. The corollary of this critical image analysis was the implications which are of vital importance for material developers as well as those responsible for choosing language teaching in general and ELT materials in particular. 

Keywords


Belknap, P. & Leonard, W. M. (1991). A conceptual replication and extension of Erving Goffman’s study of gender advertisements. Sex Roles, 25, 103-118.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: Penguin Books.

Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2009).Visualizing English: a social semiotic history of a school subject. Visual Communication, 8, 247-262.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, Y. ( 2010). Exploring dialogic engagement with readers in multimodal EFL textbooks in China. Visual Communication, 9 (4), 485-506.

Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dominguez, L. M. (2003).Gender textbook evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 289-318.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Farooq, M. H. (1999). Examing sexism in an EFL textbook. Retrieved from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq6.pdf

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. New York: Tavistock.

Giaschi, P. (2000). Gender Positioning in Education: A Critical Image Analysis of ESL Texts. Journal of TESL CANADA, 18(1), 32-46.

Godeo, E. G. (2009). British men‟s magazines‟ scent advertising and the multimodal discursive construction of masculinity: A preliminary study. EstudiosIngleses de la Universidad Complutense, 17, 9-36.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. London: Macmillan.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48, (4), 315-328

Jewiit, C. & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewiit (Eds.),  Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134-156). London: Sage

 Kang, M. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37(12), 979–996.

Kordjazi, Z. (2012). Images matter: A semiological content analysis of gender positioning in contemporary English-learning software applications. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1),59-80.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.London: Routledge.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching.  New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MartínezLirola, M. (2010). Positive aspect of women of different cultures: An analysis of two multimodal covers. The Poster, 1(1), 77-93.

Manolache, M. (2010). A semiotic analysis of the gender equality paradigm. Case study: The gender pay gap campaign. Styles of Communication, 2, 75-88.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589–618.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ricento, T. (2000). Ideology, politics and language policies: Introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 1-8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3rd ed). London: Pearson Education.

Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. London: Sage.

Saslow, J. M., Ascher, A., & Ruzicka, D. (2006). Summit 2: Teacher's Edition and Lesson Planner (Top Notch S). Longman Publishing Group. Newyork: Pearson-Longman.

Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237-246.

 Tahririan, M. H., & Sadri, E. (2013). Analysis of Images in Iranian High School EFL Course Books Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 16 (2), 137-160

Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Oxford, England: Polity Press.

Unsworth, L. & Wheeler, J. (2002). Re-valuing the role of images in reviewing picture books. Language and Literacy 36 (2), 68-74.

 Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schaffner, & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language and Peace (pp. 17-33). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishin.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: new tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford.

Van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage.