Niken Larasati Wening



  1. A.   What is discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics but does not belong exclusively to it; it is a multi-disciplinary field, and hugely diverse in the range of its interests. For many the interest in discourse is beyond language in use ( Jaworski & Coupland, 1999, p. 3) to “language use relative to social, political and cultural formations . . . , language reflecting social order but also language shaping social order, and shaping individuals’ interaction with society.”

‘Discourse’ is the general idea that language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life, familiar examples being ‘medical discourse’ and ‘political discourse’. ‘Discourse analysis’ is the analysis of these patterns.

Let us give a few examples of possible applications of discourse analysis. For instance, it can be used as a framework for analysis of national identity. How can we understand national identities and what consequences do the division of the world into nation states have? Many different forms of text and talk could be selected for analysis. The focus could be, for instance, the discursive construction of national identity in textbooks about British history.


BDefining Discourse

Discourse analysis is defined as the study of language viewed communicatively and/or of communication viewed linguistically.  Here instead is a set of definitions in the style of a dictionary entry for “discourse”:

1 the linguistic, cognitive and social processes whereby meanings are expressed and intentions interpreted in human interaction (linguist 3);

2 the historically and culturally embedded sets of conventions which constitute and regulate such processes (linguist 4);

3 a particular event in which such processes are instantiated (linguist 2);

4 the product of such an event, especially in the form of visible text, whether originally spoken and subsequently transcribed or originally written


  1. C.   Ways and Means

Each of our linguists will draw, in their own particular fashion and to different degrees, on the theories and techniques of a number of source disciplines for the study of language in use – especially linguistics, psychology, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, sociology, and anthropology. They will tend to favor one or more of a variety of approaches to conducting their research that have developed from these various sources. They are summarized in Table 5.1 and then briefly discussed under four main headings: rules and principles, contexts and cultures, functions and structures, and power and politics.

ü  Rules and principles of language in use

Under this heading are grouped approaches which seek to understand the means by which language users – presumably universally, though this is always open to empirical contradiction – make sense, in the light of various contextual factors, of others’ utterances and contrive to have their own understood more

ü  Contexts and cultures of language in use

Here are grouped approaches which focus on the sensitivity of ways of speaking (and writing) to situational and cultural differences. Ethnography of communication (Gumperz & Hymes, 1986; Duranti, 1997, Saville-Troike, 2003):

ü  Functions and structures of language in use

Grouped here are text-friendly models of language and grammar-friendly approaches to text. Systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Martin, 1992)

ü  Power and politics

“Critical” approaches to discourse analysis do not hold a monopoly on interest in the power and politics of discourse. Pragmatic and sociolinguistic approaches necessarily share this concern.


  1. D.   Interaction

It is with the concept of interaction that discourse (for the analyst) comes to life. Entrances are made, intentions are formed, topics are introduced, turns are taken, actions are performed, reactions are prompted and in turn reacted to; understandings are checked, contributions are acknowledged, breakdowns occur, repairs are contrived; exits are negotiated. People are at work, doing things with meanings (producing them, interpreting them, negotiating them), co-creating an event whose trajectory may be clear to none of them until it is complete, and perhaps not even then.

This is discourse seen not as product (a text on a page) but as process, joint action in the making (Clark, 1996), and in consequence most difficult to capture and analyze without losing sight of its essence.

The concept of discourse as interaction is present in all current ways and means of doing discourse analysis. In pragmatics, meaning is seen as “a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social, and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an utterance” (Thomas, 1995, p. 22). The interactional workings of intention and effect are central to speech act theory; Grice’s maxims “are essentially ground rules for the interactive management of intentions” (Widdowson, 1998, p. 13); and the mutual establishment and maintenance of rapport (the avoidance of threats to face) underpins theories of politeness and tact.


  1. E.      Discourse and first language education

It is, of course, not just second language learners for whom communicative competence is a goal of education. Education generally must acculturate children to new registers and genres, both spoken and written, developing their grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competences along the way (Verhoeven, 1997).

Children bring to their school experience of a variety of standard and non-standard dialects and communicative codes which tend to be valued differently within the commodified “exchange system” of classroom speech (Wortham, 1998). The school, in turn, brings to the children’s learning experience an organized process of classroom talk which may promote personal involvement, co-ordinated interaction, and shared meaning (Cazden, 1988 cited in Verhoeven, 1997) or induce the transmission of standardized knowledge through a standardized structure (Wortham, 1998, p. 256). It is often claimed that the standardized structure that does most to induce standardized transmission is the IRF pattern referred to above, but a recent article by Nassaji and Wells (2000) suggests a more complex reality. The work of Halliday, Martin, Hyon and others in the Sydney School ( Johns, 2002; Macken-Horarik, 2002) addresses the issue of genre competence directly, drawing on SFL theory to produce text-based descriptions of school and institutional genres and registers. “Using these insights, practitioners have developed pedagogical frameworks in which genres and registers are related to the goals, values and ‘staged’ processes of a culture . . . As students become comfortable with particular text types, they are given an increasing amount of independence and encouraged to negotiate text structure and content” ( Johns, 2002, p. 5).


  1. F.      Discourse and second language education

Since the beginnings of communicative language teaching (CLT) and especially the teaching of English for specific (academic and professional) purposes, second language teaching and learning has come to be understood increasingly in terms of discourse, so that “today it is rare to find people involved in language teaching who are unaware of the significance of discourse for teaching reading, writing, intonation or spoken language, and for the evaluation of students’ communicative competence” (Pennycook,


Hymes’ concept of communicative competence has been appropriated for language teaching purposes in a series of evolutionary reformulations (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983; Bachman, 1990) so as to include grammatical, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competences, all of which are in effect discourse competences, since they account for the ability of members of speech communities to put language to use. Defining the goals of language teaching in terms of communicative competence leads naturally to “an integrative view wherein the over-arching perspective of language as discourse will affect every part of the syllabus, including any conventional system components and functional/speech act components, however they are treated, whether as a series of layers of language, or as realizations within general specifications of discourse strategies” (McCarthy & Carter, 1994).

Within such a perspective, learner needs, syllabus aims and content, and task goals and procedures will all be specified primarily in discourse terms. Materials (text or audio/video) are selected and presented to meet criteria of communicative authenticity. Tests are constructed to recreate as closely as possible the conditions under which language will be used in real communication in the defined target situation.





  1. What is the definition of discourse analysis?

Answer: Discourse analysis is defined as the study of language viewed communicatively and/or of communication viewed linguistically

  1. What are the approaches that proposed by the linguist?

Answer: There are rules and principles, contexts and cultures, functions and structures, and power and politics.



Niken Larasati Wening



Feminism has inspired gender and language study since the late 1960s ,but there have been different feminisms, with different natures and objectives, not only historically, over time, but also at the same point in time, and this continues to be so (see, for example, Tong 1992). Different feminisms have had different impacts on gender and language study. For example, Dale Spender’s (1980) approach (see Unit A2 and Unit B2.2) can be seen as a radical feminist one, embracing the notion of patriarchy as primary in women’s ‘struggle’ – rather than, say, class, which has been of prime importance to socialist feminists. However, as Cameron (1997b) points out, what different feminisms have in common is not just an interest in women and men, girls and boys, and gender relations, but also a critical interest. This extends to social arrangements and power relations, although notions of power (who has it, can have it and how it is exerted) similarly vary with different forms of feminism (see below). Different phases of feminism can be seen as the driving force behind the retrospectively named ‘(male) dominance’ and ‘(cultural) difference’ approaches to the study of gender and talk (see Units A2 and A3). To bring together her quotes from these two units, Cameron notes that, ‘Both dominance and difference represented particular moments in feminism: dominance was the moment of feminist outrage, of bearing witness to oppression in all aspects of women’s lives,while difference was the moment of feminist celebration, reclaiming and revaluing women’s distinctive cultural traditions’ (1995b: 39).

“Like language, gender as a social category has come to be seen as highly fluid, or less well defined than it once appeared. In line with gender theory more generally, researchers interested in language and gender have focused increasingly on plurality and diversity amongst female and male language users, and on gender as performative–something that is ‘done’ in context, rather than a fixed attribute. The whole notion of gender, and identity in general, is challenged when this is seen, rather like language itself, as fluid, contingent and context-dependent. This is mainly an alternative theoretical conception of gender, though there are also suggestions that identities are loosening, so that in many contexts people now have a wider range of identity options.”
(Joan Swann, “Yes, But Is it Gender?” Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis, ed. by Lia Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland. John Benjamins, 2002)

Although the rate may vary, language is in a continual state of change: phonetic,syntactic, lexical, discoursal. ‘Change’ extends to such phenomena as the recent ‘feminisation’ of public discourse (Cameron 2000, 2003) in Western societies, and language shift in bilingual speech communities, which may sometimes be gendered (for example, Gal 1978, see also Unit A1). Although change usually refers to the way language is used, it extends to folk-linguistic views of and prescriptions about how it should be used. Change can be seen as ‘diachronic variation’, that is, variation over time. Diachronic variation is related to synchronic variation – variation at a given point in time, the notion which underpins most sociolinguistic work. Prior to the 1970s, synchronic variation included ‘Language and sex’ – a linkage comparable to, say, ‘Language and social class’ and ‘Language and ethnic group’. (These are chapter headings in Peter Trudgill’s Sociolinguistics [1974, 1983, 1995].) Lesley Milroy (1980) similarly treated gender as an independent synchronic variable in her Belfast study (see Unit B1.2).However,whereas Trudgill focused on synchronic differences in language use between women and men, relating these to class, Milroy, having demonstrated synchronic differences within women, used these to show the importance of speakers’ social networks (see below) as regards their work and outside-work lives. As regards the question of which synchronic variant(s) will ‘succeed’ and thus contribute to diachronic variation, there has been a long-running debate on gender and language change (Trudgill 1972a, 1972b, Labov 1990). A question often asked is whether innovation is the province mainly of women or men. Labov, who has written on this at greatest length, concludes that women are leaders of most changes but in different ways (see also Cameron 2003).Whether or not innovation is valued, however, will vary with time, place and community – as well as, perhaps, with who does the innovating.

Task A8.1.1: Reflection task

➤ With what academic disciplines, in addition to linguistics, do you associate gender and language study?

➤ Is gender and language study characterised by particular sorts of data and data collection?

➤ What do you see as the role of feminism in gender and language study? ‘Gender and Language’ is not an approach.Rather, it can best be described as a topic, or, more broadly, ‘field’ of study.Within Linguistics, gender and language study haslinks not only with sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and language change, as we have seen, but also with stylistics, pragmatics, literacy, the history of language and even historical and descriptive linguistics (for example, Corbett 2004). As a field, Gender and Language is highly diverse, as recent work illustrates. The programme of the IGALA3 (International Gender and Language Association)

Conference of 2004 included presentations on:

■ discursive creation of gendered bodies in Internet chats;

■ institutionalising norms and roles of gender and sexuality in a call-in radio programme;

■ positioning a mature and normative heterosexual self in ‘attraction talk’ in tenyear- old boys;

■ ‘half-Japanese’ adolescent girls’ display of multi-ethnic and feminine cultural capital;

■ language, gender and world view: oral narrative in a Berber village;

■ are psychotherapy texts gendered?

■ the portrayal of women in selected Polish print advertisements.

Language and Gender Theories
4.1 Deficit and Dominance Theories
These works led to the ‘dominance approach’ that provides a traditional, negative evaluation of women’s speech, which the authors contend is a direct consequence of women’s political and cultural subordination to men. Thus, women’s linguistic inadequacies are attributed to societal inequalities between men and women, where men’s conversational dominance appears to reflect the wider political and cultural domination of men over women (Freeman & McElhinny, 1996). Lakoff (1975) argues that women’s manner of speaking, which is different to men, reflects their subordinate status in society. Thus, women’s language is marked by powerlessness and tentativeness, expressed through the use of mitigators and inessential qualifiers, which effectively disqualifies women from positions of power and authority.
In particular, Lakoff (1975) argues that women’s language style is deficient, lacking in authority and assertiveness. Lakoff (1975:43) also makes the interesting observation that women face a ‘double bind’ where they are criticized or scolded for not speaking like a lady but, at the same time, speaking like a lady systematically denies the female speaker access to power on the grounds that she is not capable of holding the ground based on her linguistic behaviour (Ibid.).
Freeman & McElhinny ( 1996) divide Lakoff’s ( 1975) ideas on women’s language into three categorizes , the first which refers to the lack of resources that would enable women to express themselves strongly ; secondly, language that encourages women to talk about trivial subjects and finally, language that requires women to speak tentatively. The authors also provide a comprehensive list of Lakoff’s (1975) claims as provided below:
• Use of expletives while women use weaker ones
• Women’s speech is more polite than men’s
• Trivial, unimportant topics are considered to be women’s domain
• Women use empty adjectives
• Women use tag questions more often than men
• Women express uncertainty through the use of the question intonation
• Women tend to speak in ‘ italics’ ( women use more intensifiers )
• Hedges are used more often by woman
• Hyper – correct grammar is a feature of women’s speech
• Women don’t tell jokes
(Freeman & McElhinny, 1996 : 232)
The above features have been critically studied empirically by other researchers to determine the accuracy of Lakoff’s (1975) claims. This resulted in many of the claims being rebutted. Zimmermann & West (1975) who focused on male dominance in interaction added the feature of interruptions and silence to the list above. They argued that interruptions are used to silence others and that men tend to interrupt women more than women interrupt men (Ibid.). The study of interruptions also proved to be more complex than originally thought of by West & Zimmermann who argued that interruptions are “a device for exercising power and control in conversation”(1983:103) but as Tannen points out “to claim that a speaker interrupts another is an interpretive, not a descriptive act”(1989:268).
Women’s way of speech is often connected with tentativeness and the reason for this might be their way of using hedges. These hedges are linguistic forms such as for instance I think, you know, I’m sure, sort of, perhaps. Lakoff appears to be rather convinced that women’s speech contains more hedges than men’s speech. She explains that it is because ‘women are socialized to believe that asserting themselves strongly is not nice or ladylike, or even feminine’ (Lakoff, 1975:54). Another researcher named Bent Preisler (1986) also claims that women use more hedges in their language. Coates gives a possible reason for men’s lower usage of hedges and that is their choice of topics. She explains that men prefer to talk about impersonal subjects (Coates, 1993:116-118). Yet, another researcher named Janet Holmes has made a study concerning hedges. Her analysis proves that hedges are multi-functional. Hedges reflect the speaker’s certainty as well as uncertainty in a conversation.Tag questions, such as I did- didn’t I ?, He was- wasn’t he? etc. are also one of the linguistic forms that are connected with tentativeness according to Lakoff who claims that females use more tag questions than males.
As indicated earlier, the dominance approach to the study of gender is not without its limitations. The inherent problem with the difference approach is that the theory is almost based on men’s dominant position in society, with women being portrayed as “ weak, helpless victims of a patriarchy that forces them to act in weak, passive, irrational or ineffective ways” (Freeman & McElhinny, 1996: 236). In fact, dominance is seen to be in the same category as ‘weakness’ , ‘passivity’ and ‘deficiency’ (Uchida, 1998:286), effectively portraying women as disempowered members of society. This can be seen as a distortion of reality, “depreciating the amount of power women have succeeded in winning and minimizes the chances of further resistance” (Jaggar, 1983:115


Niken Larasati Wening
Summary of “GENDER”
Since long time a go, folk evidence shows that women and men are different. They are different not only in their act but also in their speech. Moreover, this phenomenon lives on the text media. Language and Gender (also known as ‘Gender and Language’ or ‘Feminist Linguistics’) is a relatively new field within sociolinguistics, usually said to be marked by the publication of Lakoff’s Language and Woman’s Place in 1975.
The field has since aroused huge interest among applied linguists both on ethnographic and ideological grounds. Ethnographically, linguists were keen to gather authentic data to explore and explain folk-linguistic beliefs that males and females speak and act differently (e.g. Fishman 1978; Spender 1980). Ideologically, language and gender scholars aimed to show that language – both in use and as a form of representation – was a primary means of constructing gender differences, and at times hierarchies and inequalities between men and women. Consequently, two aspects emerged in language and gender research; first, how women and men talked (and by extension, wrote), and second, how women/men/boys and girls were represented in language – as a code, as discourse, and in actual texts. ‘Gender’ has now stabilized as a term to distinguish people in terms of their socio-cultural behavior, and to signify masculine and feminine behaviors as scales or continua rather than as a dichotomy (Holmes 2001).
History of area
Here, the writer will reveal the studies and theory for this issue. There are numerous theory deals with the issue.
Variationist studies
Landmark studies in this field (e.g. Labov 1966; Trudgill 1974) found that men and women did use different forms, particularly phonologically, and drew the conclusion that within every social class, women use more standard forms than men. So, for example, Trudgill (1974) found that many more women than men in Norwich used the standard (iη) rather than the vernacular (in) form at the end of words like speaking and writing. Indeed, he proposed that women prefer standard forms because they are more status-conscious, while men prefer the vernacular because it has connotations of masculine solidarity such as ‘toughness’. However, Milroy (1980) found in her Belfast study that the concept of social networks influenced people’s speech in that context more than sex/gender, and indeed that the differences between women were often more significant than their similarities.
According to many scholars, it is stated that women talks using highly language level than men.
Interactional studies
The field of language and gender is most strongly associated today with a range of ‘interactional’ studies, which focus on the distinctively gendered ways in which people interact in various social and professional contexts. This studies talks about the interaction of the women and men.
Deficit theory
Lakoff’s (1975) ‘deficit’ theory posited that from an early age, girls are taught how to use a separate ‘woman’s language’: they are socialised to use language in a ‘ladylike’ way. She suggested that women’s subordinate status in American society in the 1970s was reflected and constructed through a basically deficient version of men’s language. This language was more tentative, hesitant, indirect, and therefore a more powerless version of men’s.
Dominance theory
Lakoff’s (1975) thesis that women constructed their own subordination through their language use was a forerunner of ‘dominance’ theory. This had two distinct, parallel branches: language as social interaction, which considered how gender inequalities were constructed through routine interactions between men and women, and language as a system focusing on ‘sexism’ within the language.
In terms of language as social interaction, dominance theorists viewed ordinary conversation as highly instrumental in constructing unequal gender relations. In order to reveal the word-by word reproduction of patriarchy, early feminist linguists conducted numerous small-scale, interactional studies of largely informal conversations which examined the nature and frequency of talk, silences, questions, interruptions and ‘back-channeling’ (e.g. the woman’s use of responses while the man is talking).
In terms of language as a system, Spender (1980) argued that language has evolved over the centuries to serve male needs, to represent male interests, and to express male experiences: in short, it is ‘man-made’. Spender was concerned with the way that grammars and dictionaries prescribed the use of masculine terms such as him, man and mankind as false generics to denote males and females, thus reinforcing an andro-centric (male-centred) view of the world.
Cultural difference theory
Early work on women’s language had labelled it ‘tentative’ or ‘powerless’. More recently and in reaction to this, there has been a move to value women’s talk more positively, using terms such as ‘co-operative’. (Coates 1988: 95) Coates considered that while dominance theory helped to reveal the apparent tendencies of males and females for different linguistic styles of interaction, it took an unfairly negative view of women’s talk. Applying the theories of Gumperz (1982) to gender, Maltz and Borker (1982) argued that women and men constitute different ‘sub-cultures’ learnt through friendly interactions as children in single-sex peer groups. So boys learn how to compete with others for access to ‘the floor’, to use referential, goal-orientated language, and to say things for impact and effect. Girls alternatively learn how to build relationships of equality and trust, to co-operate with others to get things done, and to express feelings and emotions (Maltz and Borker 1982: 207).
Main current issues
Social constructionist theory (e.g. Bergvall et al. 1996; Butler 1990; Crawford 1995; also see Norton, this volume) suggests that males and females are not born, or even simply socialized into a pre-fixed gender identity, but they become gendered through their interactions. According to this view, individuals don’t have gender, they do gender through repeated behavioral and linguistic interactions.
According to the social constructionist perspective, gender can therefore be seen as relational, a process, something that is done, and an important resource for constructing gender roles and identities.
Gender and sexuality
The focus of much recent ‘gender and sexuality’ research has been upon ‘hetero-normativity’, the system that naturalises and rewards a particular kind of heterosexuality – complementary, monogamous and reproductive male/ female partnerships – as the basis for a stable society.
Summing up
This chapter has traced the short but extraordinary history of language and gender from Lakoff’s (1975) basic conception of a unified ‘women’s language’ to today’s elaborate theoretical configurations of a socially constructed gender. The field has been driven by a dual mission both to capture ethnographic evidence to argue that gender makes a difference within many linguistic interactions, and to challenge from a feminist standpoint the gendered inequalities that are routinely enacted through language in many contexts. A powerful issue that currently divides the field is the category of ‘woman’ and by association ‘gender’.


Language Teaching Technology (ICT TASK)



LTT 405-406



1. What does ICT stands for?

Answer: ICT stands for Information and Communication Technology. It means technology that is used to support the process of communication and exchange the information. ICT can be defined as media or technology to store, retrieve, manipulate, transmit or receive digital data or information.

Information and communication technologies are fast and automated, interactive and multimodal, and they support the rapid communication and representation of knowledge to many audiences and its adaptation in different contexts.

2.     Provide an elaborated explanation of ICT components!

Answer: Broadly speaking, ICT includes a broad range of digital technologies mostly of electronic information-processing technologies such as computers and the internet, fixed line telecommunication, mobile phones and other wireless communication, networks, broadband, and various specialized application devices such as barcode scanners.3.     What do hypertext, hypermedia and multimedia mean?

Answer: Hypertext means non sequential reading and writing. A hypertext system allows a user to link information together, thereby creating trails through associated materials. A link connects words or sentences in one electronic document to relate information in another document. This system enables users to explore or open any information available in any document without starting from the first document sequentially. Hypermedia is the same with hypertext. The difference is in hypermedia, it is not only connects the text, but also the audio, pictures, video etc. Multimedia emphasizes on media. It is the benefit from the utilization of ICT.

4.     Explain the use of hypertext in general

Answer: The use of hypertext is to help the users to organize the documents well. It will help them to open the information they want quickly because they do not need to open the document from the first pile. So, they can save their time.

 5.     Elaborate the advantages and problems in using hypertext!

Answer: The advantages of using hypertext are the ease of tracing references, ease of creating new references, information structuring, and many more. Besides, the problem encountered when working with hypertext system is helping the user visualize how the information is linked together. How to show the links between documents, and what sort of information is linked to the document.

6.     Elaborate the use of hypertext in language teaching and learning!

Answer: The hypertext can be utilized for educational purposes, such as for creating a personal learning tutorial which is commonly known as the Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). Since hypertext is a non-sequential system, is allows users or students to read any topic without open the first topic. Moreover, they also can extend their search through media. It will help them to get clearer explanations, descriptions as well as illustration.



1.     How often do you use ICT in general context?

Answer: I often use it because nowadays, everything becomes faster. We are supposed to do something quickly. Many people choose the effective tools in order to save time. Once they start their activity, they will use ICT. ICT tools that are used in daily life such as cellphone, radio, television, computer. It will help people to get information quickly. Recently, the spread of information is the demand of the people in busy life in order not to be left behind to the other.

Actually there are two main reasons why we use ICT. Firstly, consider the potential of ICT to change the nature of work and leisure over the next twenty years. Today’s children need to develop the skills which will enable them (and society as a whole) to benefit from new opportunities offered by ICT. Secondly, there is a growing body of academic research, which demonstrates how ICT enhances the quality of teaching and learning in schools, and thus contributes to the raising of standards of achievement in education.


2.     Elaborate your experience in using ICT in general context!

Answer: I use the ICT to help me in doing my task, getting information, spread information, doing communication etc. As we know that ICT can be defined as media to store, retrieve, manipulate, transmit or receive digital data or information.

Other benefits that I get by using ICT are:

● I can communicate easily through email, discussion groups and chat rooms

● I can access the internet anytime, anywhere

● By using ICT, it will encourage me to be more independent and active learning, and self-responsibility for learning

3.     Are you familiar with hypertext, hypermedia and multimedia? (If yes) elaborate your experience of using hypertext, hypermedia and multimedia in your teaching practice!

Answer: Yes, I am. I use hypertext and hypermedia in my teaching practice. I often give them a task. They can browse the source of the task from Google. It can help them finding the source of the task easily. Through the hypermedia, they also can browse the video that is appropriate with the lesson. It will help them to get the vivid description about the lesson.

I can search e-book as well. E-book is more practical than the ordinary book. I get a lot of information just by typing the name of the book without paying much money.



Topics in Applied Linguistics TASK 1

Niken Larasati Wening
Monday, 07.00 AM
Topics in Applied Linguistic
1. Define the applied linguistic
2. Explain the scope of applied linguistic
Widdowson and Cook believed that “the task of applied linguistics is to mediate between linguistics and language use”. Another definition of applied linguistics by Guy Cook is “the academic discipline concerned with the relation of knowledge about language to decision making in that real world”. However, the scope of applied linguistics is still not clear. He tried to create boarder lines to the areas of concern in applied linguistics as consisting of language and education, language, work and law and language, information and effect. The most important thing is that applied linguistics must be protected from the claim that says that language is everywhere, and then applied linguistics is the science of everything.
• “The theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central issue” (Brumfit, 1997, p. 93);
• “‘Applied Linguistics’ is using what we know about (a) language, (b) how it is learned, and (c) how it is used, in order to achieve some purpose or solve some problem in the real world” (Schmitt & Celce-Murcia, 2002, p. 1).
• “Traditionally, the primary concerns of Applied Linguistics have been second language acquisition theory, second language pedagogy and the interface between the two, and it is these areas which this volume will cover” (Schmitt, 2002, p. 2).
• “the focus of applied linguistics is on trying to resolve language-based problems that people encounter in the real world, whether they be learners, teachers, supervisors, academics, lawyers, service providers, those who need social services, test takers, policy developers, dictionary makers, translators, or a whole range of business clients” (Grabe, 2002, p. 9).
• Kaplan suggests that applied linguists “are likely to move toward the analysis of new data, rather than continue to argue new theory” (Kaplan, 2002, p. 514).
• “the term ‘applied linguistics’ raises fundamental difficulties, if for no other reason than that it is difficult to decide on what counts as ‘linguistics’. Given these difficulties within linguistics proper, it is perhaps unfair to expect clean solutions and clear delimitations for defining applied linguistics’ ” (Kaplan & Grabe, 2000, pp. 5–6).
Restriction of the Scope:
During the 1960s and 1970, it was taken for granted that applied linguistics was about language teaching. This was important because there was a need for language teaching especially English after the Second World War. This showed that a number of teachers, trainers and supervisors lacked language knowledge. It is accepted that applied linguistics is trying to solve language problems that people encounter in the real world. Then, the scope of applied linguistics should not be restricted to language teaching only. In fact, the scope should be broadening to cover language acquisition either the mother tongue or a target language, psych/neuro linguistics, sociolinguistics and so on.
Widdowson presents the question in terms of linguistics applied and applied linguistics:
The differences between these modes of intervention is that in the case of linguistics applied the assumption is that the problem can be reformulated by the direct and unilateral application of concepts and terms deriving from linguistic enquiry itself. That is to say, language problems are amenable to linguistics solutions. In the case of applied linguistics, intervention is crucially a matter of mediation applied linguistics has to relate and reconcile different representations of reality, including that of linguistics without excluding others.
(Widdowson, 2000, p. 5)
– References:
1.”History and Definition” of Applied Linguistics, (ch.1) by Alan Davies (2007), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, Edinburg University Press.
2.”Applied Linguistics: A Twenty – First – Century Discipline” (ch.2) by William Grabe cited in The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, edited by Robert B. Kaplan, (2010) 2nd edition, Oxford University Press.
By Mohammed I. Al-Herz
SOURCE: http://www.PreserveArticles.com

CHAPTER 9 (Instruction and L2 Acquisition)

Niken Larasati Wening



CHAPTER 9 (Instruction and L2 Acquisition)



  1. 1.      There are three branches in this chapter. What are they?

First, concerns whether teaching learners grammar has any effect on their inter language development. Second, draws on the research into individual learner differences. Third, looks at strategy training

  1. 2.      How many groups that Teresa Pica compared in her research? What are they?

There are three groups of L2 learners __an untutored group, a tutored group and a mixed group

  1. 3.      Does the instruction give impact for those groups?

Yes, it does. The tutored group was more accurate on plural –s than the untutored group but less accurate on progressive verb –ing. The mixed group was intermediate in both cases.

  1. 4.      What is the meaning of teach ability hypothesis?

This hypothesis predicts that instruction can only promote language acquisition if the inter language is close to the point when the structure to be taught is acquired in the natural setting

  1. 5.      How many illustrations that consider a number of options in form focused instruction? What are they?

First, concerns the distinction between input based and production based practice. Second, concerns about consciousness raising


Individual differences in L2 acquisition (chapter 8)

Name : Niken Larasati Wening
SRN : 2201410009
Subject : Second Language Acquisition
Class : Monday, 7 a.m.

Questions and Answers Chapter 8

1. Mention and explain four abilities of language learning!
a. Phonetic coding ability
It is the capability to make out separate sounds, connect a symbol with that sound and keep that association also.
b. Grammatical sensitivity
It is an ability to know the grammatical function of a word, phrase, etc in a sentence without clear training in grammar.
c. Rote learning ability
It is the capacity to learn relationship between words in a foreign language and their meanings and keep that relationship in the sentence.
d. Inductive learning ability
It is the ability to deduce or induce rules governing the structure of any language.

2. Give examples of metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategies!
Metacognitive strategies:
advance organizers
directed attention
selective attention

*Cognitive strategies:
directed physical response
auditory representation
key words

*social/affective strategies:
question for clarification

3. What is the difference between integrative and instrumental motivation?
Integrative orientation involves an interest in learning an L2 because of ‘a sincere and personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other language group.
Instrumental orientation concerns the practical value and advantages of learning a new language.
4. What do you know about language aptitude? Give the example!
Language aptitude refers to the potential that a person has for learning languages. This potential is often evaluated using formal aptitude tests, which predict the degree of success the candidate will have with a new language. Aptitude tests vary but many include evaluation of ability to manage sounds, grammatical structures, infer rules, and memory.
The Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) evaluates language aptitude.

5. Please explain the effect of motivation!
– Motivation in L2 learning constitutes one of the most fully researched areas of individual differences. The bulk of the research has focussed rather narrowly on integrative and instrumental motivation, relying almost exclusively on self-report questionnaires and correctional designs. Little work on motivation as intrinsic interest has taken place.
– Strength of motivation serves as a powerful predictor of L2 achievement, but may itself by the result of previous learning experiences. Learners with either integrative or instrumental motivation, or a mixture of both, will manifest greater effort and perseverance in learning. Other internal sources of motivation, such as self-confidence, may be more important than either type of motivation in specific learning activities and as such, may be more easily influenced by teachers than goal-directed motivation.