Directive forms Expressed by Male and Female Respondents in Different Situational Contexts




directive forms, gender expression, situational contexts


This research intended to explore the relationship between language and gender by answering two research questions. First, it was how male and female respondents expressed directive forms. Second, it was what the social factors that influenced the choice of directive forms were. The two issues were considered urgent because gender was a variable that determined how people used language, including directive forms. Data were collected by distributing offline open-ended questionnaires to 18 students from the 2015-2017 batch of the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. The results show that to some extent females and males express directive forms differently. Men tend to be direct in expressing directive messages, while women use interrogative and declarative forms in delivering the messages since these forms are considered as more polite and less direct. Women tend to save their faces by using more indirect or polite forms because they avoid being considered impolite. Then, social class, the relationship between participants, and formality also
influence the use of directive forms.



Plum Analytics

Author Biographies

Euodia Inge Gavenila, Sanata Dharma University

English Language Education Study Program

Yohanes Arsa, Sanata Dharma University

English Language Education Study Program

Truly Almendo Pasaribu, Sanata Dharma University

English Language Education Study Program


Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In G. Andersen & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

D’Angelo, L. (2008). Gender identity and authority in academic book reviews: An analysis of metadiscourse across disciplines. Linguistica e Filologia, 27, 205−221.

Hedenmalm, L. (2012). Language and gender in Disney: A study of male and female language in Walt Disney movies (Unpublished bachelor thesis). Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology.

Hill, E. (2009). Do mothers and fathers differ in their speech styles when speaking to their children? Are there speaker gender effects on parents’ language behaviour? Innervate: Leading Undergraduate Work in English Studies, 2, 163−182.

Holmes , J., & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.

Matei, M. (2011). The influence of age and gender on the selection of discourse markers in casual conversations. Philology and Cultural Studies, 4(53), 213−220.

Mustapha, A. S. (2013). Gender and language education research: A review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 454−464.

Nemati, A., & Bayer, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in the use of linguistic forms in the speech of men and women: A comparative study of Persian and English. Language in India, 7(9), 1−16.

Pasaribu, T. A. (2017). Gender differences and the use of metadiscourse markers in writing essays. International Journal of Humanity Studies (IJHS), 1(1), 93-102.


Pasaribu, T. A., & Kadarisman, A. E. (2016). Coding logical mechanism and stereotyping in gender cyber humors. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 16(1), 22−48.

Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., & Vahedi, V. S. (2017). Projecting gender identity through metadiscourse marking: Investigating writers’stance taking in written discourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,

(2), 301−310.

Shahidzade, F. (2016). Gender-related usage of direct and indirect directives in children’s elementary English storybooks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(4), 79−87.

Subon, F. (2013). Gender differences in the use of linguistic forms in the speech of men and women in the Malaysian context. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(3), 67−79.

Waskita, D. (2008). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL academic writing at the University of Melbourne. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 7(14), 448−463.

Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684−689.






Abstract 1024  .
PDF downloaded 518  .