Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
1/44
Heiko Motschenbacher
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58215/ella.36
How heteronormative are English textbooks in Norway? A
critical discourse analysis of the textbook series Link
Abstract
This study seeks to assess the degree of heteronormativity found in the English textbooks that
are currently used in Norwegian schools. For this purpose, gender and sexuality are
highlighted as dimensions of inclusion in foreign language education. It is argued that a non-,
under-, or misrepresentation of marginalized or minoritized social groups forms a
representational linguistic barrier that puts successful language learning at risk. At the
theoretical level, a queer approach is adopted that fosters a critical discussion of
heteronormativity in educational practices. Against the backdrop of the Norwegian
curriculum, a multimodal critical discourse analysis of books in the Norwegian textbook
series Link (catering to years 1 to 7) is carried out that foregrounds the representational
aspects that construct gender and sexuality in heteronormative ways. This is done to raise
awareness among English teachers as well as to give both teachers and textbook creators a
chance to develop more inclusive learning materials. The analysis uncovers that the material
targeting the youngest age groups (years 1 and 2) evinces a heteronormative erasure of non-
heterosexual people and stereotypically binary, polarized gender constructions. The material
created for year 7 is more inclusive in its representation of gender and sexuality but still
shows certain weaknesses in how these social categories are constructed.
Keywords: heteronormativity, gender, sexuality, inclusion, social representation, ELT,
English textbooks, critical discourse analysis
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
2/44
Introduction
Teaching materials are texts that shape the socialization and worldviews of young learners.
When using them in class, instructors teach more than just their respective subjects. What
occurs in a textbook automatically enjoys a higher degree of authority. It is viewed as correct,
preferred, or normal, and often remains unquestioned. What does not occur in textbooks, by
contrast, lacks institutional support and is, therefore, likely to be viewed as unimportant,
inferior, or abnormal, or may even stay unacknowledged altogether. When such absences
involve aspects that matter to learners because they are deeply ingrained in their sense of
identity, it is hard to see how a positive learning atmosphere, in which learners feel valued in
who they are and in what they bring to the classroom, could be created and sustained.
As societies and people’s identification options change, a continued critical monitoring of
representational issues in teaching materials is mandatory. Textbooks may draw on social
representations that are stereotypical, unnuanced, overly traditional, discriminating, and
thereby limiting. They may exhibit harmful discourses or exclude or misrepresent certain
social groups (Fuchs & Bock, 2018; Hickman & Porfilio, 2012). This can lead to a range of
negative effects in learners that put successful learning at risk, such as feeling alienated,
marginalized, and demotivated.
Even though textbooks generally enjoy a status of objective authority, it is evident that they
cannot be neutral in the way that they construct or represent the world. The way that images
and language are used in textbooks provides clues about ideologies, attitudes, perspectives on
a topic and, not least, the underlying educational policies.
2. Gender and sexuality as dimensions of inclusion in ELT
Identity-based approaches to second language acquisition (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton &
McKinney, 2011) have recognized the role of gender and sexuality in foreign language
education for a long time (e.g., Carr & Pauwels, 2006; Elsner & Lohe, 2016; Nelson, 2009;
Paiz & Coda, 2021; Sauntson, 2021), advocating for higher inclusivity levels for marginalized
or minoritized learners. Gender and sexuality representation in teaching materials is key to
raising the inclusivity levels. If certain social groups that matter to individual learners – either
because they identify with them themselves or because their friends or family members do –
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
3/44
remain un-, under-, or mis-represented, this is likely to put successful learning at risk, as
learners may feel that the material used in class ignores them, stereotypes them, or is
irrelevant for them. In other words, such representational aspects may form linguistic barriers
(Motschenbacher, 2016a, 2021a) that can cause learners to lose motivation or interest to
engage with the foreign language. Ideally, all learners should be offered identification points
that enable them to perceive language learning as a meaningful activity and the language
classroom as a safe space with a positive learning atmosphere.
I approach my textbook analysis from a queer linguistic perspective (Motschenbacher, 2010,
2011; Jones, 2021), taking a critical look at heteronormativity as a dominant discourse.
Heteronormativity is a cover term for ideologies that view (certain types of) heterosexuality
as natural, normal, ideal, or preferred in comparison to non-heteronormative alternatives (i.e.,
non-heterosexualities and non-conforming heterosexualities) and that are firmly rooted in a
gender-binary conceptualization of female and male people as opposites that attract each
other. The notion of heterosexuality as a normative yardstick is actually a fairly recent,
originally Western phenomenon. In the fourth edition of the American Illustrated Medical
Dictionary, published in the early 20th century, heterosexuality is still defined in terms of
pathology, as an “abnormal or perverted sexual appetite toward the opposite sex” (Dorland,
1907, p. 333) and, therefore, does not fare better than homosexuality, which is defined as a
“sexual perversion toward those of the same sex” (Dorland, 1907, p. 336) in the same
dictionary. This illustrates that our concept of sexuality and sexual normativity changes
throughout time, and textbooks as educational texts tend to play a major part in these
discursive formation processes.
In a queer theoretically informed approach, identity categories are treated with suspicion
because they often cause essentialist thinking, normativity, and exclusion. In such a view, the
categories “gay” and “lesbian” are equally problematic as the category “straight” and
powerful identity-related binarisms (female – male, gay – straight, hetero – homo, butch –
femme; etc.) are to be questioned. As a consequence, a pedagogy based on queer theoretical
tenets does not just increase the visibility of non-heterosexual people in teaching practices and
learning materials or advocate for LGBT rights. It couples inclusive strategies with a
pedagogy of inquiry that encourages a critical analysis of all gender and sexual categories as
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
4/44
well as the normative discourses associated with them (see Nelson, 1999, 2006). When
analyzing representations of gender and sexuality in textbooks, it is, therefore, not enough to
check whether non-heterosexual people occur. It is equally of interest as to how they are
represented, and whether the material also encourages students to engage in critical analysis
and reflection about gender and sexuality.
Moore (2020, p. 121–122) has developed a taxonomy that distinguishes five degrees of
heteronormativity potentially surfacing in textbooks (see Figure 1), acknowledging that social
representation is more complex than a binary heteronormative vs. non-heteronormative
distinction. The first and least inclusive category, “explicit heterosexism”, refers to practices
of explicitly valuing heterosexuality over other sexualities, which are in turn devalued.
“Heteronormative erasure” describes a representation in which heterosexuality is used as the
framework for all relationships and non-heterosexual people are non-existent. With
“heteronormative marginalization”, non-heterosexual characters are in fact represented, but
this is done in a way that marks them as somehow special, abnormal, or exceptional, which
causes them to be constructed as othered (us vs. them) or problematized. “Heteronormative
mainstreaming” describes materials that include positive images of non-heterosexual people
that mimic heterosexual relationship models (married, faithful, having children, etc.) and are,
therefore, easier to digest for mainstream audiences. The last category, “queer inclusion”,
describes the representational target. It involves an inclusive and nuanced representation of all
types of queer people and comes with a normalizing agenda, showing that they constitute a
valued part of society and also have concerns and interests other than gender and sexuality.
Figure 1: Heteronormativity in textbooks: A taxonomy (Moore, 2020, p. 121)
Type of heteronormativity
Level of heteronormativity
Queer inclusion
less heteronormative
more heteronormative
Heteronormative mainstreaming
Heteronormative marginalisation
Heteronormative erasure
Explicit heterosexism
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
5/44
This taxonomy serves as a reference system for the description of teaching materials, as it
enables analysts to classify specific materials and to identify what needs to be achieved to
reach lower levels of heteronormativity. The latter is a goal from which not only non-
heterosexual students and teachers benefit. As heteronormativity as a discursive formation
includes the propagation of norms about how to be a “good” or “authentic” heterosexual
woman or man, it is evident that all learners and teachers benefit from a critical engagement
with heteronormativity (see also Motschenbacher, 2010, p. 16–17).
Previous work on gender and sexuality representation in foreign language textbooks has
generally found fairly high levels of heteronormativity and gender stereotypicality (see, for
example: Gray, 2013; Motschenbacher, 2021b; Mustapha & Mills, 2015; Paiz, 2015;
Richards, 2022; Ruiz-Cecilia et al., 2021; Sunderland, 2021; Nelson, 2007, for an overview of
earlier work). Recent research on textbooks in Norway also documents a heteronormative bias
across subjects (e.g., Røthing, 2017; Smestad 2018). However, none of these Norwegian
studies has concentrated on English textbooks.
3. A critical look at the Norwegian curriculum
To provide a contextual background for the textbook analysis, this section looks into two
curriculum texts that are most directly relevant to English language teaching in Norway: The
latest version of the subject-specific “Curriculum in English” (valid from August 2020;
Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020, hereinafter referred to as “CIE”) and the more general “Core
Curriculum” (hereinafter referred to as “CC”), which is based on the 2017 national Education
Act and formulates learning goals independently of individual subjects
(Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017). My discussion is based on the official English translations
of these documents. While CC is incorporated in full, I concentrate on the initial part of CIE
(pages 1–10), which discusses the English curriculum for primary and lower secondary
education (years 1–10). I approach these documents with the following questions in mind:
Are gender and sexuality recognized as educational issues in the curricular texts? Which other
aspects mentioned in the curriculum are relevant to gender and sexuality as educational
dimensions of inclusion?
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
6/44
A detailed analysis of the two selected curriculum documents reveals a striking absence of
gender and sexuality as topics. CIE does not mention these aspects at all, and there is only one
reference to them in CC, within the subsection on “Health and Life Skills”: “Relevant areas
within this topic are physical and mental health, lifestyle habits, sexuality and gender, drug
abuse, media use and consumption and personal economy” (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017,
p. 15). CC does not specify how gender and sexuality may play a role in education, which
suggests a default thinking that sees female, gay, and lesbian learners as vulnerable groups in
need of support. Even though such a thinking covers aspects that can potentially surface in
educational practices and teaching materials, there should be an awareness that it misses other
issues that may be equally relevant today. It has been shown, for example, that boys learning
foreign languages have to face linguistic barriers in the shape of normative gender discourses
that dictate that boys are “bad at languages”, while girls are constructed as more successful
language learners (Carr & Pauwels, 2006). Another gender-related issue that is becoming
more important is the representation of trans and non-binary characters in teaching materials
(Knisely, 2021; Knisely & Paiz, 2021).
As shown in a recent study by Monsen & Steien (2022) on teaching practices and materials in
Norwegian adult education, there may be a tendency to reverse traditional discrimination
patterns. When being taught Norwegian culture and language, migrants are often presented
with a picture of Norway as a modern and democratic society where everyone has equal
rights. The actual portrayal of women and men in educational practices, however, espouses a
gender representation that borders that of a matriarchal society, where women are on top of
the social hierarchy and enjoy the greatest privileges, while men have no chance to speak up
for their rights. The authors state that they found
“[…] narratives about families in Norway as matriarchal. After all, the mother in the
Norwegian family spends time studying, reading for pleasure and listening to music, while her
husband is busy working to support his family, when he is not washing the floors and doing
the laundry, or teaching his male friend how to cook soft, tasteless meals for his family”
(Monsen & Steien, 2022, p. 27).
As the authors point out, “statistics show that women do more housework than men and they
also earn less, even in Norway” (Monsen & Steien, 2022, p. 25), which indicates that the
female superiority constructed is a misrepresentation. The marginalization of men in the name
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
7/44
of the Norwegian nation was shown to cause a loss of language learning motivation among
male migrants, who did not feel valued in their gender identity by the host society and felt
humiliated by constructions of Norway as a society that favors women (one of the students set
up the social hierarchy he experienced in Norway as 1. women, 2. children, 3. dogs, 4.
flowers, and 5. men; Monsen & Steien, 2022, p. 30).
In a similar vein, Røthing (2017) highlights the role of both gender and sexuality in
Norwegian identity construction: “In the Norwegian context, acceptance of same-sex relations
has become a symbol of “Norwegianness” in recent years. Gender equality and
homotolerance are today considered core Norwegian values […] and are explicitly presented
as such in Norwegian teaching and textbooks” (Røthing, 2017, p. 143). In other words,
Norway shows a tendency to present itself through homonationalist discourses (Brotherton,
2023; Colpani & Habed, 2014), in which acceptance of non-heterosexualities is stylized as a
nation-building device.
CIE discusses various aspects as learning goals that could be interpreted as being relevant to
gender and sexuality. Most of these are discussed at the beginning of the text, in a section
entitled “Relevance and central values”. For example, the text highlights identity development
as a central value of education, without specifying which kinds of identity are relevant. It also
mentions the learning goal “to develop an intercultural understanding of different ways of
living, ways of thinking and communication patterns” (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020, p. 2).
While ways of living and ways of thinking could in principle be interpreted in relation to
gender and sexual diversity, the combination of these phrases with intercultural
understanding and communication patterns indicates that, here, the focus is rather on cross-
cultural differences and intercultural communication. A similar passage can be found one
paragraph later: “Knowledge of and an exploratory approach to language, communication
patterns, lifestyles, ways of thinking and social conditions open for new perspectives on the
world and ourselves” (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020, p. 2). Again, lifestyles, ways of thinking,
and social conditions could potentially be read as relating to gender and sexuality, and an
exploratory approach would certainly be useful for learners to become familiar with less
traditional gender and sexuality representations. However, the construction the world and
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
8/44
ourselves once more suggests an intercultural focus, as it sets up a national in-group
(ourselves) and an international out-group (the world).
The total absence of explicit references to gender and sexuality from CIE is surprising, given
that the curricular texts for other subjects in Norway do in fact contain such references (see
Røthing, 2017, p. 144; Smestad, 2018, p. 5–6, on the earlier curriculum LK06). This absence
is also unfortunate in light of the fact that English is one of the subjects in which these aspects
are highly salient. When working with textual material in class, students are likely to
encounter gender- and sexuality-related discourses. Most students orient to some form of
gendered and/or sexual identity, and so such textual material offers them potential
identification points. Most characters occurring in this material are gendered, with personal
reference forms constructing them as female or male, adjectives potentially describing them
in a gendered fashion, and the verbal vocabulary attributing potentially gendered types of
activities to them.
The exploration of identities is a central component of English lessons. When engaging with a
foreign language, learners are automatically required to reconstruct their identities in light of
what has been learned. In this process, learners should be allowed to try out identity positions
that matter to them personally in a supportive and positive learning environment. This is
epitomized by role play exercises that enable learners to take on various social roles while
using the foreign language. For many students, it is easier to explore social roles in a foreign
language, especially when the roles in question are marginalized or stigmatized in society at
large.
4. Methodological considerations
To assess the heteronormativity level of current English language teaching in Norway, I
conduct a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of English textbooks that are used in Norwegian
schools. The main goal of this analysis is to raise awareness and to enable teachers and
textbook creators to further lower heteronormativity levels in teaching materials and
educational practices. CDA is a top-down approach to the analysis of textual data that
generally involves an in-depth analysis of selected texts or text passages. Its starting point is
typically some social issue (here, it is heteronormativity), and it seeks to find traces of
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
9/44
harmful discourses or hidden ideologies in textual data (see Machin & Mayr, 2012; van
Leeuwen, 2008).
The analysis conducted here is multimodal in the sense that it incorporates both visual and
verbal aspects contributing to the formation of discourses. I conceptualize “discourses” in a
Foucauldian manner as ways of seeing the world or ideological patterns that are conveyed and
supported by communicative practices, including language use and images. When performing
a CDA, the aim is to identify textual features as traces of certain discourses. In textbooks,
there are two major aspects that play a central role for the discursive construction of
heteronormativity: 1. the way heterosexual and non-heterosexual characters are represented,
and 2. the way gender is represented.
The textbook material to be analyzed is taken from the ELT textbook series Link, which
targets the primary educational level (years 1–7) and has been published after the most recent
national curriculum reform in 2020 (LK20). The series is published by Fagbokforlaget, a
major publisher of teaching materials on the Norwegian market, which ensures that textbooks
are under study that are commonly used in Norwegian classrooms. To reduce the amount of
data, only the main textbooks in the series were inspected (i.e., the teacher guides and
workbooks that are also part of the series were not included). To identify the whole breadth of
representational practices surfacing in these textbooks, it was decided to concentrate on
material created for the youngest (years 1 and 2) and oldest age groups (year 7). An in-depth
qualitative analysis of the representational practices in these materials highlights which
representations are more common in textbooks for young learners and which ones
predominate in textbooks for adolescents. The three textbooks were read in their entirety
(Link 1 contains 72 pages, Link 2 83 pages, and Link 7 223 pages). In a second step, passages
that were found to be particularly relevant in terms of gender and sexuality construction were
selected for closer inspection.
The multimodal CDA of the textbooks targets the following research questions: To what
extent is sexuality represented in this teaching material? Where it is represented, how is this
done at the visual and linguistic level? Are there linguistic (or representational) barriers that
cause the material to be not fully inclusive? Special attention will be paid to the construction
of heteronormativity in the material. Heteronormativity can surface in various
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
10/44
representational aspects, such as an absence or underrepresentation of non-heterosexual
people, an asymmetrical representation of heterosexual and non-heterosexual people (often to
the detriment of the latter), a presentation of non-heterosexual people as negative, abnormal,
or sensational, and a binary representation of female and male people as opposites.
5. Analyzing gender and sexuality representation in the Norwegian
English textbook series Link
5.1 Link 1/2
The textbooks Link 1 and Link 2 form a unity in the sense that the main characters whom we
encounter in these books are identical. Both books introduce the same five families in the
beginning (Link 1/2, p. 6–7, see Figure 2; Fagbokforlaget has kindly allowed me to reproduce
individual images from the textbooks). This prominent presentation at the start highlights the
family as a central topic throughout these books and sets the scene for a social space where
discursive constructions of heteronormativity may surface in the way romantic couples as
well as female and male characters are presented.
In Figure 2, we see that each family contains one child as a central character (two girls named
Mercy and Thea as well as three boys named Aryan, James, and Jonathan). This centrality is
signified by the children being the only people who are named in the picture. Moreover, they
physically occupy central positions within the families and hold flags that anchor the
respective family in a particular national culture. The families come from a selection of
societies where the English language plays various roles. In the UK and Canada, English is
mainly used as a native language and has (co-)official status as a national language. In India
and Kenya, English is used as a second language, i.e., it is a co-official language with
historical links to the former British Empire. In such societies, English is generally not the
native language of the population but rather acquired through formal education. Finally in
Norway, English has no official status but is frequently used as a foreign language.
All five families involve heterosexual adult couples, mainly the parents. In the Canadian
family, we see an individual female person as a parent, accompanied by a grandmother and a
grandfather. The son within this family holds up a photo of a male person (likely to be
interpreted as a deceased father), which indicates that his mother also was in a heterosexual
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
11/44
relationship at some point. It is evident that the invariable presence of heterosexual couples
suggests their status as an integral component of the family. Same-sex couples are not shown.
The families contain varying amounts of children. Here, it is evident that the white families
from Western cultures (Canada, Norway, UK) all have one child, while the families of color
from India and Kenya have three and two children, respectively. The heterosexual couples
fulfill gendered body stereotypes, with the male spouse being taller and having shorter hair
than the female spouse. Three of the five adult men (Jonathan’s father, James’s grandfather,
Aryan’s father) have a beard and two of them (Thea’s father, Aryan’s father) wear some sort
of tie. While most of the people depicted (16) wear trousers, the three that wear dresses are all
female (Thea, Thea’s mother, and Mercy’s mother). Four female people (Mercy’s mother,
James’s mother, Aryan’s sister, Aryan’s mother) wear earrings, while none of the male
characters does. Similarly, only female people wear accessories in their hair (Mercy, Mercy’s
mother, Thea).
Figure 2: Family depiction (Link 1, p. 6–7, © Fagbokforlaget)
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
12/44
Overall, the family representation follows fairly stereotypical patterns in terms of the
construction of romantic relationships and gender identities. The simultaneous absence of any
non-heterosexual representation further contributes to the heteronormativity depicted.
Interestingly, none of the people forming heterosexual couples in the pictures is shown to
wear a ring, which could be taken to suggest that heterosexuality is important but official
relationship status is not – an aspect that could be argued to be in contrast with
heteronormative discourses. In fact, we learn in the textbook for year 2 (Link 2, p. 36) that
Jonathan’s mom and dad are divorced. Otherwise, heteronormativity remains unquestioned.
The heteronormative representation at the beginning of the two books is widely supported by
the representation found in later passages. As far as gender representation is concerned, the
material exhibits a binary girl-and-boy discourse that constructs female and male kids in
different ways and allows for no other identification points than the two traditionally
acknowledged gender classes. As a consequence, explicit non-binary or trans identifications
are not supported by this material.
At the verbal level, this is achieved through conjoined lexically female and male personal
reference forms. Figure 3 illustrates how third person pronouns are taught to learners in these
textbooks.
Figure 3: Binary pronouns illustrated (Link 2, p. 42, p. 79; © Fagbokforlaget)
The female and male third person singular possessive pronouns his and her are here coupled
with stereotypical images of the face of a girl (long hair, pony tail) and the face of a boy
(short hair). Through this, the learners are not just familiarized with the pronouns but also
with what kind of people these pronouns normatively refer to. Trans or non-binary
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
13/44
alternatives are rendered invisible, and singular their as a gender-neutral pronoun option is not
mentioned, even though it is common in English today and a new gender-neutral third person
singular possessive pronoun hens has also recently been acknowledged in Norwegian. Note
that, in these images, the male face and pronoun precedes the female face and pronoun,
thereby echoing a traditional male-first syntax (Motschenbacher, 2013).
Similar patterns can be found in the use of lexically gendered personal nouns in the textbooks,
as illustrated in Figure 4. We see here that the noun boy is presented right next to an image of
a prototypical boy (short hair, wearing blue shorts), while the noun girl is placed next to an
image of a prototypical girl (long hair, hair band, dress, pink trousers). The difference
between the two gendered characters is also verbally reinforced through the two lexical items
shorts and dress placed next to the two children, underneath the lexically gendered nouns. In
the exercise below the picture, the learners are asked to draw lines between lexical items and
images; in other words, they are required to show that they have understood what kinds of a
people the nouns girl and boy refer to (and it is likely that they would be corrected by the
teacher if they linked boy to the prototypical girl image and vice versa).
Figure 4: Boy-and-girl representations (Link 1, p. 16; © Fagbokforlaget)
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
14/44
The strategy of presenting lexically gendered nouns next to prototypically gendered person
images is also employed systematically in Section 7 of Link 1, which is entitled “Family”.
The section is introduced by a two-page image showing three of the families (Aryan’s,
Mercy’s, and James’s family) having a picnic (Link 1, 50–51). All adults except James’s
mother are part of heterosexual couples and designated in a binary fashion as father and
mother, aunt and uncle, or grandfather and grandmother. Aryan’s family also illustrates the
binary pair sister and brother.
On the following page, gender binarism is further supported by presenting images of
prototypically female and male heads subtitled by female and male nouns: mum/mummy/mom
vs. dad/daddy; sister vs. brother; grandmother/grandma vs. grandfather/grandpa; aunt vs.
uncle (see Figure 5). Again, the images visualize female and male representatives in fairly
gender stereotypical ways. All female people have long hair and all male people have short
hair. The person designated as dad/daddy wears a tie; the grandfather has a moustache; the
people designated as mum/mummy/mom and aunt wear earrings. This particular visual
representation is also stereotypical in its color distribution, as all colors in the pink to purple
spectrum are worn by female people (mum, sister, grandmother), while all male people wear
either blue or green. As Figure 5 illustrates, there is also a tendency in the textbooks to use
hair color in socially relevant ways for the depiction of white people (people of color
invariably have black hair): long blonde hair is a common attribute of (younger) female
people, short dark hair of (younger) male people, while older people have gray hair.
Syntactically, it is evident that the female heads and nouns are invariably placed to the left of
their male counterparts, thereby yielding a contextual female-first pattern that partly contrasts
with how these forms are commonly used in mixed-gender binomials (for example, brothers
and sisters is more common in major English reference corpora than sisters and brothers;
Motschenbacher, 2013).
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
15/44
Figure 5: The strictly gender-binary family (Link 1, p. 52; © Fagbokforlaget)
Sometimes, the binary gender distinction is practiced in a seemingly unmotivated fashion. In
Link 2 (see Figure 6), for example, the learners are shown how children in different parts of
the world celebrate their birthdays. Of the five descriptions, one uses an impersonal
construction and two use lexically gender-neutral nouns to refer to the people celebrating their
birthdays (kids in Jamaica; a newborn baby in Ireland; the child). Such constructions are
pertinent strategies, as we are talking about children in these countries in general rather than
specific children. However, the two remaining descriptions of birthday customs in Canada
and Hungary both use the mixed-gender binomial phrase the birthday boy or birthday girl,
thereby unnecessarily gendering referents. Again, we see stereotypical features in the visual
representation. The two boys have short hair; one of them is wearing a bow tie. The two girls
have longer hair. One of them has braids and both have flowers in their hair. Moreover, boys
and girls are spatially segregated, as the boys occur on page 64 and the girls on page 65, with
the gender-neutral depiction of the Irish baby being placed in the middle.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
16/44
Figure 6: Unnecessarily gendering birthday kids (Link 2, p. 64–65; © Fagbokforlaget)
At the visual level, when girls and boys are shown to engage in different activities, these tend
to be gender-stereotypical. For example, in Figure 7, we see on the right side how a girl and a
boy are sitting in a classroom in front of the teacher. In the school yard scene on the left side,
by contrast, one boy is shown playing soccer (alone), while two girls are playing hopscotch
together in the background.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
17/44
Figure 7: Boys’ and girls’ activities at school (Link 1, p. 8; © Fagbokforlaget)
Another boy in Figure 7 is kneeling on the ground trying to feed an insect, which may seem
less gender stereotypical. However, the animals that children are shown to be accompanied by
throughout the books also exhibit a gender pattern. We can see this, for example, in Figure 8,
which shows the children with their favorite animals. The two girls in the picture have a
rabbit and a cat next to them, i.e., prototypical pets with a high cuddle factor. The boys show
a higher degree of variance in their animals. While one of them has a dog, the other three have
animals that are less prototypical pets and less likely or impossible to be cuddled (rat, parrot,
fish).
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
18/44
Figure 8: Boys’ and girls’ pets (Link 2, p. 68–69; © Fagbokforlaget).
Another lexical domain that can play a role in gender construction is clothes. We already saw
that stereotypically gendered pieces of clothing are used to visually construct female and male
characters (ties; hair bands, dresses). Figure 9 shows a page that is used in Link 2 to introduce
various vocabulary items for pieces of clothing. The visual setting seems to be Mercy’s room
(with pink as the dominant color in the background). The girl is lying on the bed, reading a
book. Various pieces of clothing appear across the room and are coupled with the respective
vocabulary items. Two of these items are strongly feminine (dress, skirt) in their associations,
while the others are gender-neutral (jumper/sweater, jacket, socks, shoes, T-shirt) or slightly
masculine in their associations (trousers/pants, cap, shorts). This illustrates a common
asymmetry in the textbooks, as women and girls are regularly shown to wear all types of
clothing, while men and boys are never shown to wear items of clothing that are feminine in
their association.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
19/44
Figure 9: Gendered asymmetries in clothing (Link 2, p. 52; © Fagbokforlaget)
It should also be noted that there are representational aspects in the books that do not support
a girl-vs.-boy discourse. One such aspect is the visual representation of groups of children
playing together. These involve in most cases both female and male kids, thereby breaking
down the stereotype of gender-segregated playgroups. Female-male pairs of kids are
frequently visually represented. The depiction of mixed-gender pairs is unlikely to support a
heteronormative reading, as kids are here shown at an age when romantic interests play a
comparatively small role for them. Another representational layer is the colors of boys’ and
girls’ clothes, which overall does not mimic traditional patterns. We find, for example, boys
dressed in pink or orange pieces of clothing and girls partly dressed in blue and black.
Throughout the books, there are hardly any verbal or visual cues that could potentially be read
as indexing non-heterosexuality. The only representational aspect that could allow for such a
reading is the rainbow. The books sometimes display rainbows (Link 1, p. 24) or present
colors in an order that resembles that of a rainbow (Link 1, p. 22), but the social meaning
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
20/44
potential of the rainbow as a symbol of gay pride or gender and sexual diversity is not
exploited (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: The unexploited potential of the rainbow (Link 1, p. 24, 22; © Fagbokforlaget)
5.2 Link 7
Already a cursory glance at Link 7 reveals that the major focus here is no longer on the five
families as in Link 1 and 2. Many other characters outside these families occur, and even
though the five earlier protagonists (Aryan, James, Jonathan, Mercy, and Thea) still appear in
the book, they are now adolescents who are predominantly presented as individuals in their
own right who interact with peers. This opens an additional layer of sexuality-related
construction, as adolescents generally start to view themselves as subjects potentially
engaging in romantic activities. Romantic relationships are, therefore, no longer restricted
here to the parents’ and grandparents’ generations. At the same time, as can be expected,
verbal text components play a greater role in Link 7, due to the higher level of foreign
language skills that the learners can be assumed to possess.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
21/44
In total, 14 human couples are represented verbally and/or visually in Link 7. Of these, 11 are
heterosexual (first mentions on pages, 18, 22, 46, 46, 64, 64, 70, 83, 90, 120, 146), and three
are same-sex couples (first mentions on pages 19, 46, 57). This means that non-heterosexual
couples amount to 21.4%, but also that their occurrence is restricted to the first third of the
textbook. In addition, one heterosexual animal couple is depicted (page 149). The passages in
which non-heterosexual couples are represented have been selected for a closer qualitative
analysis. Furthermore, passages in the textbook in which gender construction is salient or that
carry a certain potential for the inclusion of trans and non-binary people will be discussed.
Section 1 of the book is entitled “Who am I?” and revolves centrally around finding one’s
own identity. While gender is backgrounded as a potentially relevant identity facet in this
section, sexuality is highlighted in a subsection that presents five diary entries written by a
girl called Eleanor (see Figures 11a/b).
Figure 11a: Eleanor’s diary entries – Part 1 (Link 7, p. 18–19; © Fagbokforlaget)
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
22/44
Figure 11b: Eleanor’s diary entries – Part 2 (Link 7, p. 20; © Fagbokforlaget)
The diary entries consist of verbal text in handwritten form and black-and-white drawings.
The visual stylization as diary entries creates a personal impression, and indeed the content of
the texts is quite intimate. The language used in the entries includes emotive informal features
that mimic youth language (e.g., This SUCKS! WHAT?!; frequent use of exclamation marks),
thereby constructing the author of the entries as part of the learners’ peer group.
Diary entry 1, on 2nd of August, expresses Eleanor’s sadness about the fact that a boy named
Ibrahim is moving away. She constructs her relationship with Ibrahim as a long friendship
(We’ve been best friends since kindergarten and we’ve been ‘Elle and Ibra’ forever!) and
stresses the important role Ibrahim has played for her (I don’t even know who I am without
him! Ellie is nothing without her Ibra!). The verbal text is accompanied by three drawings.
The first small drawing shows the head of a crying girl. The second drawing underneath the
verbal text shows a young boy and a young girl holding hands, which illustrates the friendship
in kindergarten days. The third drawing, which fills the whole second page, shows an older
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
23/44
boy next to a car in the background and an older girl in the foreground who lowers her head in
sadness, which reflects Eleanor’s current situation.
Diary entry 2, from 1st of September, narrates an incident that happened at a party. Eleanor
writes that she was kissed by a girl and liked it. The agency of this event is entirely on the
other girl’s side, as she is described as taking action (Diana from 7B invited me to her party;
she kissed me!). Eleanor’s comment On the lips! makes it clear that the kiss was a romantic
kiss rather than a kiss among friends on the cheek. Furthermore, she expresses her surprise
about the fact that she enjoyed the kiss (Wow!, accompanied by a drawn surprised face;
WHAT!?). While female romantic agency could be viewed as a construction that clashes with
heteronormative discourses, Eleanor’s description also contains two aspects that construct the
kiss in a heteronormative fashion. Firstly, she treats a kiss from a girl on the lips as unusual or
marked. Secondly, her surprise about enjoying a kiss from a girl implies that she is
normatively not expected to like it.
Diary entry 3, written one day later, narrates that Eleanor received a flirty text message (I’m
thinking about you! And a heart ♥ emoji.) from the girl who kissed her. Eleanor is uncertain
whether she should react but, at the same time, rules out ghosting Diana (I can’t just ghost
her. I don’t want to ghost her!; accompanied by the drawing of a ghost surrounded by three
hearts). Again we witness heteronormative discourses at work, since ghosting is constructed
as a girl’s easy and normal response to another girl hitting on her. Heteronormativity is further
expressed in the mitigated way Eleanor expresses her affection for Diana (I like her too,
but…; I kind of like her. I think.), which indicates that for a girl to like another girl is not a
straightforward business. Diary entry 4 on the next day is very short. It only contains a single
sentence, which for the first time places the romantic agency on Eleanor’s side and uses do-
support to emphasize the markedness of this move (I did answer her…). The entry is
dominated by the drawing of a big, radiating heart pierced by an arrow, in which the names of
the two girls appear connected by a plus symbol (Diana + Eleanor).
The final diary entry, dating from 4th of September, puts an end to Eleanor’s newly established
security in her affection for Diana, as she writes that Ibrahim told her he has a girlfriend now.
It is at this point that the reader can tell that Eleanor’s relationship with Ibrahim was
potentially more than just a friendship, as Eleanor frames her feelings in terms of jealousy (I
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
24/44
got really jealous), questions her affection for Ibrahim (Was I never ever in love with him?
Am I in love with him right now?) and juxtaposes her feelings for him with her feelings for
Diana (Am I in love with Diana?). The sequence of diary entries ends in a state of unclarity,
with Eleanor expressing her confusion (This is just sooo confusing!) and illustrating the entry
with two big hearts – one on top containing a girl’s and a boy’s face, subtitled with Eleanor +
Ibrahim, and one at the bottom containing the faces of two girls, subtitled Eleanor + Diana.
Even though this depiction can be read as a representation of bisexuality or biromanticism,
same-sex and other-sex relationships do not receive the same treatment. Eleanor’s uncertainty
suggests that what she feels for Diana is perhaps just a phase and that she is actually in love
with Ibrahim. Through this, same-sex relationships are depicted as less legitimate in their own
right.
The second instance in the textbook where non-heterosexuality is made explicit occurs as part
of the book section entitled Ways of living and it stages various types of family (see Figure
12).
Figure 12: Staging different types of family (Link 7, p. 46–47; © Fagbokforlaget)
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
25/44
As can be seen in Figure 12, the textbook presents four different types of family across two
pages who all seem to live in the same neighborhood. Each depicted family is accompanied
by a short text, in which one family member (mostly a child) gives a first-person description
of their family. Visually, we see a heterosexual couple with three children standing on a
balcony, another heterosexual couple with two children at the entrance of the house, a lesbian
couple with two dogs in front of the house, and a single mom with her daughter and a cat in
front of the neighboring house. The verbal text gives further information. For example, we
learn that the second family is a blended family, as the child refers in the first person to my
step father, Kjetil, and my step sister Hanne-Mari. Interestingly, the description of the lesbian
family is the only one that explicitly refers to the adults’ marital status, as one of the two
women (Rachel) calls the other one my wife Sarah. However, this may be due to the other
families being described by children. While two families seem to involve members from
various racial backgrounds and thereby exhibit some diversity in terms of ethnicity, gender is
visually constructed in fairly stereotypical ways: All male people have short hair, all female
people have long hair, one man has a beard, and some female characters wear dresses, skirts,
a dress-like jacket, or accessories in their hair.
The spatial positioning of the four families is interesting, as it indicates hierarchization. The
reading direction in Norway is generally from top to bottom and from left to right. As far as
the vertical axis is concerned, the first page presents a ranking with the intact heterosexual
family on top, the blended heterosexual family in a lower position, and the lesbian family
even further below. It is also noteworthy that the two families involving a heterosexual couple
are presented on the right, while the lesbian family and the single-parent family follow further
to the right. The positioning of the families signals that the intact heterosexual family is taken
as the most prototypical, while deviations from these patterns (blended family, same-sex
couple, one parent) are viewed as less prototypical and presented in more marginal spaces.
The prototypicality ranking of families is, furthermore, taken up in the learner tasks that are
included on the two pages. Already before reading the text, learners are asked to discuss the
question What is a typical family? As part of the post-reading tasks, they are encouraged to
reflect on how typical their own families are. The stimulus questions What is your family like?
Is it typical? in fact imply that there is a certain family type that is viewed as typical. Even
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
26/44
though it is not specified as to which type is meant, the intact heterosexual family is the most
likely candidate for prototype status. The learners are also invited to relate this notion of
family typicality to Norway as a national context. Here, the question phrasing (Is there
something that is a typical Norwegian family?) is more open to critical stances. Learners may,
in fact, conclude based on the evidence presented in the textbook that there is no such thing as
a typical Norwegian family. However, framing blended, non-heterosexual and single-parent
families as “less typical” or even “atypical” families is clearly compatible with
heteronormative discourses.
The third instance in which non-heterosexuality surfaces in Link 7 also occurs in the section
on Ways of living (see Figures 13a/b). Here, we can observe how Paul and his partner Teddy
visit Paul’s sister Pia, who is a single mother and has recently given birth to a baby. After
discussing families in terms of typicality earlier in the same section, this constitutes a well
reflected move, as it is now the two most marginalized family types (same-sex families,
single-parent families) that are shown to get together to discuss what a family is. This
corresponds to queer theoretical approaches that offer alternative accounts by viewing
phenomena from the social margins.
The conversation that is shown to unfold between the three protagonists starts with some
general small talk before Pia asks a question that serves as an introduction to the main topic of
the exchange: Have you guys thought more about having children yourselves? Even before
this question pops up, Paul is constructed as a man who is fond of and very good with
children (he says She’s so cute about baby Paulina and asks Can I hold her, Pia?). He is
shown to engage in a dialogue with the baby that extends over five turns, which makes Pia
conclude You look so happy with a baby on your lap, Paul!
The couple report that they are undecided about having children and they treat their social
surroundings (We are afraid our children will be bullied or get negative comments from other
people.) and norms (Because our children would have two fathers and we won’t be
considered a “normal” family.) as a major obstacle to having children. Pia reacts to this by
questioning the concept of a “normal” family (What’s a “normal” family, anyway?) and
praises the couple’s parenting qualities (You two have so much love to give and you would be
the best parents in the world.). Teddy also points out the legal discrimination that gay couples
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
27/44
face in many countries, as they are not allowed to adopt children (We considered maybe
adopting from a country where it is legal for us to adopt a baby.). He adds that Paul and
Teddy have asked a lesbian couple that has adopted children from Colombia for their advice.
The lesbian couple is constructed by Teddy as equally loving parents (They love their girls, of
course, and were so happy to bring them home.), and their children are said to go through
similar experiences as Paul and Teddy anticipated (Unfortunately, the girls do not always feel
like they fit in or that they are accepted in the same way as everyone else.). Throughout this
passage, being gay or lesbian is constructed as a problem for society, which contrasts with
Norway’s self-branding as a country where same-sex relationships are accepted.
The visual representation of the characters corresponds again to fairly common gender
stereotypes. Pia has long hair, Paul has short hair, and Teddy is bald. Paul has a moustache
and Teddy has a full beard. The couple status of the two men is visually expressed by them
sitting next to each other on a sofa, with Teddy having his arm around Paul, who has the baby
on his lap. In other words, we see a visual staging of a (potential) two-dad family.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
29/44
Figure 13b: Staging the potential two-dad family (Link 7, p. 58–59; © Fagbokforlaget
Overall, the representation of gay and lesbian characters in Link 7 as mainly white, middle-
class, married or partnered, having children, expressing the wish to have children or having
dogs could be viewed in terms of homonormativity (Duggan, 2002). That is, same-sex
couples are constructed as “good gays” who normatively imitate heterosexual families. This is
presumably done to make the topic of same-sex couples or gay- or lesbian-identified people
more agreeable and easier to digest for the general public. However, it could also be argued
that a motivation to represent families with same-sex parents in this way could be to make the
point that they are like heterosexual families, despite all the differences. There is some value
in such a representation, as it supports a normalizing agenda.
A closer look at how gender is constructed in Link 7 reveals some positive and some negative
aspects. A textbook excerpt that deals with gender in relation to communicative practices is
depicted in Figure 14. The background of the verbal text is in green, which can be interpreted
as a gender-neutral choice. The two pages offer the reader two alternative conversational
exchanges, both between two speakers named Billie and Max. The two names can potentially
refer to female and male people, even though Billie is more likely to be interpreted as female
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
30/44
(vs. Billy as male) and Max is more likely to be interpreted as male (but it could also be an
abbreviated form of the female name Maxine). The conversations take place after Max missed
a goal during a soccer game. In scenario 1, the conversation is both competitive and
confrontational, as the two speakers take turns calling each other names (idiot, moron, klutz,
loser, Max-the-Misser, Billie-Big-Mouth-Can’t-Do-No-Better). The exchange contains rude
verbal behavior (Shut up!) and in the end escalates into a fist fight between the two characters
that needs to be settled by the soccer coach. In Scenario 2, their communication is much more
harmonious and cooperative. Here, Billie engages in supportive interactional work to help
Max save face (Bad luck, Max. You’ll get it next time! / Remember that you dribble better
than anyone on the team.). Moreover, Billie offers Max to do some target practice with him
after the match. The two conversations bear clear reminiscences to stereotypes of all-male and
all-female conversational behavior, famously described by Tannen (1990) as competitive talk
and cooperative talk (or report vs. rapport).
The learner instructions underneath the texts indeed ask the learners whether they think the
two exchanges involve girls or boys. Under both texts, the learners are confronted with the
questions In this scenario, do you think Billie and Max are boys or girls? and What clues
make you think so? The stereotypicality of the scenarios is likely to make the learners
attribute the first scenario to boys and the second to girls. In other words, there is a high
chance that gender stereotypes are supported by this exercise. Also note that the question
phrasing rules out that both a girl and a boy may be involved in these exchanges. On top of
the texts, the learners are asked to enact the two dialogues (Practice reading these dialogues.
Match the intonation to the feelings of the speaker. Switch roles.). This task carries some
deconstructionist potential, as all learners, irrespective of their gender, can enact both
exchanges and explore various types of gendered behaviors, which may lead them to conclude
that both interactions could take place among girls and boys.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
31/44
Figure 14: Gendered communicative scenarios (Link 7, p. 38–39; © Fagbokforlaget)
Gender stereotypes are more explicitly challenged in another passage from Link 7, which is
devoted to stereotypes more generally (see Figure 15). The two photos on top of this page
indicate that gender stereotypes are used here for illustration purposes. Photo 1 on the left side
shows a man who is wearing an apron and rubber gloves while seemingly doing the washing
up. The background is pink and contains drawings of various household utensils (a teapot, a
vacuum cleaner, a microwave oven, dishes, an electric iron, a jug, a mixer). Photo 2 shows a
woman wearing formal trousers and a suit jacket who is holding a laptop in her hands. The
background is in blue and contains drawings of symbols that are more readily linked to
professional contexts (such as a mobile phone, a pencil, a magnifying glass, a cloud, a globe,
screws, a loudspeaker, a sheet of paper, a light bulb). The photos are obviously meant to flout
stereotypes, presenting a male person in a way that women were traditionally portrayed and
vice versa. As the smile on the two people’s faces suggests, this subverting of gender
stereotypes is viewed as a positive development. The task instructions underneath the photos
invite the learners to engage in critical thinking, asking them to reflect on gender stereotypes,
both in the photos and in society more generally. However, as the photos are obviously staged
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
32/44
and do not present people in real-life situations, this casts some doubt on the authenticity of
these scenarios.
Figure 15: Challenging gender stereotypes (Link 7, p. 94; © Fagbokforlaget)
When analyzing in which professional contexts women and men are portrayed in Link 7, you
find that gender stereotypes seem to be subverted to a higher extent with women. They are
shown to be physicians (Link 7, p. 34), teachers (Link 7, p. 42), researchers (Link 7, p. 151),
working on their laptop (Link 7, p. 94) or for a company (Link 7, p. 70), or participating in
business meetings (Link 7, p. 63). In other words, they are almost exclusively represented in
white-collar professions. Men are represented as businessmen (Link 7, p. 42, 63, 116),
teachers (Link 7, p. 114), and policemen and pastors (Link 7, p. 116), but they also do less
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
33/44
prestigious jobs, working as excavator operators (Link 7, p. 42), butchers (Link 7, p. 90), and
antiques dealers (Link 7, p. 122), besides being unemployed (Link 7, p. 88). Furthermore,
they are depicted doing household chores (Link 7, p. 31, 94) and being involved in
childrearing (Link 7, p. 31, 83). These findings are similar to those of Monsen and Steien’s
(2022) study on textbooks for Norwegian as a foreign language, as outlined in the theoretical
section herein above.
One way to make textbooks more inclusive that goes beyond the representation of gay and
lesbian characters is to offer points of identification for trans and non-binary people. These
social groups are not directly represented in the material. However, there are signs that their
needs are, to some extent, catered to. While we find binary pronominal constructions as in (1),
Link 7 also contains gender-neutral constructions with generic singular they, as illustrated in
(2).
(1)
Write to your role model, explain why he or she is your role model, and ask if you can
meet up or write to ask some questions. (Link 7, p. 24)
(2)
If you wrote a book, what would you name the main character and where would they
go? (Link 7, p. 41)
A first meeting gives us a first impression of a person and what they might be like.
(Link 7, p. 100)
Obviously, the authors of the textbook have made an effort to avoid male generic forms such
as generic he/him/his. However, this effort is, to some extent, thwarted by the use of a new
male generic, namely the address phrase you guys, when talking to a mixed-sex group
(Clancy, 1999). Here are two examples from Link 7:
(3)
Thea: I look forward to just being with you guys. (Link 7, p. 21)
(4)
James: You guys. I’ve been dreading this moment for a while. I’ve got something
important to tell you. (Link 7, p. 70)
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
34/44
There is no representation of trans people in the book, but what we do find is a less strict
handling of gender identities. For example, Figure 16 shows an instance where the students in
class play the game Who am I?. For this game, the players have a piece of paper with the
name of a person attached to their foreheads, and everybody has to guess which person is
written on their own sticky note. James has been given Harry Potter as a character to be
guessed, which represents a gender-congruent choice. However, when James starts to ask
questions about his character, he asks whether he (that is, the character) is female, to which
another student responds with No. Even though gender crossing is not fully achieved here, it
is remarkable that James sees the possibility that “he” could be female, and when the game is
performed in an actual English lesson, this may in fact invite giving co-players a cross-gender
name that they have to guess.
Figure 16: Potential cross-gender play (Link 7, p. 8; © Fagbokforlaget)
Another instance in Link 7, where gender-crossing is in fact performed, is in Section 2, which
is entitled Linking us and discusses various topics related to communication. Figure 17 shows
the page in question. It homes in on the topic of staying anonymous when communicating on
the internet and depicts a girl who plays online games using a male avatar (Alexandra is
playing as her avatar, a barbarian named Alexander_the-Gr8.). By referring to Alexander the
Great in her online name, the girl does not just adopt a male online identity but also a
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
35/44
decidedly masculine one, namely that of a powerful ruler and warlord. However, this instance
of gender-crossing is here not celebrated as positive. By contrast, Alexandra’s co-player
assesses her performance as lousy (You suck! … My grandma could do better!). The heading
presented on top of the page (Anonymity – Hiding who I am) frames Alexandra’s gender-
crossing in negative terms, as a matter of hiding her true identity, instead of taking a more
positive stance and framing it in terms of identity exploration.
Figure 17: Actual cross-gender play on the web (Link 7, p. 35; © Fagbokforlaget)
A final example that may resound with the experiences of trans people occurs as part of a
question-and-answer game (Link 7, p. 41), in which one of the tasks for players is to answer
the question If you could change your name, what would you change it to? Of course,
changing one’s name is of primary importance to trans people, and so the fact that name
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
36/44
changing occurs in a textbook and is discussed in class contributes to normalizing trans
people’s needs.
6. Conclusion
The analysis of the textbooks that are used in English education at the primary educational
level in Norway has revealed quite a drastic contrast in the representational practices. The
material targeting year 1 and 2 learners is highly heteronormative in its complete absence of
non-heterosexual representation and a fairly simplistic and stereotypically binary
representation of gender. It would, therefore, largely fall into Moore’s (2020) category
“heteronormative erasure”. The textbook for year 7 offers a more nuanced – and, therefore,
more inclusive – representation that can be characterized as incorporating aspects of the
categories “heteronormative marginalization” and “heteronormative mainstreaming”. On the
positive side, we see that non-heterosexual people are represented, gender stereotypes are
questioned, and there is an incipient sensitivity for the needs of trans and non-binary people.
These are certainly good developments, and it is probably fair to say that we are dealing here
with the first generation of textbooks that try to incorporate these issues.
However, there is also some room for improvement in the current representational practices,
at least if it is our aim to include non-heterosexual, trans and non-binary learners and teachers
as well as people who do heterosexuality in non-normative ways. Materials for young learners
could clearly be designed in less heteronormative ways. This would also be in accordance
with the suggestions of the World Health Organization:
“According to these guidelines, children aged 4-6 should be informed that it is possible to fall
in love with a person of the same gender and get help to develop a positive gender identity. At
age 9-12, children should (among other things) get information about the difference between
gender identity and biological gender, and be helped to develop an understanding of diversity
in sexuality and sexual orientation” (Smestad, 2018, p. 5).
The representation of non-heterosexual characters in higher years needs to be more careful to
avoid the trap of falling back into heteronormativity by describing non-heterosexuality as
something that is special, sensational, or marked in comparison to heterosexuality. The
challenging of gender stereotypes could be done in a more nuanced fashion, instead of
presenting women invariably as winners at the professional level and men as the people who
also work in less prestigious professions, do household chores, and raise the children. Finally,
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
37/44
the inclusivity levels for trans and non-binary learners need to be raised. There is still a lot of
work to do in this respect, but the rising number of trans kids in Norway (and other countries;
CNE 2023) calls for action.
A learning goal that none of the textbooks analyzed here addresses sufficiently is the
development of “socio-sexual literacy” (Nelson, 2016). To enable learners to be fully
functionable individuals in their foreign language, they need to be equipped with the linguistic
means to express a diversity of gender and sexual identifications in English (see White et al.,
2018, for an illustration of this diversity). This will enable them to construct themselves and
other people in meaningful ways when using English. Topics to be taught include gendered
and gender-neutral personal reference forms (personal nouns, personal names, pronouns) and
potential asymmetries connected to them, positive terminology to talk and write about
traditional as well as recently evolving gender and sexual identifications, and an awareness of
the linguistic dimensions of sexism, homophobia, and cisnormativity. All of these aspects of
structural gender linguistics (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2001; Motschenbacher, 2015, 2016b)
clearly fall in line with CIE’s emphasis on developing language awareness as a learning goal.
Finally, an aspect that needs to be highlighted is that neither teachers nor learners are helpless
victims of the discourses presented to them in teaching materials. As Sunderland et al. (2000)
have argued, it is unpredictable how materials will be used in class. Participants may accept
the discourses presented or ignore them, which leaves them unquestioned. They may equally
well spot them and view them critically or try to subvert them. Even if we have to work with
teaching materials that are somehow biased, teachers can use these issues and let the learners
critically work with the texts in the foreign language classroom (Motschenbacher, 2021c).
However, as creating alternative teaching materials or modifying available materials is often
too time consuming for teachers to be feasible (Richards, 2022, p. 170), it is adequate to ask
textbook creators to provide them with learning materials that are as inclusive as possible. An
interesting follow-up study would be to analyze the teacher’s guides that are published
together with the textbooks in order to see how far they address the representational issues
outlined here.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
38/44
About the author
Heiko Motschenbacher is Full Professor of English as a Second/Foreign Language at Western
Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen. He is founder and co-editor of the Journal
of Language and Sexuality. His research interests include language, gender and sexuality,
critical discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, English as a lingua franca, language,
nationalism and Europeanisation, and linguistic inclusion in ELT. Among his most recent
publications are the monographs Language, Normativity and Europeanisation (2016;
Palgrave Macmillan) and Linguistic Dimensions of Sexual Normativity (2021, Routledge) as
well as guest-edited special journal issues on Corpus Linguistics in Language and Sexuality
Studies (2018) and Linguistic Dimensions of Inclusion in Educational and Multilingual
Contexts (2019).
References
Primary sources:
Mezzetti, K., Myrset, A. O. J., Oddvik, N., Charboneau Stuvland, R. A. & Szikszay, H.
(2020). Link 1: Pupil’s book. Engelsk for barnetrinnet. Fagbokforlaget.
Mezzetti, K., Myrset, A. O. J., Oddvik, N., Charboneau Stuvland, R. A. & Szikszay, H.
(2020). Link 2: Pupil’s book. Engelsk for barnetrinnet. Fagbokforlaget.
Mezzetti, K., Oddvik, N., Charboneau Stuvland, R. A. & Szikszay, H. (2023). Link 7:
Textbook. Engelsk for barnetrinnet. Fagbokforlaget.
Secondary sources:
Brotherton, C. (2023). ‘We have the best gays, folks’: Homonationalism and Islamophobia in
a critical discourse analysis of a pro-Trump social media forum. Gender and
Language, 17(1). 39–53.
https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18550
Carr, J. & Pauwels, A. (2006). Boys and foreign language learning: Real boys don't do
languages. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501652
Clancy, S. J. (1999). The ascent of guy. American Speech, 74(3), 282–297.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
39/44
CNE. (2023, march 27th). Number of minors requesting gender change sky high in Norway.
CNE. https://cne.news/article/2795-number-of-minors-requesting-gender-change-sky-
high-in-norway
Colpani, G. & Habed, A. J. (2014). ‘In Europe it's different’: Homonationalism and peripheral
desires for Europe. In P. M. Ayoub & D. Paternotte (Eds.), LGBT activism and the
making of Europe: A rainbow Europe? (p. 73–93). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137391766_4
Darvin, R. & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191
Dorland, W. A. N. (1907). The American illustrated medical dictionary (4th edition). W. B.
Saunders.
Duggan, L. (2002): The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R.
Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy. Toward a revitalized
cultural politics (p. 175–194). Duke University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jgrq.10
Elsner, D. & Lohe, V. (Eds.). (2016). Gender and language learning: Research and practice.
Gunter Narr.
Fuchs, E. & Bock, A. (Eds.). (2018): The Palgrave handbook of textbook studies. Palgrave
Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53142-1
Gray, J. (2013). LGBT invisibility and heteronormativity in ELT materials. In J. Gray (Ed.),
Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (p. 40–63). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263_3
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
40/44
Hellinger, M. & Bußmann, H. (2001). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation
of women and men. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages:
Vol. 1. The linguistic representation of women and men (p. 1–25). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9
Hickman, H. & Porfilio, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new politics of the textbook: Problematizing
the portrayal of marginalized groups in textbooks. Sense.
Jones, L. (2021). Queer linguistics and identity: The past decade. Journal of Language and
Sexuality, 10(1), 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.00010.jon
Knisely, K. A. (2021). A starter kit for rethinking trans representation and inclusion in French
L2 classrooms. In E. N. Meyer & E. Hoft-March (Eds.), Teaching diversity and
inclusion: Examples from a French-speaking classroom (p. 22–33). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003126461-2
Knisely, K. A. & Paiz, J. M. (2021). Bringing trans, non-binary, and queer understandings to
bear in language education. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 9(1), 23–45.
Machin, D. & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. Sage.
Monsen, M. & Steien, G. B. (2022). Women, children, dogs, flowers and men: Constructions
of Norway and investment in Norwegian language learning. In M. Monsen & G. B.
Steien (Eds.), Language learning and forced migration (p. 19–33). Multilingual
Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800412262-005
Moore, A. R. (2020). Understanding heteronormativity in ELT textbooks: A practical
taxonomy. ELT Journal, 74(2), 116–125.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz058
Motschenbacher, H. (2010). Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist
perspectives. John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.29
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
41/44
Motschenbacher, H. (2011). Taking Queer Linguistics further: Sociolinguistics and critical
heteronormativity research. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 212,
149–179.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2011.050
Motschenbacher, H. (2013). Gentlemen before ladies? A corpus-based study of conjunct order
in personal binomials. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(3), 212–242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213489993
Motschenbacher, H. (2015). Some new perspectives on gendered language structures. In M.
Hellinger & H. Motschenbacher (Eds.), Gender across languages: Vol. 4. The
linguistic representation of women and men (p. 27–48). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.36.02mot
Motschenbacher, H. (2016a). Inclusion and foreign language education: What linguistics can
contribute. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 159–189.
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.03mot
Motschenbacher, H. (2016b). Gender, inclusion and English language teaching: A linguistic
perspective. In D. Elsner & V. Lohe (Eds.), Gender and language learning: Research
and practice (p. 97–112). Narr.
Motschenbacher, H. (2021a). Linguistic barriers in foreign language education. In H.
Mohebbi & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research questions in language education and applied
linguistics: A reference guide (p. 711–716). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_124
Motschenbacher, H. (2021b). Foreign language learning and sexuality-related inclusion: A
multimodal analysis of representational practices in the German textbook series Navi
Englisch. In Ł. Pakuła (Ed.), Linguistic perspectives on sexuality in education:
Representations, constructions and negotiations (p. 51–75). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64030-9_3
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
42/44
Motschenbacher, H. (2021c). Corpus-based considerations on critical literacy in ELT: The
linguistic representation of Ricky Martin in the news media. In J. M. Paiz & J. Coda
(Eds.), Intersectional perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues in modern language teaching
and learning (p. 217–259). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76779-2_8
Mustapha, A. S. & Mills, S. (Eds.). (2015). Gender representation in learning materials:
International perspectives. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315764092
Nelson, C. D. (1999). Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory and classroom inquiry. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(3), 371–391.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587670
Nelson, C. D. (2006). Queer inquiry in language education. Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, 5(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0501_1
Nelson, C. D. (2007): Queer thinking about language teaching: An overview of published
work. In H. Decke-Cornill & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Gender studies and foreign
language teaching (p. 63–76). Gunter Narr.
Nelson, C. D. (2009). Sexual identities in English language education: Classroom
conversations. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891544
Nelson, C. D. (2016). The significance of sexual identity to language learning and teaching.
In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and identity (p. 351–365).
Routledge.
Norton, B. & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In
D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (p. 73–94).
Routledge.
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
43/44
Paiz, J. M. (2015). Over the monochrome rainbow: Heteronormativity in ESL reading texts
and textbooks. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 4(1), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.4.1.03pai
Paiz, J. M. & Coda, J. (Eds.). (2021). Intersectional perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues in
modern language teaching and learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76779-2
Richards, C. (2022). Gender, sexuality and ELT course books: Where are we now? In D. L.
Banegas & N. Govender (Eds.), Gender diversity and sexuality in English language
education: New transnational voices (p. 159–174). Bloomsbury Academic.
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350217591.ch-009
Røthing, Å. (2017). Sexual orientation in Norwegian science textbooks: Heteronormativity
and selective inclusion in textbooks and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
67, 143–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.005
Ruiz-Cecilia, R., Guijarro-Ojeda, J. R. & Marín-Macías, C. (2021): Analysis of
heteronormativity and gender roles in EFL textbooks. Sustainability, 13(1), Article
220.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010220
Sauntson, H. (2021). Queering TESOL in international learning contexts. In Ł. Pakuła (Ed.),
Linguistic perspectives on sexuality in education: Representations, constructions and
negotiations (p. 315–335). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64030-9_11
Smestad, B. (2018). LGBT issues in Norwegian textbooks: Shared or fragmented
responsibility? Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(4), 4–
20.
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2208
Vol.3, nr.1, art.2
Heiko Motchenbacher Heiko.Motschenbacher@hvl.no
44/44
Sunderland, J. (2021). Foreign language textbooks and degrees of heteronormativity:
Representation and consumption. In Ł. Pakuła (Ed.), Linguistic perspectives on
sexuality in education: Representations, constructions and negotiations (p. 29–50).
Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64030-9_2
Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Abdul Rahim, F., Leontzakou, C. & Shattuck, J. (2000). From
bias 'in the text' to 'teacher talk around the text': An exploration of teacher discourse
and gendered foreign language textbook texts. Linguistics and Education, 11(3), 251–
286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00034-6
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. William
Morrow.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2017). Core curriculum – Values and principles for primary and
secondary education. Laid down by Royal Decree. The Education Act of
Kunnskapsløftet 2020. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/verdier-og-
prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen---overordnet-del-av-lareplanverket/id2570003/
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2020). Curriculum in English (ENG01-04). Established as a
Regulation. The Education Act of Kunnskapsløftet 2020.
https://data.udir.no/kl06/v201906/laereplaner-lk20/ENG01-04.pdf?lang=eng
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis.
Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
White, A. E., Moeller, J., Ivcevic, Z. & Brackett, M. A. (2018). Gender identity and sexual
identity labels used by U.S. high school students: A co-occurrence network analysis.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(2), 243–252.
https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000266
