Contemporary Arguments Against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs (1980) Revisited
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Two studies investigated whether undergraduatesenrolled in sport management classes at a midwesternuniversity supported or resisted nonsexist language.Resistive statements were classified using arguments identified by Blaubergs (1980). In Study 1, 82primarily Caucasian students reacted to a videotapeabout language. Half (48%) supported nonsexist language;32% were ambivalent; 21% were opposed to nonsexist language. The negative comments fit 7 ofBlaubergs' 8 categories after 2 were modified; 2additional categories (Sexism is Acceptable andHostility toward Proponents of Change) emerged. In Study2, 164 primarily Caucasian undergraduates speculatedon why others resisted nonsexist language. Theircomments led to the addition of 2 more new categories:Tradition and Lack of Understanding. The finalmodification of Blaubergs' classic arguments contains 12categories that should be useful in studying resistanceto nonsexist language.
- Blaubergs, M. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3, 135–147.
- Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she.” Language in Society, 4, 129–146.
- Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
- Cronin, C., & Jreisat, S. (1995). Effects of modeling on the use of nonsexist language among high school freshpersons and seniors. Sex Roles, 33, 819–830.
- Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (1989). The de-athleticization of women: The naming and gender marking of collegiate sports teams. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 362–370.
- Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (1993). The sexist naming of collegiate athletic teams and resistance to change. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 34–41.
- Etaugh, C., & Spandikow, D. B. (1981). Changing attitudes toward women: A longitudinal study of college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 591–594.
- Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629–643.
- Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user's imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–798.
- Harrigan, J. A., & Lucic, K. S. (1988). Attitudes about gender bias in language: A reevaluation. Sex Roles, 19, 129–140.
- Henley, N. M. (1989). Molehill or mountain? What we know and don't know about sex bias in language. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.
- Jacobson, M. B., & Insko, W. R., Jr. (1985). Use of nonsexist pronouns as a function of one's feminist orientation. Sex Roles, 13, 1–7.
- Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
- Kidd, V. (1971). A study of the images produced through the use of the male pronoun as the generic. Moments in Contemporary Rhetoric and Communication, 1, 25–30.
- Kingston, A. J., & Lovelace, T. L. (1977). Guidelines for authors: A new form of censorship? Journal of Reading Behavior, 9, 89–93.
- Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45–80.
- MacKay, D. G. (1980). Psychology, prescriptive grammar, and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.
- Martyna, W. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28, 131–138.
- McMinn, M. R., Lindsay, S. F., Hannum, L. E., & Troyer, P. K. (1990). Does sexist language reflect personal characteristics? Sex Roles, 23, 389–396.
- Merritt, R. D., & Kok, C. J. (1995). Attribution of gender to a gender-unspecified individual: An evaluation of the people = male hypothesis. Sex Roles, 33, 145–157.
- Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Jensen, K. (1993). Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gender & Society, 7, 121–137.
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1988). The handbook of nonsexist writing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
- Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.
- Ng, S. H. (1990). Androcentric coding of man and his in memory by language users. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 455–464.
- Nilsen, A. P. (1977). Sexism in children's books and elementary teaching materials. In A. P. Nilsen, H. A. Bosmajian, H. L. Gershuny, & J. P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and language, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
- Parks, J. B. (Executive Producer), Harper, M. C. (Script Writer), & Lopez, P. G. (Director). (1994). One person's struggle with gender-biased language [Videotape]. Bowling Green, OH: WBGU-TV.
- Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1996). Attitudes toward sexist language in sport: Validation of an instrument. Future Focus: Ohio Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 17(2), 33–34.
- Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1998). Influence of age, gender, and context on attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language: Is sport a special case? Sex Roles, 38, 477–494.
- Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. L. (1991). Effects of biological and psychological gender, age cohort, and interviewer gender on attitudes toward gender-inclusive/exclusive language. Sex Roles, 24, 391–412.
- Rubin, D. L., Greene, K., & Schneider, D. (1994). Adopting gender-inclusive language reforms: Diachronic and synchronic variation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 91–114.
- Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic “man” in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology. American Sociologist, 8, 12–18.
- Shimanoff, S. B. (1977). Man = human: Empirical support for the Whorfian hypothesis. Bulletin: Women's Studies in Communication, 1(2), 21–27.
- Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology, and point of view. New York: Routledge.
- Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (1983). Language, gender, and society: Opening a second decade of research. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
- Contemporary Arguments Against Nonsexist Language: Blaubergs (1980) Revisited
Volume 39, Issue 5-6 , pp 445-461
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors