Abstract
In this paper we argue that the generic use of the masculine represents a grammatical rule that might be easy to learn but difficult to apply when understanding texts. This argument is substantiated by reviewing the relevant literature as well as the recent work conducted by the GREL Group (Gender Representation in Language) on the interaction between stereotypical and grammatical information in the construction of a representation of gender when reading role names. The studies presented in this paper show that the masculine form used as a generic to refer to persons of both sexes, or to persons of indefinite sex or whose sex is irrelevant, in gender marked languages is likely to be associated with its specific meaning (i.e., masculine refers only to men). This is true even though the generic nature of the masculine is a very common grammatical rule learnt at school. People may have learned this rule and may understand it, but may not readily apply it.
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous présentons l’idée que l’utilisation générique du masculin représente une règle grammaticale facile à apprendre mais difficile à appliquer lors de la compréhension de textes. Cette idée est soutenue, entre autres, par les travaux effectués par le groupe GREL (Gender Representation in Language) sur l’interaction entre les informations stéréotypées et grammaticales lors de l’élaboration d’une représentation mentale du genre lors de la lecture de noms de rôle. Les études présentées dans cet article montrent que la forme masculine utilisée comme une forme générique pour se référer à des personnes des deux sexes, ou des personnes dont le sexe n’est pas connu ou non pertinent, est vraisemblablement associée à son sens /spécifique/ dans les langues à marques grammaticales de genre (càd., la forme masculine se réfère /aux/ /hommes/). Ceci est vrai alors que la nature /générique/ du masculin est une règle grammaticale usuelle apprise à l’école. La règle peut être apprise et comprise, mais est vraisemblablement difficile à appliquer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albrecht, U. (2000). Unserer Sprache ist verbildet durch einen Maskulinismus. Die deutsche Schweiz auf dem Weg zu einer geschlechtergerechten Sprache [German Switzerland on the way to a gender-adequate language]Bulletin Suisse de Psychologie Appliquée, 72, 11–46.
Académie Française. (2002).Féminisation des noms de métiers, fonctions, grades et titres. [Feminization of job tiles, posts, tanks and qualifications]. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.academie-francaise.fr/actualites/feminisation.asp
Baudino, C. (2001).Politique de la langue et différence sexuelle: La politisation du genre des noms de métiers [Language politics and sexual difference: The politicization of job titles’ gender]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Braun, F. (1996). Das grosse I und seine Schwestern — eine kritische Bewertung [The capital I and its sisters — A critical evaluation].Deutschunterricht, 48, 54–62.
Bussmann, H. (1995).Das Genus,die Grammatik und —der Mensch: Geschlechterdifferenz in der Sprachwissenschaft [Gender differences in linguistics]. In H. Bussmann & R. Hof (Eds.),Genus. Zur Geschlechterdifferenz in den Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 114–160). Stuttgart: Körner.
Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 639–663.
Chancellerie Fédérale Suisse. (1993). Formulation non sexiste: Circulaire de la Chancellerie Fédérale du 19 août 1993 [Nonsexist language: Form of the Federal Chancellery, on the 19th of August 1993]. Berne: Services Linguistiques Centraux.
Chatard, A., Guimond, S., & Martinot. D. (2005). Impact de la féminisation lexicale des professions sur l’auto-efficacité des élèves: Une remise en cause de l’universalisme masculin? [Occupational self-efficacy as a function of grammatical gender in French].L’Année Psychologique, 105, 249–272.
Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1994). Grammatical incongruence and vocabulary types.Memory & Cognition, 22, 387–394.
Flaherty, M. (2001). How a language gender system creeps into perception.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 18–31.
Gabriel, U. (2008). Language policies and in-group favouritism: The malleability of the interpretation of generically intended masculine forms.Social Psychology, 39, 103–107.
Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2008). Do language amendments really change gender representations? The case of Norwegian.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 451–457.
Gabriel, U., Gygax, P., Sarrasin, O., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Au-pairs are rarely male: Role names’ gender stereotype information across three languages.Behavior Research Methods, 40, 206–212.
Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Are inferences from stereotyped role names to characters’ gender made elaboratively?Memory & Cognition, 30, 439–446.
Grévisse, M., & Goose, A. (1993).Le bon usage: Grammaire Française [The correct usage: French grammar]. Paris: Duculot.
Guion, J., & Guion, J. (2000).Orth: Apprendre l’orthographe [Orth: learning to spell]. Hatier: Paris.
Gygax, P., & Gabriel, U. (2008). Can a group of musicians be composed of women? Generic interpretation of French masculine role names in absence and presence of feminine forms.Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 141–153.
Gygax, P., & Gesto, N. (2007). Lourdeur de texte et feminisation [Féminisation of language and hindering reading].L’Année Psychologique, 107, 233–250.
Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2008). There is no generic masculine in French and German: When beauticians, musicians and mechanics are all men.Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 464–485.
Hellinger, M. (1984). Effecting social change through group action. Femine occupational titles in transition. In C. Kramarae, M. Schulz, & W. O’Barr (Eds.), Language and power (pp. 13–153). London: Sage.
Hyde, J.S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language.Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 697–706.
Liben, L.S., Bigler, R.S., & Krogh, H.R. (2002). Language at work: Children’s gendered interpretations of occupational titles.Child Development, 73(3), 810–828.
Parks, J.B., & Roberton, M.A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against non-sexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited.Sex Roles, 39, 445–461.
Peyer, A., & Wyss, E.L. (1998). “JazzmusikerInnen — weder Asketen noch Müesli-Fifis”. Feministische Sprachkritik in der Schweiz, ein Überblick [“Jazz-musicians — neither ascetics nor cereals-picker”. Feministic language critic in Switzerland, a review]Germanistische Linguistik, 139–140, 117–154.
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.),Social communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology Press.
Swan, T. (1992). All about Eve: Women in Norwegian newspapers in the 20th century.Working Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism, 37–54.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Most research presented in this paper was supported by research grants from the Swiss National Foundation to Ute Gabriel and Pascal Gygax.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O. et al. Some grammatical rules are more difficult than others: The case of the generic interpretation of the masculine. Eur J Psychol Educ 24, 235–246 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173014
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173014