Skip to main content
Log in

Some grammatical rules are more difficult than others: The case of the generic interpretation of the masculine

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1994). Grammatical incongruence and vocabulary types.Memory & Cognition, 22, 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty, M. (2001). How a language gender system creeps into perception.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, U. (2008). Language policies and in-group favouritism: The malleability of the interpretation of generically intended masculine forms.Social Psychology, 39, 103–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2008). Do language amendments really change gender representations? The case of Norwegian.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Are inferences from stereotyped role names to characters’ gender made elaboratively?Memory & Cognition, 30, 439–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grévisse, M., & Goose, A. (1993).Le bon usage: Grammaire Française [The correct usage: French grammar]. Paris: Duculot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, J., & Guion, J. (2000).Orth: Apprendre l’orthographe [Orth: learning to spell]. Hatier: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gygax, P., & Gesto, N. (2007). Lourdeur de texte et feminisation [Féminisation of language and hindering reading].L’Année Psychologique, 107, 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J.S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language.Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 697–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, J.B., & Roberton, M.A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against non-sexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited.Sex Roles, 39, 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Gygax.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173014

Key words

Navigation