Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 66, Issue 3–4, pp 268–281 | Cite as

The Gendering of Language: A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages

  • Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino
  • T. Andrew Caswell
  • Emmi K. Laakso
Original Article

Abstract

Feminists have long argued that sexist language can have real world consequences for gender relations and the relative status of men and women, and recent research suggests that grammatical gender can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines (Boroditsky 2009). Although others have theorized about the connection between grammatical gender in language and societal gender equality (Stahlberg et al. 2007), the current work tests this link empirically by examining differences in gender equality between countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless language systems. Of the 111 countries investigated, our findings suggest that countries where gendered languages are spoken evidence less gender equality compared to countries with other grammatical gender systems. Furthermore, countries where natural gender languages are spoken demonstrate greater gender equality, which may be due to the ease of creating gender symmetric revisions to instances of sexist language.

Keywords

Grammatical gender Gender equality Gendering Language 

References

  1. Banaji, M., & Hardin, C. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think? In M. Brockman (Ed.), What's next? Dispatches on the future of science (pp. 116–129). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  4. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition (pp. 61–79). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625–632. doi: 10.1007/BF00290069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, F. (2001). The communication of gender in Turkish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 1, pp. 283–310). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  7. Bull, T., & Swan, T. (2002). The representation of gender in Norwegian. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 2, pp. 219–249). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, D. (1998). The feminist critique of language: A reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Central Intelligence Agency. (2010). The world factbook: Languages. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html.
  10. Chen, J.-Y., & Su, J.-J. (2011). Differential sensitivity to the gender of a person by English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 195–203. doi: 10.1007/s10936-010-9164-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherng, R.-J., Chang, C.-L., & Chen, J.-Y. (2009). A new look at gender inequality in Chinese: A study of Chinese speakers’ perception of gender-based characters. Sex Roles, 61, 427–433. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9639-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comrie, B. (1999). Grammatical gender systems: A linguist’s assessment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 457–466. doi: 10.1023/A:1023212225540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  14. Engelberg, M. (2002). The communication of gender in Finnish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 2, pp. 109–132). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  15. Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2008). Can societal language amendments change gender representation? The case of Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 451–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00650.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629–643. doi: 10.1007/BF00289252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton, M. C., Hunter, B., & Stuart-Smith, S. (1992). Jury instructions worded in the masculine generic: Can a woman claim self-defense when “he” is threatened? In J. C. Chrisler & D. Howard (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 340–347). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., & Zahidi, S. (2009). The global gender gap 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf
  19. Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (2001). The linguistic representation of women and men. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  20. Hellinger. M., & Bußmann, H. (Eds.). (2001–2003). Gender across languages (Vols. 1–3) Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, E. D., Terrell, H. K., Cohen, A. B., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2010). The role of social cognition in the religious fundamentalism-prejudice relationship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 724–739. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01542.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ibrahim, M. H. (1973). Grammatical gender: Its origin and development. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
  24. Jakobson, R. (1966). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Klugman, J., et al. (2010). Human development report 2010 (20th anniversary edition): The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf
  26. Konishi, T. (1993). The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 519–534. doi: 10.1007/BF01068252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koniuszaniec, G., & Blaszkowska, H. (2003). Language and gender in Polish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 3, pp. 259–285). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed). Dallas, TX.: SIL International. Retrieved from: http://www.ethnologue.com/family_index.asp.
  29. Martyna, W. (1980). Beyond the “he/man” approach: The case for nonsexist language. Signs, 5, 482–493. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173588.
  30. McConnell, A. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as men and people: Effects of gender-marked language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1004–1013. doi: 10.1177/01461672962210003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moulton, J. G., Robinson, M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 10321036. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032
  32. Nissen, U. K. (2002). Gender in Spanish: Tradition and innovation. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages (Vol. 2, pp. 251–277). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.Google Scholar
  33. Razavi, S., & Jenichen, A. (2010). The unhappy marriage of religion and politics: Problems and pitfalls for gender equality. Third World Quarterly, 31, 833–850. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2010.502700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheele, B., & Gauler, E. (1993). Wählen wissenschaftler ihre probleme anders aus als wissenschaftler innen? Das genus-sexus-problem als paradigmatischer fall der linguistischen relativitätsthese [Do male and female scientists differ in their selection of research problems? The problem of gender-sex bias as a paradigmatic example of linguistic relativity]. Sprache & Kognition, 12, 59–72.Google Scholar
  35. Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  36. Sera, M., Berge, C., & Del Castillo, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172. doi: 10.1177/0146167206294745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press (Vol. 16, pp. 666).Google Scholar
  40. Switzer, J. Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices: An empirical investigation of age and sex-related differences. Sex Roles, 22, 69–82. doi: 10.1007/BF00288155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 501–520. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.501.Google Scholar
  42. Wasserman, B. D., & Weseley, A. J. (2009). ¿Qué? Quoi? Do languages with grammatical gender promote sexist attitudes? Sex Roles, 61, 634–643. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9696-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino
    • 1
  • T. Andrew Caswell
    • 2
  • Emmi K. Laakso
    • 1
  1. 1.Rhode Island School of DesignProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations