Advertisement

Molehill or Mountain? What We Know and Don’t Know About Sex Bias in Language

  • Nancy M. Henley

Abstract

Language is at the core of human interaction, and it is at the core of our beings, our sense of self. An attack on our language is in a very real sense an attack on ourselves; as we know, wars large and small have been fought over language. Small wonder then that people are upset about the issue of sex bias in language. We are upset as speakers of the language because we identify with it: an attack on our language as unfair says that we are ourselves unfair. And we are upset as referents of the language (particularly women and girls) because in referring to us the language often seems to be attacking us. Why do I say the language, and not its speakers, are attacking us? Because well-meaning, nonsexist speakers may, simply by conventional usage, unwittingly use the language as conscious misogynists do: to trivialize, ignore, and demean females. Thus the problem is located in the common language, not solely or necessarily in the intents of its speakers.

Keywords

Acquire Immune Deficiency Syndrome Applied Social Psychology Male Bias Sexist Thought Homosexual Woman 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamsky, C. (1981). Changes in pronominal usage in a classroom situation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 773–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association (1983). Publication manual, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Bate, B. (1978). Nonsexist language use in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bern, S.L., & Bern, D.J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaubergs, M.S. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, R. (1986). Linguistic relativity. In S.H. Hulse & B.F. Green, Jr. (Eds.). One hundred years of psychological research in America (pp. 241–276). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caldie, R.W. (1981). Dominance and language: A new perspective on sexism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, C.M., Hill, F.A., & Dayley, L.J. (1983). Do masculine pronouns used generically lead to thoughts of men? Sex Roles, 9, 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeStefano, J., Kuhner, M., & Pepinsky, H. (1978). An investigation of referents of selected sex-indefinite terms in English. Paper presented at Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  11. Dubois, B.L., & Crouch, I. (1979). Man and its compounds in recent prefeminist American English. Papers in Linguistics, 12, 261–269.Google Scholar
  12. Eberhart, O.M.Y. (1976). Elementary students’ understanding of certain masculine and neutral generic nouns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 4113A–4114A.Google Scholar
  13. Farmer, J.S., & Henley, W.E. (1890–1904/1965). Slang and its analogues. New York: Klaus Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, A. (1975). The making of a nonsexist dictionary. In B. Thome & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 57–63). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gregersen, E.A. (1979). Sexual linguistics. In J. Orasanu, M.K. Slater, & L.L. Adler (Eds.), Language, sex and gender: Does “la difference” make a difference? (pp. 3–19). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton, M.C. (1985). Linguistic relativity and sex bias in language: Effects of the masculine “generic” on the imagery of the writer and the perceptual discrimination of the reader. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1381B. (University Microfilms No. 8513117)Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, M.C. (1988). Masculine generic terms and misperception of AIDS risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1222–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton, M.C. (in press). Using masculine generics: Does generic “he” increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, M.C., & Henley, N.M. (1988). Sex bias in language. Effects on the reader/hearer’s cognitions. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  20. Harrison L. (1975). Cro-Magnon woman—in eclipse. Science Teacher, 42(4), 9–11.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, L., & Passero, R.N. (1975). Sexism in the language of elementary school textbooks. Science and Children, 12(4), 22–25.Google Scholar
  22. Henley, N.M. (1987). A review of research and theory on the masculine as a generic form in language. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  23. Henley, N.M., & Dragun, D. (August 1983). A survey of attitutes toward changing sex-biased language. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Henley, N.M., Gruber, B., & Lerner, L. (1988). Effects of Masculine generic usage on attitudes and self-esteem. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  25. Hyde, J.S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(2), 25–30.Google Scholar
  27. Labov, W. (1969). The study of nonstandard English. Urbana, EL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin, M. (1981). Vs. Ms. In M. Vetterling-Braggin (Ed.), Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis (pp. 217–222). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
  30. MacKay, D.G. (1980a). Language, thought and social attitudes, In H. Giles, W.P. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 89–96). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  31. MacKay, D.G. (1980b). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar. Language in Society, 9, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacKay, D.G. (1980c). Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacKay, D.G., & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markowitz, J. (1984). The impact of the sexist language controversy and regulation on language in university documents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martyna, W. (1978). Using and understanding the generic masculine: A social-psychological approach to language and the sexes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3050B.Google Scholar
  36. Martyna, W. (1983). Beyond the he/man approach: The case for nonsexist language. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 25–37). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Merriam, E. (1974). Sex and semantics: Some notes on BOMFOG. New York University Education Quarterly, 5 (4), 22–24.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women: New language in new times. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  39. Moulton, J., Robinson, G.M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nilsen, A.P. (December 1973). The correlation between gender and other semantic features in American English. Paper presented at meetings of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
  41. Nilsen, A.P. (1977a). Linguistic sexism as a social issue. In A.P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H.L. Gershuny, & J.P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and language (pp. 1–25). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  42. Nilsen, A.P. (1977b). Sexism as shown through the English vocabulary. In A.P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H.L. Gershuny, & J.P. Stanley (Eds.), Sexism and language (pp. 27–41). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  43. Nilsen, A.P. (1977c). Sexism in children’s books and elementary teaching materials. In A.P. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H.L. Gershuny, & J.P. Stanley, Sexism and language (pp. 161–179). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  44. Rosch, E. (1974). Linguistic relativity. In A. Silverstein (Ed.), Human communication: Theoretical explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir (D.G. Mandelbaum, Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schneider, J., & Hacker, S. (1973). Sex role imagery and the use of the generic “man” in introductory texts. American Sociologist, 8(8), 12–18.Google Scholar
  48. Schneider, M.J., & Foss, K.A. (1977). Thought, sex, and language: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the American women’s movement. Bulletin: Women’s Studies in Communication, 1(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  49. Schulz, M. (1975). The semantic derogation of women. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 64–73). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Shimanoff, S.B. (1977). Man = human: Empirical support for the Whorfian hypothesis. Bulletin: Women7#x2019;s Studies in Communication, 1(2), 21–27.Google Scholar
  51. Silveira, J. (1978). Women on the fringes: Generic masculine words and their relation to thinking. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  52. Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The voices and words of women and men (pp. 165–178). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  53. Sniezek, J.A., & Jazwinski, C.H. (1986). Gender bias in English: In search of fair language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 642–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sontag, S. (1973). The third world of women. Partisan Review, 40, 180–206.Google Scholar
  55. Stanley, J.P. (1977). Paradigmatic woman: The prostitute. In D.L. Shores & C.P. Hines (Eds.), Papers in language variation (pp. 303–321). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stericker, A. (1981). Does this “he or she” business really make a difference? The effect of masculine pronouns as generics on job attitudes. Sex Roles, 7, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stopes, C.C. (1908). The sphere of “man”: In relation to that of “woman” in the Constitution. London: Unwin.Google Scholar
  58. Veach, S. (April 1979). Sexism in usage: Intentional, conveyed, or all in the mind? Paper presented at Conference on Language and Gender, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Wallston, B.S., & O’Leary, V.E. (1981). Sex makes a difference: Differential perceptions of women and men. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 9–41). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. New York: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, L.C. (1978). Teachers’ inclusion of males and females in generic nouns. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 155–161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy M. Henley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations