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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adamsky, C. (1981). Changes in pronominal usage in a classroom situation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 773–779.
American Psychological Association (1983). Publication manual, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bate, B. (1978). Nonsexist language use in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139–149.
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.
Blaubergs, M.S. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 244–261.
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.
Caldie, R.W. (1981). Dominance and language: A new perspective on sexism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
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.
Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 373–381.
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.
Dubois, B.L., & Crouch, I. (1979). Man and its compounds in recent prefeminist American English. Papers in Linguistics, 12, 261–269.
Eberhart, O.M.Y. (1976). Elementary students’ understanding of certain masculine and neutral generic nouns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 4113A–4114A.
Farmer, J.S., & Henley, W.E. (1890–1904/1965). Slang and its analogues. New York: Klaus Reprint Corporation.
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.
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.
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)
Hamilton, M.C. (1988). Masculine generic terms and misperception of AIDS risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1222–1240.
Hamilton, M.C. (in press). Using masculine generics: Does generic “he” increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles.
Hamilton, M.C., & Henley, N.M. (1988). Sex bias in language. Effects on the reader/hearer’s cognitions. Paper submitted for publication.
Harrison L. (1975). Cro-Magnon woman—in eclipse. Science Teacher, 42(4), 9–11.
Harrison, L., & Passero, R.N. (1975). Sexism in the language of elementary school textbooks. Science and Children, 12(4), 22–25.
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.
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.
Henley, N.M., Gruber, B., & Lerner, L. (1988). Effects of Masculine generic usage on attitudes and self-esteem. Paper submitted for publication.
Hyde, J.S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.
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.
Labov, W. (1969). The study of nonstandard English. Urbana, EL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.
Levin, M. (1981). Vs. Ms. In M. Vetterling-Braggin (Ed.), Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis (pp. 217–222). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
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.
MacKay, D.G. (1980b). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar. Language in Society, 9, 349–367.
MacKay, D.G. (1980c). Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.
MacKay, D.G., & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.
Markowitz, J. (1984). The impact of the sexist language controversy and regulation on language in university documents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 337–347.
Martyna, W. (1978). Using and understanding the generic masculine: A social-psychological approach to language and the sexes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3050B.
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.
Merriam, E. (1974). Sex and semantics: Some notes on BOMFOG. New York University Education Quarterly, 5 (4), 22–24.
Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women: New language in new times. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Moulton, J., Robinson, G.M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rosch, E. (1974). Linguistic relativity. In A. Silverstein (Ed.), Human communication: Theoretical explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir (D.G. Mandelbaum, Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schneider, J., & Hacker, S. (1973). Sex role imagery and the use of the generic “man” in introductory texts. American Sociologist, 8(8), 12–18.
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.
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.
Shimanoff, S.B. (1977). Man = human: Empirical support for the Whorfian hypothesis. Bulletin: Women7#x2019;s Studies in Communication, 1(2), 21–27.
Silveira, J. (1978). Women on the fringes: Generic masculine words and their relation to thinking. Unpublished manuscript.
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.
Sniezek, J.A., & Jazwinski, C.H. (1986). Gender bias in English: In search of fair language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 642–662.
Sontag, S. (1973). The third world of women. Partisan Review, 40, 180–206.
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.
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.
Stopes, C.C. (1908). The sphere of “man”: In relation to that of “woman” in the Constitution. London: Unwin.
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.
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.
Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. New York: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, L.C. (1978). Teachers’ inclusion of males and females in generic nouns. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 155–161.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Henley, N.M. (1989). Molehill or Mountain? What We Know and Don’t Know About Sex Bias in Language. In: Crawford, M., Gentry, M. (eds) Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_4
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-8168-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-3588-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive