Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_4
  • Chapter length: 20 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4612-3588-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association (1983). Publication manual, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bate, B. (1978). Nonsexist language use in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139–149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blaubergs, M.S. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 244–261.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Caldie, R.W. (1981). Dominance and language: A new perspective on sexism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13, 373–381.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dubois, B.L., & Crouch, I. (1979). Man and its compounds in recent prefeminist American English. Papers in Linguistics, 12, 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart, O.M.Y. (1976). Elementary students’ understanding of certain masculine and neutral generic nouns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 4113A–4114A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, J.S., & Henley, W.E. (1890–1904/1965). Slang and its analogues. New York: Klaus Reprint Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hamilton, M.C. (1988). Masculine generic terms and misperception of AIDS risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1222–1240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M.C. (in press). Using masculine generics: Does generic “he” increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M.C., & Henley, N.M. (1988). Sex bias in language. Effects on the reader/hearer’s cognitions. Paper submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison L. (1975). Cro-Magnon woman—in eclipse. Science Teacher, 42(4), 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L., & Passero, R.N. (1975). Sexism in the language of elementary school textbooks. Science and Children, 12(4), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Henley, N.M., Gruber, B., & Lerner, L. (1988). Effects of Masculine generic usage on attitudes and self-esteem. Paper submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Labov, W. (1969). The study of nonstandard English. Urbana, EL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • MacKay, D.G. (1980b). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar. Language in Society, 9, 349–367.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D.G. (1980c). Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D.G., & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, J. (1984). The impact of the sexist language controversy and regulation on language in university documents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 337–347.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Merriam, E. (1974). Sex and semantics: Some notes on BOMFOG. New York University Education Quarterly, 5 (4), 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women: New language in new times. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, J., Robinson, G.M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rosch, E. (1974). Linguistic relativity. In A. Silverstein (Ed.), Human communication: Theoretical explanations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir (D.G. Mandelbaum, Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Silveira, J. (1978). Women on the fringes: Generic masculine words and their relation to thinking. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sniezek, J.A., & Jazwinski, C.H. (1986). Gender bias in English: In search of fair language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 642–662.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sontag, S. (1973). The third world of women. Partisan Review, 40, 180–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stopes, C.C. (1908). The sphere of “man”: In relation to that of “woman” in the Constitution. London: Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. New York: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L.C. (1978). Teachers’ inclusion of males and females in generic nouns. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 155–161.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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