Keywords

7.1 Teachers’ Views on the Existence of Gender-Neutral Language Options

In English, there is a long tradition of the use of gender-neutral language (see, e.g., Bodine, 1975) and research on issues related to it (e.g., Bailey et al., 2021; Hyde, 1984; Parks & Roberton, 1998; Rubin & Greene, 1991).Footnote 1 Since the 1970s, scholars and organizations have argued for the use of language that does not regard the male as a generic, such as the use of he as a generic intended to include individuals of all gender identities (see, e.g., Pauwels, 2003; Nilsen et al., 1977). The use of they instead of he or firefighter instead of fireman has now become widely accepted (Freed, 2020). For example, in academic style guides, such as the American Psychological Association’s 2020 publication manual, several sections address issues relevant to language, gender and bias, while there are also guidelines for legal professionals on how to use gender-neutral language (e.g., Bales, 2002). Discussions about gender-inclusive language started several decades ago in many languages other than English (e.g., German, Spanish, Swedish) as well (see Pauwels, 2003, for early initiatives in several languages; for a recent overview of research, see Formanowicz & Hansen, 2022). However, the acceptance and use of gender-neutral language seems to differ considerably across languages and varieties of languages (e.g., Bonnin & Coronel, 2021; Erdocia, 2022a, b; Kotthoff & Nübling, 2018; Kuhn & Gabriel, 2014; Sarrasin et al., 2012; Vergoossen et al., 2020).

Since the survey was designed for teachers of all modern foreign languages and it was impossible to determine in advance if all languages had gender-neutral forms, question 8a asked teachers about precisely this: Do gender-neutral expressions or pronouns exist in the L2 you are teaching? There were four possible preset answer options—yes, no, don’t know and no comment—plus an other option, which was a free-text field in which participants could type their individual responses. Figure 7.1 presents the responses to this question.

Fig. 7.1
A pie chart presents the percentage of all teachers who responded to the existence of gender-neutral language options in the L 2s they taught, according to the teachers. The responses are, 1. Yes, 64, 2. No, 25, 3. Dont know, 6, and 4. Other, 5.

Existence of gender-neutral language options in the L2s they taught, according to the teachers (as a percentage of all teachers who responded)

Full size image

The question was answered by 132 teachers; one did not respond. Of the remaining 132 teachers, 64% chose yes, while 25% selected no, 6% chose don’t know and 5% opted for other and then responded with the following in the free-text field (with an indication of the language to which the teacher was referring):

  • Italian: This discussion is still new

  • English: Gender-neutral expressions in English are new and a lot of literature in English does not have examples of these expressions

  • English: Some but there are many that are gender-based

  • Norwegian: Yes, but it’s quite a new phenomenon and only used in specific domains. It has not entered any dictionary, that I know of, yet

  • Dutch: Not naturally, but there are groups advocating for using certain existing words as gender-neutral pronouns a.t.m.

In addition, there was also a comment about Korean, which unfortunately was phrased ambiguously and has therefore not been included. Since the language the teachers were thinking of is of major importance for this question, the results of the seven language groups (with three or more teachers; see Sect. 3.1) are presented in Table 7.1, and the findings are discussed in relation to the language the teachers were thinking of.

Table 7.1 Existence of gender-neutral language options, according to the teachers of each specific language
Full size table

What is highly interesting about the results of this question is that there is no universal agreement with regard to the existence of gender-neutral options in the individual language groups, which I found rather surprising. For example, in Sweden, the gender-neutral pronoun hen was introduced as an addition to the existing male (han) and female (hon) singular pronouns a few years ago. It “is used as both a pronoun to refer to individuals with non-binary gender identities and as a generic pronoun” and “in 2014 the pronoun [hen] was included in the Swedish dictionary” (Vergoossen et al., 2020, p. 329). As the introduction of hen has continued to receive international media attention over the last few several years (e.g., De Luce, 2019; The Guardian, 2015; Monnis, 2019; Spiegel, 2015), it is puzzling that one of the Swedish teachers selected the don’t know option. One explanation for the teacher’s don’t know choice could be that she is teaching Swedish in Germany and is thus not as exposed to developments as her two colleagues who are teaching in Sweden. However, even the German language media covered the Swedish pronoun over the years.

Regarding Dutch, one of the teachers mentioned advocacy for gender-neutral language in the free-text field, whereas the others selected no. While Gerritsen (2002) reported on developments addressing gender bias in Dutch from the 1970s onward (including the use of plural pronouns instead of male or female singular ones), there do not seem to be recent studies that report on further developments, suggesting that gender-neutral language may not be a widely discussed issue in Dutch.

For the Romance languages, publications address discussions about the issue that have taken place over the last decades, but also highlight the political opposition that some suggestions have encountered (e.g., Erdocia, 2022a, b; Moser et al., 2011; Slemp, 2020; Xiao et al., 2023).

In German, gender-neutral options have been in existence for several years (see, e.g., Diewald & Steinhauer, 2017; Kotthoff & Nübling, 2018) and can be observed in all kinds of institutional discourse settings in the written and spoken language (e.g., higher education, media, politics). Recent initiatives by (far-)right parties to prohibit the use of gender-fair language in public institutions and the media have received considerable attention (Hein, 2023; MDR Online, 2023; Sueddeutsche Zeitung Online, 2023; Zeit Online, 2022; see also Lang, 2017), and it is, therefore, surprising that one of the teachers indicated that gender-neutral language forms do not exist. Like the Swedish teacher who chose don’t know, the German teachers who selected no is also based outside Germany and may not have followed recent developments in Germany from the United States.

The long tradition of gender-neutral language use in English was addressed at the beginning of this chapter. I was, therefore, very surprised that eight teachers indicated that gender-neutral language does not exist in English and that five stated that they did not know about it. Since all teachers who took part in this survey were working in higher education and gender-neutral language forms are a frequent requirement in academic contexts and publications, I was very puzzled by this result. To find out whether these teachers shared any characteristics that may explain their answers, I looked at where they had been working most recently, since the answers from the German and Swedish teacher who had differed from the other group members had suggested that daily exposure to the target language could be a reason.

The analysis of the data showed that all teachers of English who selected either don’t know or no were teaching English in a non-English-speaking country. Another factor that aligned them to the German native speaker who taught Swedish was that 10 of the teachers were non-native speakers of English. This suggests that geographical distance from the target language community and teaching a language that is not one’s native language could be factors that lead to less exposure to and awareness of developments in the target language. If this is indeed the case, then teachers working in these circumstances may need to consider expanding their exposure to developments in the L2 more. Higher education institutions, such as language centres, may wish to consider supporting their staff by paying for staff development programmes, newspapers and magazines from the target countries, conferences attendances or educational sojourns in the target L2 context.

Using or not using gender-neutral language can have consequences. As stated above, some professional bodies expect the use of gender-fair, gender-neutral or inclusive language, and in other contexts using or not using gender-neutral language can be seen as a political statement. In addition, individuals addressed with male generic terms who do not identify as male or who object to the use of male generics may be offended by such language directed at them.Footnote 2 As my previous research on the perception of L2 learners’ language infelicities has shown, native speakers do expect highly proficient L2 learners to use appropriate and inoffensive language and allowances may only be made for L2 learners with a notably low proficiency in the L2 (e.g., Schauer, 2006, 2009). This means that in those languages in which the gender-neutral options have been established, such as English and Swedish, teachers ought to at least be aware of them, so that they can answer their students’ questions on this issue and thereby help students make an informed decision on whether or when they need to address gender-neutral options; the teachers’ views on this issue are discussed in the following section.

7.2 Teaching Gender-Neutral Language Options or Not

Teachers who had provided an affirmative answer to question 8a were asked to continue on to question 8b: If gender-neutral language options exist in your L2, do you teach them? Of the 86Footnote 3 teachers who provided an affirmative answer to question 8a, two opted out. The results of the 84 teachers who responded are presented in Fig. 7.2.

Fig. 7.2
A pie chart presents the percentage of all teachers who responded to the teaching of gender-neutral language options by the participants as a percentage of all teachers who responded. The responses are, 1. Yes, 73, 2. No, 18, 3. No comment, 6, and 4. Other, 4.

Teaching of gender-neutral language options by the participants (as a percentage of all teachers who responded)

Full size image

The results show that 73% of the teachers taught gender-neutral options, while 18% did not do so, 6% chose not to comment and 4% selected other and provided free-text responses as follows:

  • English: Sometimes

  • Spanish: I mention them and make students aware they do exist but I don’t properly teach them

  • French: I am considering introducing them

To obtain a better understanding of teachers’ views, the results for each individual language group were analysed and are presented in Table 7.2. This question was answered by 59 English teachers, nine German teachers, two Italian teachers, three Spanish teachers, two French teachers and two Swedish teachers, thus a total of 77 teachers.

Table 7.2 Teaching of gender-neutral language options by the participants in each language group who agreed that there were gender-neutral forms
Full size table

The results show that the majority of English and German teachers who agreed that there were gender-neutral forms in the language they focused on taught gender-neutral language options. Both Italian teachers who had answered question 8a in the affirmative also taught gender-neutral options. In the case of Spanish and French, there was greater variety, with only one Spanish teacher teaching such forms, and the remaining four teachers of Spanish and French either not commenting or providing the free-text comments presented above. Since none of the Dutch teachers provided an affirmative answer to question 8a, they are not represented in Table 7.2. The Swedish teachers that had stated that gender-neutral options existed in Swedish were divided when it came to teaching them, with one doing so and the other not.

I also invited the teachers to share why they did or did not teach gender-neutral forms in their classes in questions 8c and 8d: If you are (not) teaching gender-neutral language options, you can share your reasons for doing so here. Fifty-four teachers provided reasons for teaching gender-neutral language options in response to question 8c and 15 provided reasons for not teaching gender-neutral language options in response to question 8d. All responses are included in the Appendix to this chapter, in Tables 7.3 and 7.4.

I include here some examples from the data that illustrate why teachers teach gender-neutral language options in different languagesFootnote 4:

  • English: Gender-neutral options are often used in documents and academic contexts, as well as delicate situations, so I believe students should be aware and capable of using them.

  • English: Firstly, because the use of non-gender-neutral language options in English may hinder understanding and/or communication. Secondly, because it is a matter of culturally appropriate language.

  • English: Choice of vocabulary is a reflection of one’s values. Teaching a language is a lot more than teaching the language. It is teaching another culture as well.

  • English: They are an important part of knowing the language today and not using them could create problems socially, politically or professionally for my students. More importantly, it is just the right thing to do.

  • English: My L2 focus is English in which there are grammatically specific situations in which a gender-neutral pronoun is necessary (e.g., “A teacher who works in a school should make enough money. They should never have to worry about pay”). Additionally, I feel it is important that students realize that this isn’t just a social issue but grammar as well. I have also implemented a pronoun introduction in the first lessons when we all get to know each other. This I do to try to have an inclusive classroom.

  • English: Italians have the habit of using the masculine when talking generically. This is not done in English (any more), so I recommend they learn the up-to-date terms like using they instead of he. This will help them integrate more with their English-speaking counterparts.

  • German: Using gender-neutral language is a much-discussed topic in Germany. As I see it, it is part of a development towards inclusion and acceptance of minorities and therefore something students in a language class should deal with. It is part of the acquisition of intercultural competence.

  • Italian: I usually try to make students aware of the options they have and what political implications each option entails. Then, it is up to them to make their own language choices so as to convey their intentions and project the image they want to project in specific contexts. I don’t really insist too much on this topic for now, because the discussion is still very much open in Italian and even native speakers who choose to adopt an inclusive language are often criticized for that.

  • Spanish: Pragmatic relevance.

  • French: I think it is important to make students aware of the variety of pronouns that exist but also make them aware that they may not be accepted or even understood by all (e.g., iel in French). It can also help non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid students to express their identity in the target language.

  • Swedish: Because it is part of the language.

The examples provided represent the breadth of reasons given for teaching gender-neutral language. I coded the responses by the teachers who had answered this question according to themes and found that the following could be identified in the data: inclusion (9 responses), equality (7), everyday language use (6), to address negative transfer from the L1 (5), to avoid offence (5), academic language conventions (4), culture (4), grammar (3), (in)appropriate language (3), part of language (3) and values (2).Footnote 5 In addition, teachers also referred to diversityLGBTIQA aspects such as the community and non-binary individuals, thus also linking gender-neutral language to gender identity. The examples illustrate the variety of reasons offered by the teachers and also show the link between gender-neutral language options, intercultural competence and pragmatics.

Fifteen teachers responded to question 8d and commented on why they were not teaching gender-neutral language. Comments illustrating some of the reasons given are:

  • English: There are only very few and they come along automatically when dealing with different topics. So, it is not necessary to make them an explicitly addressed topic in class.

  • English: I teach C1+ and at this level the students are probably more aware of this than I am—internet, YouTube, TikTok, etc.

  • English: I teach [English for Specific Purposes] at a science faculty. Based on the topics I have been teaching, I have not felt the need to address this particular issue in my classes so far.

  • English: In my 20+ years of teaching, I’ve always used he or she.

  • German: I don’t agree with it.

  • Italian: I teach Italian. There are very few and unimportant gender-neutral forms.

What is interesting about the comments is that only few of them show opposition towards gender-neutral language (e.g., the responses by the German teacher given above). Instead, the themes that emerge in this data set tend to indicate that the learners are already aware of them (see the comment by an English teacher above), that gender-neutral options are featured in materials the students are exposed to (in two comments) or that teachers talk about them in class to raise awareness but do not consider that to be teaching them (in three comments). In addition, there are variations on the theme of gender-neutral language not being particularly relevant or even being distracting (in four comments). One teacher commented on a political stance that is not shared by the learners, while another indicated that they would like to pay more attention to it; and one (included above) refers to explicitly always using gender-binary forms. The responses by the teachers underline the importance of conducting research that gives participants the opportunity to voice their own thoughts, especially when issues that could be perceived as delicate or political as in the case of gender-neutral language are examined. If teachers had not been given the opportunity in this survey to explain why they teach or do not teach gender-neutral language, it would have been easy to make assumptions about their responses to question 8b that could then have been instrumentalized.Footnote 6

It is also important to bear in mind that the teachers in this study represent a variety of different languages. While not using gender-neutral language options in certain contexts and languages may be considered marked or offensive, or as making a political statement, using gender-neutral options in languages in which they are not as established could also be regarded as taking a certain political stance. My personal view has always been that language educators should make their students aware of developments affecting language and the impact that particular language choices can have. Unless laid down in university regulations, it is then up to the students to decide how they wish to express themselves and to live with the consequences. However, in order to make informed decisions, students need precisely that—information. If educators want their learners to become successful intercultural communicators and to be able to communicate effectively and appropriately, they need to provide them with information that will allow them to do so.

7.3 Summary

This chapter presented the analysis of the responses to questions 8a–8d, which focused on gender-neutral language. Question 8a explored whether gender-neutral language options existed in the L2s taught by the teachers, in their opinion. The results revealed that 64% of the teachers stated that the L2 they taught offered these options, while 25% answered that this was not the case. In addition, 6% of the teachers chose don’t know and 5% opted for the other option, providing their comments in a free-text field. The analysis of the seven language groups showed that teachers in the individual groups tended to have different views on the existence of gender-neutral language options in their respective language, which was a surprising result.

The teachers who answered question 8a in the affirmative were then asked whether they taught gender-neutral options or not (question 8b) and to explain why they did (question 8c) or did not do so (question 8d). The answers to question 8b showed that 73% of this subset of teachers taught gender-neutral options, while 18% did not do so. The answers also showed that 6% chose not to comment and 4% selected the other option. Teachers provided a variety of reasons for why they taught gender-neutral options, with the most frequently mentioned themes being inclusion, equality, gender-neutral language being part of everyday language use, avoiding negative transfer from learners’ L1, academic language conventions and it being part of the target language’s culture. The responses from the teachers who taught gender-neutral language options indicated that they considered gender-neutral language to be linked to intercultural communicative competence and pragmatics.

The responses of the teachers who did not teach gender-neutral language revealed that a third of them did not do so because they either talked about them in class but did not consider that to be outright teaching, or because gender-neutral options were covered in the materials anyway. Other teachers indicated that these options were not relevant in the respective language or were too distracting for their learners. Two teachers stated that they did not teach them because they disagreed with them, while others were interested in using them or referred to using explicit binary language options.

Overall, the data showed that gender-neutral language is an area worthy of further discussion in studies that address the interface between pragmatics and intercultural communicative competence.