A naturalistic experiment investigated the effects of language reforms on several aspects of thought. Half of the students in an introductory psychology class received corrections any time they used "he" as a generic pronoun in their written work; the other half received no corrections to their written language use. At the end of the semester, all students completed measures of their language use, their gender imagery, and their attitudes to-ward language reforms. Results showed that the language corrections did reduce students' subsequent use of gender-biased language but did not affect their imagery nor their attitudes toward language reforms. Additional results revealed thatgender imagery was related to the gender connotations of the language encountered in the imagery task, especially for female students, and to language use for students who did not receive corrections. Implications of these results for the debate about the masculine generic prescription are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adamsky, C. (1981). Changes in pronominal usage in a classroom situation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 773-779.
2.
Bate, B. (1978). Nonsexist language use in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139-149.
3.
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular 'they," sex-indefinite "he," and "he or she."Language in Society, 4, 129-146.
4.
Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology: The second edition. New York: Free Press.
5.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp. 252-275). The Hague: Mouton.
6.
Carpenter, C. (1981). Exercises to combat sexist reading and writing. College English, 43, 293-300.
7.
Follett, W. (1966). Modern American usage. New York: Hill & Wang.
8.
Gannon, L., Luchetta, T., Rhodes, K, Pardie, L., & Segrist, D. (1992). Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency?American Psychologist, 47, 389-396.
9.
Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629-643.
10.
Gerrig, R., & Banaji, M. (in press). Language and thought. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Volume 12. Thinking. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
11.
Glucksberg, S. (1988). Language and thought. In R. Sternberg & E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 214-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Hamilton, M. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user's imagery?Sex Roles, 19, 785-799.
13.
Henley, N. (1989). Molehill or mountain? What we know and don't know about sex bias in language. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 59-78). New York: Springer-Verlag.
14.
Hofstadter, D. (1985). Changes in default words and images engendered by rising consciousness. In Metamagical themes: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern (pp. 136-158). New York: Bantam.
15.
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377-389.
16.
Hyde, J. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697-706.
17.
Jaccard, J., Thrrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-072). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Khosroshahi, F. (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Language in Society, 18, 505-525.
19.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45-79.
20.
MacKay, D. (1980). Psychology, prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444-449.
21.
Martyna, W. (1978). What does "he" mean?Journal of Communication, 28, 131-138.
22.
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.
23.
Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. New York: Anchor.
24.
Moulton, J., Robinson, G., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: "Neutral" pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1031-1036.
25.
Newman, M. (1992). Pronominal disagreements: The stubborn problem of singular epicene antecedents. Language in Society, 21, 447-475.
26.
Nilsen, A., Bosmajian, H., Gershuny, H., & Stanley, J. (1977). Sexism and language. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
27.
Peterson, S., & Kroner, T. (1992). Gender biases in textbooks for introductory psychology and human development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 17-36.
28.
Rosch, E. (1988). Coherences and categorization: A historical view. In F. Kessel (Ed.), The development of language and language researchers: Essays in honor of Roger Brown (pp. 373-382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Safire, W. (1992, July 5). On language: Disagreeing to agree. The New York Times Magazine, p. 6-6. Copyright 1992 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission.
30.
Schneider, J., & Hacker, S. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic "man" in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology. American Sociologist, 8, 12-18.
31.
Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3, 165-178.
32.
Sontag, S. (1973). The third world of women. Partisan Review, 40, 180-206.
33.
Spender, D. (1985). Man made language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
34.
Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1979). The elements of style (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
35.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
