Representation of the sexes in language

Social Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 163-187

  Stahlberg, Dagmar ^a   Braun, Friederike ^b   Irmen, Lisa ^c   Sczesny, Sabine ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920650725     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203837702     Document Type: Chapter

References (83)

1. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
2. Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising “aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6–18.
3. Blaubergs, M. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 3, 135–147.
4. Braun, F. (2000). Geschlecht im Türkischen. Untersuchungen zum sprachlichen Umgang mit einer sozialen Kategorie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
5. Braun, F. (2001). The communication of gender in Turkish. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 1, pp. 283–310). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
6. Braun, F., Gottburgsen, A., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1998). Können Geophysiker Frauen sein? Generische Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 26, 265–283.
7. Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles, 9, 625–632.
8. Brooks, L. (1983). Sexist language in occupational information: Does it make a difference? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 227–232.
9. Burkhardt, A. (1985). Frauenlinguistik. Muttersprache, 95, 309–310.
10. Caldie, R. W. (1981). Dominance and language: A new perspective on sexism. Lanham: University Press of America.
11. Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton.
13. Doerfer, G. (1985). Das Korana und die Linguistinik. Sprachwissenschaft, 10, 132–152.
14. Eberhart, O. M. Y. (1976). Elementary students’ understanding of certain masculine and neutral generic nouns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37. 4113A–1114A.
15. Engelberg, M. (1993). Maskuliini, feminiini, virkamies? Naistutkimus – Kvinnoforskning, 4, 39–50.
16. Foertsch, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). In search of gender neutrality: Is singular they a cognitively efficient substitute for generic he? Psychological Science, 8, 106–111.
17. Frank-Cyrus, K. M., & Dietrich, M. (1997). Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Frauen und Männern in Gesetzestexten. Eine Meinungsumfrage der Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache. Der Sprachdienst, 41, 55–68.
18. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629–643.
19. Gomard, K., & Kunøe, M. (2003). Equal before the law – unequal in language. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 3, pp. 59–85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
20. Grabrucker, M. (1993). Vater Staat hat keine Muttersprache. Frankfurt: Fischer.
21. Hachimi, A. (2001). Shifting sands: Language and gender in Moroccan Arabic. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 1, pp. 27–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
22. Hamilton, M. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery? Sex Roles, 19, 785–799.
23. Hamilton, M. C. (1991). Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood. People = Male, Male = People. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 393–402.
24. Hamilton, M. C. (1997). The huwom race: Sexist language as a tool of dominance. In F. Braun & U. Pasero (Eds.), Kommunikation von Geschlecht. Communication of gender (pp. 147–163). Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.
25. Hamilton, M. C., Hunter, B., & Stuart-Smith, S. (1992). Jury instructions worded in the masculine generic: Can a woman claim self-defense when “he” is threatened? In J. C. Chrisler & D. Howard (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 169–178). New York: Springer.
26. Harrison, L. (1975). Cro-Magnon Woman – In eclipse. The Science Teacher, 42, 8–11.
27. Harrison, L., & Passero, R. N. (1975). Sexism in the language of elementary school textbooks. Science and Children, 12, 22–25.
28. Heise, E. (2000). Sind Frauen mitgemeint? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verständnis des generischen Maskulinums und seiner Alternativen. Zeitschrift für Sprache & Kognition, 19, 3–13.
29. Heise, E. (2003). Auch einfühlsame Studenten sind Männer: Das generische Maskulinum und die mentale Repräsentation von Personen. Verhaltenstherapie & Psychosoziale Praxis, 35, 285–291.
30. Hellinger, M. (2001). English – Gender in a global language. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 1, pp. 105–113). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
31. Hellinger, M., & Bierbach, C. (1993). Eine Sprache für beide Geschlechter. Richtlinien für einen nicht-sexistischen Sprachgebrauch. Bonn: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission.
32. Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (Eds.) (2001). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
33. Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (Eds.) (2002). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
34. Hellinger, M., & Bußmann, H. (Eds.) (2003). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
35. Henley, N. M. (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. 57–78). New York: Springer.
36. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697–706.
37. Irmen, L., & Köhncke, A. (1996). Zur Psychologie des “generischen” Maskulinums. Sprache und Kognition, 15, 152–166.
38. Irmen, L., & Linner, U. (2005). Die Repräsentation generisch maskuliner Personenbezeichnungen: Eine theoretische Integration bisheriger Befunde. (Representing masculine generics: A theoretical integration of empirical findings.) Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 213, 167–175.
39. Irmen, L., & Roßberg, N. (2004). Gender markedness of language: The impact of grammatical and nonlinguistic information on the mental representation of person information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 272–307.
40. Johnson, M. E., & Dowling-Geyer, S. (1996). Effects of inclusive vs. exclusive language on evaluations of the counselor. Sex Roles, 34, 407–418.
41. Khosroshahi, F. (1989). Penguins don’t care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Language in Society, 18, 505–525.
42. Kidd, V. (1971). A study of images produced through the use of the male pronoun as the generic. Moments in Contemporary Rhetoric and Communication, 1, 25–30.
43. Klein, J. (1988). Benachteiligung der Frau im generischen Maskulinum – eine feministische Schimäre oder psycholinguistische Realität. In N. Oellers (Ed.), Vorträge des Germanistentages Berlin 1987, Vol. 1: Das Selbstverständnis der Germanistik (pp. 310–319). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
44. Konishi, T. (1993). The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 519–534.
45. Lambdin, J. R., Greer, K. M., Jibotian, K. S., Wood, K. R., & Hamilton, M. C. (2003). The Animal = Male Hypothesis: Children’s and adults’ beliefs about the sex of nonsex- specific stuffed animals. Sex Roles, 48, 471–482.
46. Leiss, E. (1994). Genus und Sexus. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Sexualisierung von Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte, 152, 281–300.
47. 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.
48. MacKay, D. G. (1980b). Psychology, prescriptive grammar, and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist, 35, 444–449.
49. MacKay, D. G. (1997). Gender in English, German, and other languages: Problems with the old theory, opportunities for the new. In U. Pasero & F. Braun (Eds.), Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht. Perceiving and performing gender (pp. 73–87). Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
50. MacKay, D. G., & Fulkerson, D. C. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.
51. MacKay, D. G., & Konishi, T. (1994). Contraconscious internal theories influence lexical choice during sentence completion. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 196–222.
52. Madson, L., & Hessling, R. N. (2001). Readers’ perception of four alternatives to masculine generic pronouns. Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 156–158.
53. Martyna, W. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28, 131–138.
54. Martyna, W. (1980). The psychology of the generic masculine. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 69–78). New York: Praeger.
55. 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). Cambridge: Newbury.
56. Meyers, M. W. (1990). Current generic pronoun usage: An empirical study. American Speech, 65, 228–237.
57. Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1977). Words and women. New language in new times. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
58. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use. “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036.
59. Murdock, N. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Is gender-biased language sexist? A perceptual approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 39–49.
60. Newman, M. (1992). Pronominal disagreements: The stubborn problem of singular epicene antecedents. Language in Society, 21, 447–475.
61. Nissen, U. K. (2002). Gender in Spanish: Tradition and innovation. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 2, pp. 251–279). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.
62. Pauwels, A. (2001). Spreading the feminist word: The case of the new courtesy title Ms in Australian English. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 1, pp. 137–151). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
63. Prentice, D. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 3–19.
64. Pusch, L. (1984). Das Deutsche als Männersprache. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
65. Romaine, S. (2001). A corpus-based view of gender in British and American English. In M. Hellinger & H. Bußmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men (Vol. 1, pp. 153–175). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
66. Rothermund, K. (1998). Automatische geschlechtsspezifische Assoziationen beim Lesen von Texten mit geschlechtseindeutigen und generisch maskulinen Text-Subjekten. Sprache & Kognition, 17, 183–198.
67. Rothmund, J., & Christmann, U. (2003). Auf der Suche nach einem geschlechtergerechten Sprachgebrauch. Führt die Ersetzung des generischen Maskulinums zu einer Beeinträchtigung von Textqualitäten? Mutterpsrache, 112, 115–135.
68. Rothmund, J., & Scheele, B. (2004). Personenbezeichnungsmodelle auf dem Prüfstand. Lösungsmöglichkeiten für das Genus-Sexus-Problem auf Textebene. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 212, 40–54.
69. Scheele, B., & Gauler, E. (1993). Wählen Wissenschaftler ihre Probleme anders aus als WissenschaftlerInnen? Das Genus-Sexus-Problem als paradigmatischer Fall der linguistischen Relativitätsthese. Sprache & Kognition, 12, 59–72.
70. Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and use of the generic “man” in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of language. American Sociologist, 8, 12–18.
71. Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei (1996). Leitfaden zur sprachlichen Gleichbehandlung im Deutschen. Bern: Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei.
72. Scutt, J. (1985). Sexism in legal language. Australian Law Journal, 59, 163–173.
73. 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.
74. Sniezek, J. A., & Jazwinski, C. H. (1986). Gender bias in English: In search of fair language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 642–662.
75. Stahlberg, D. (2004). Einladung an alle Politiker! Muss Frau Simonis zu Hause bleiben? Vortrag: Universität Frankfurt.
76. Stahlberg, D., & Sczesny, S. (2001). Effekte des generischen Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedanklichen Einbezug von Frauen. Psychologische Rundschau, 52, 131–140.
77. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Changming, D., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218.
78. 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, 637–641.
79. Stringer, J. L., & Hopper, R. (1998). Generic he in conversation? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84, 209–221.
80. Switzer, J. Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices: An empirical investigation of age- and sex-related differences. Sex Roles, 22, 69–82.
81. Trömel-Plötz, S. (1982). Frauensprache. Sprache der Veränderung. Frankfurt: Fischer.
82. Wilson, L. V. C. (1978). Teachers’ inclusion of males and females in generic nouns. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 155–161.
83. Zubin, D. A., & Köpcke, K.-M. (1984). Affect classification in the German gender system. Lingua, 63, 41–96.