FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Faculty Foreign Languages and Cross-cultural Communication
Anastasia Kravchenko
Gender stereotypes and lexical means of their representation in language
BACHELOR’S PROJECT
Tutor
Sidorkina E.D.
Moscow, 2019
Contents
Introduction
1. Gender linguistics
1.1 A history of gender linguistics
1.2. Approaches to linguistic gender studies
2. Gender references and forms of address in English
3. Feminist linguistic theory.
3.1 A new gender policy, language modification and gender-inclusive language.
4. Practical Part
4.1 Feminitives attitudes analysis
4.2 Neutral language in the UK
Conclusion
References
Introduction
A significant number of studies exist on the issue of gender stereotypes and language. It is a universal
truth that language plays a crucial role in constructing the reality around us. It cannot
be denied that we form perceptions of people and, most importantly, articulate them
through language. Language helps us to express opinions, thoughts, culture and
attitudes of the speakers towards other people. However, language is not neutral. It is
accepted as that as long as language has existed, there has always been a distinction
between male and female. Thus, references to gender raise the issue of the power of
language to form gender stereotypes and status differences between men and women.
The key purpose of this research is to identify the role of gender stereotypes in language
and analyze how gender stereotypes are represented in the language.
The main objectives are: 1. to examine the concept of gender stereotypes; 2. identify how
language reflects gender stereotypes; 3) collect data from the respondents; 4) to establish
a possible correlation between gender neutral language and gender equality in Russia and
the UK.
The structure of the research includes theoretical and practical parts.
In this research the methods include: literature review on the subject, qualitative survey
analysis and quantitative gender gap analysis.
Thus, the research is relevant for gender linguistic and intercultural communication studies,
as it establishes possible correlations between language and gender equality.
In this research we hypothesize that there is a strong correlation between using gender
neutral and/or gender inclusive language and achieving gender equality through
eliminating gender stereotypes.
Gender stereotypes can be defined as “reconceived ideas whereby females and males
are arbitrarily assigned characteristics and roles determined and limited by their
1
gender.” The gender stereotypes are reflected via the lexical choices that
people make in communication.
1
Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe (2015). Gender Equality Glossary. Available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/STANDARDSETTING/EQUALITY/06resources
Sociologists often see stereotyping as part of the process by which children are
socialized into sex roles and by which adults and children are denied opportunities for
more individually varied development.2
It is crucial to mention that according to Mary Talbot gender is often perceived in
terms of bipolar categories, “even as mutually exclusive opposites - as in "the
opposite sex."” 3
It reveals the problem that gender is perceived as descriptive generalizations, which
describe how people should behave, talk, act and so on. But most importantly, such
generalization tell us how we should do it. In this case, people characterise others
only on the basis of their belonging to a certain group, so that the conclusions are too
generalised.
Gender stereotypes can be viewed as an attempt of the group which possesses social
power to structure the society and the world. However, the basis for a such structure
is their own value system, outlook and ideology. The ruling group establishes certain
social norms and rules and categorize social phenomena as “normal/ accepted’ or
“abnormal and unacceptable”.
In view of all of the above, it is clear that language reflects patriarchal social
paradigm. Language functions as a tool to prove that women are non-dominant group,
“the second sex”. Therefore, gender stereotypes are reflected and constructed
linguistically too.
1. Gender linguistics
An area of research which focuses on gender as a linguistic phenomenon is gender
linguistics.
1.1 A history of gender linguistics
2
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/gender
-stereotypes
3
albot, Mary 20013. Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge p.468
T
The history of gender linguistic traces back to ancient times when the link between
sex and language was observed by philosophers. Remarkably, at these times gender
was seen only as a grammatical category and the metalinguistic level was not taken
into consideration.
The earliest example of the dichotomy male/female in language is the presence of the
grammatical gender: (+male) and (-male), thus the feminine being seen as deviant, as
otherness.
However, the amount of research that was done in gender linguistics in the XVI-XVII
centuries is insufficient. Undoubtedly, there were works devoted to the correlation of
language and gender and, most importantly, to the issue of women’s social status, but
they cannot be genuinely called thorough study. It should be noticed that these works
that attempted to define the male and female markers in language gave rise to further
real gender studies.
In the article 'Grammatical Categories," Bejamin L. Whorf assumes that we can
His theory in the 1940’s
observe grammatical gender in the English language.
claimed that people see the world differently because of differences in their
language. Particularly, he highlights that there is a concord between ‘the third
singular personal pronoun or possessive and the noun it refers to.” 4
For example, basically people would refer such names as Jane, Kate, etc to female
gender and would substitute them with the pronoun she and vice versa. Therefore,
Whorf’s main assumption was that personal names show a feature of morphologically
indicated concord.
However, Robert A. Hall refutes this idea arguing that in English there is no
grammatical gender. He claims it is not accurate to suggest that “the pronoun agrees
JOURNAL ARTICLE
4
Grammatical Categories
Benjamin Lee Whorf Language Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1945), pp. 1-11 Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaDOI:
10.2307/410199 https://www.jstor.org/stable/410199Page CouWhorf, B. (1945). Grammatical Categories. Language, 21(1), 1. doi: 10.2307/410199nt: 11
with the name only, not with the experience” 5 as it is quite possible that names which
are commonly considered to be masculine are given to girls and the opposite might
occur either. Thus, he deduces that people tend to “personify” the words which refer
to “sexed beings” such as man, father or woman, mother. In this case we call for the
sex reference according to reference to biological sex. The problem is that in
“personification” an ascription of sex is conventional and culturally determined and
does not correlate with the biological sex of the objects. Therefore,
R. Hall contradicts B. Whorf and is convinced that there is no grammatical gender in
English.
It was not until the fifties of the XX century that the general concept of gender started
to form when American psychologist J. Money published his work
“
Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic
Findings”. The researcher developed the notion of gender, gender identity and gender
roles in the modern thought.6 It prompted new research in the field of gender studies.
1.2 Approaches to linguistic gender studies
There have been several attempts to explain the nature of differences in “male” and
“female” language. According to the first approach, there is a number of authors who
claim that these differences are specifically biological (Bishopand Wahlsten, 1997).7
However, the validity of this theory as well as the recent research has not been
verified by scientific evidence. As for the modern work, although it is stated that
men’s brain is bigger than women’s, the correlation between brain size and
differences in language cannot be verified either. 8
5
Sex Reference and Grammatical Gender in English Author(s): Robert A. Hall, Jr. Source: American
Speech, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Oct., 1951), pp. 170-172 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/453074
6
Money, J. (1955) Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic Findings.
Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. 96. р. 253-264.
7
BISHOP, K. M. AND WAHLSTEN, D. Sexd diferences in the human corpus callosum: myth or reality?
NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(5) 581–601 1997.
8
Men versus Women: A man's brain is 11% bigger than a woman's on average.
Retrieved from:news.yahoo.com/.../whoknew-men-versus-women... on 20,
Nov. 2012.
Other researchers suggest that the essence of differences in male and female linguistic
behaviour stems from social environment. The differences are defined by such factors
as education, society and culture (Lakoff, 2004).9
The third approach implies that language behaviour and patterns are different since
men and women tend to prefer different speech styles, so the differences are
attributed to a free choice (Tannen, 1990). 10
Also, it should be noted that there are certain limitations while making a choice
which are defined by specific factors of speech situation. It may be deduced that
people are not absolutely free and are compelled to choose specific language
behaviour.
Apparently, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of the publication of such
significant works as “Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance
”by Thorne and
Henley11 and Dale Spender’s “Man Made Language”.12 The authors suggest that the
language should be observed in the mixed-sex interaction discourse.
Moreover, the book “You Just Don’t Understand” practically revolutionised gender
studies introducing the concept of the competitive/ co-operative dichotomy.
2. Gender references and forms of addresses in modern English.
13
It is stated that “Gender is no longer an inflectional category in
Modern English.”
English tends to have very few gender markers. Such markers imply the pronouns
and possessives, some nouns and forms of address. One of the biggest challenges for
9
Lakoff, R.T. (2004). Language and Women’s Place. Edited by Bucholtz,M. Oxford: OUP.
10
Tannen, D. (1990). You just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New
York: Balantine Books.
11
Thorne
and Henley Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance (1975)
12
Dale Spender Man Made Language (1981)
13 Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language(2002).
0-521-43146-8
gender-inclusive communication in English is “the use of the masculine form by
default”.
("UNITED NATIONS Gender-inclusive language", 2019)
Generally, there are three groups of the third-person singular personal pronouns.
● he
The pronoun “he” is used to refer to the male subject or to something which
supposedly can be characterised as male.
● she
The pronoun “she” is used to refer to the female subject or to something which
supposedly can be characterised as female respectively.
● it
The pronoun “it” refers to inanimate or intangible objects.
It should be noted that it is possible to use either of the pronouns towards a person
when a noun which substitutes is gender neutral depending on the fact whether the
gender is known or not. However, as there is no
third-person singular gender-neutral
pronoun, there occurs one of the biggest challenges for gender-inclusive
communication in English which is “the use of the masculine form by default”.14 For
instance, it used to be quite common to use personal pronoun “he” which followed
the noun and referred to “person”.
Due to the ongoing process of moving towards
gender-neutral language it has become
more common to use possible alternatives which are “he/she”, “s/he” or neutral
“they”.
Another example of gender markers is the forms of addresses which are distinguished as “Mr.,”
“Miss,” and “Mrs.”Whereas “Mr.” refers to any man, regardless of his marital status,, “Miss” and
“Mrs.” basically are used to refer to women only according to their marital status. However, there
exists a gender neutral alternative when referring to a woman which is using a neutral form “Ms.”
Most importantly, this form of address does not imply the knowledge of a woman’s marital status.
14
3. Feminist linguistic theory.
Feminist language reform concerns language modification aimed to change “how
language is used to gender people, activities and ideas on an individual and societal
level”.15
The linguistic activism emerged in the 1960s when feminist community emphasized
the issue of gender bias in language.16
The works of Ferdinand de Saussure played a
pivotal role in illuminating the issue of gender equality in English. By the 1960s it
became evident that the concept of gender equality should be supported through
changes to language.
Then the issue of language bias and sexism in language was further studied during the
1980’s and 1990’s. It was suggested that historically language developed as
male-centric, for instance, as it was mentioned above, the pronoun “he” was used as a
generic pronoun.
In some languages, Russian as well, it is clear that certain words have a strong
correlation with gender.
Nowadays some activists have identified clearly patriarchal vocabulary. For example,
in the United States the word “herstory” is widely used “to refer to history which is
not only about men”. 17
Some representatives of the feminist movement consider language to be a “powerful
instrument of patriarchy”. 18As a result, their purpose is to achieve gender equality on
the linguistic level.
The male gender is seen as primary and dominant, while female gender is considered
to be minor and submissive. Furthermore, if we speak about academic or professional
fields, it is more likely that nouns referring to professions are substituted by male
15
Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). "Feminist language planning". Current Issues in Language Planning. 12(1): 1–7.
doi:
10.1080/14664208.2011.548314.
16
auwels, Anne (2003). "Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism". The Handbook and Language of
P
Gender.
17
auwels, Anne (1999-11-14). "Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?". Linguistik Online(in
P
German).
2(1). ISSN1615-3014
18
Pauwels, Anne (1999-11-14). "Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?". Linguistik Online(in
German).
2(1). ISSN1615-3014
form. According to gender stereotype, men are more successful and outnumber
women in academic/professional stage.
However, most English nouns do not have grammatical gender. Generally, nouns
referring to people do not have special forms for male and female forms. For
instance, they are: doctor, teacher, etc. Whereas some nouns are explicitly masculine
or feminine (waiter/ waitress, host/ hostess, landlord/ landlady).
Additionally, it is quite clear that in sentences with male pronouns, readers or
listeners tend to associate them predominantly with men due to the invisibility of
women in language.
Also, further studies revealed that in some cases female professionals are specified as
women, for example, “female judge,” “woman engineer,” and “woman politician.
The theory highlights the necessity to remove words like the ones mentioned above
as they contribute to preserving toxic gender norms.
Feminist linguistic theory bases on the fact that language unconsciously emphasizes
gender in negative ways. Feminist Language Reform reveals the problem which is
that the most words oppress women, as the word “man” meaning “human”.
Another important idea of the feminist language theory is that some words serve to
highlight a break in gender norms. This occurs when typically the word is used to
refer to a man, usually in regard to power, which is supposed to be exercised
primarily by men. The most notable examples are words like Lady Doctor or
Manageress. The emergence of these words and the necessity of using them
demonstrates that social and gender norms are violated.
The aim is not only to prevent using sexist words or claims, but to
remove words like
this since they contribute to sustaining unhealthy gender norms. In this way, the
theory
addresses the root of the problem directly through profound changes.
Apparently, the goal of this approach is to implement major social changes through
language reform.
3.1 A new gender policy, language modification and gender-inclusive language.
Feminist community has claimed that non gender neutral language can have a
profound impact on gender relations and the relative status of men and women.19 It is
criticized that language tends to put females “at a disadvantage in personal and
professional relationships”.20 It should be emphasized that there is still no clear link
between language and gender equality. However, there are assumptions that there is a
correlation between grammatical gender and social status of men and women in
society.21
Likewise, it has been theorized that the grammatical gender and sexist attitudes are
linked either.22 Actually, more research is needed to determine the link between the
social aspects of gender and language in order to identify the prospective benefits of
modifying language to be neutral.
However, it is fair to say that language modification has already started as our world
has already achieved some progress towards gender equality. Such significant shifts
inevitably have affected the language and led to lasting changes in practice.
The concept of gender neutral language implies several key strategies.First of all, it
should be highlighted that it is pivotal to avoid using
gender-specific job titles.
Moreover, as it was mentioned before it is completely inappropriate to use words
“man” and “mankind” referring to humans and humanity. Hence it is not acceptable
to use personal pronouns “he” as well as its forms to refer to a person of unspecified
sex. It is also undesirable to use certain forms of address such as Mrs and Miss to
Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think? In M. Brockman (Ed.),
19
What's next? Dispatches on the future of science (pp. 116–129). New York: Vintage.
20
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K.
Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology.
21
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social
communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology.
22
Wasserman, B. D., & Weseley, A. J. (2009). ¿Qué? Quoi? Do languages with grammatical gender
promote sexist attitudes? Sex Roles, 61, 634–643. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9696-3. Sex Roles (2012)
66:268–281 281
refer to married and unmarried women respectively as they are distinguished on the
patriarchal grounds.
All in all, a new gender policy reiterates the necessity of gender-inclusive language. It
implies speaking and writing in a way that excludes discrimination against “particular
sex, social gender or gender identity and does not perpetuate gender stereotypes”.23
As mentioned earlier, language shapes cultural and social attitudes and it would be
highly beneficial to use gender-inclusive language to promote and protect gender
equality and combat and eliminate gender stereotypes.
4. Practical Part
The following part of the research is dedicated to the analysis
Moreover, certain trends in using gender-inclusive language will be observed
in both Russian and English languages.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are implemented in order to
define the frequency of using gender neutral words and reveal attitudes towards
gender inclusive language. A comparative analysis of Russia and Great Britain is
presented to compare the main trends in both languages. The research will provide us
with data which is to either prove or disprove the hypothesis of the research.
4.1 Feminitives attitudes analysis
To start with, it is essential to define the concept of feminitives which are
feminine-gendered nouns used as an alternative of male nouns. However,
the issue of feminitives is quite controversial in Russia since they only
partially correspond to grammatical and lexical standards of the Russian
language. For instance, the words like «журналистка» и «учительница» are
23
http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/
common and traditionally accepted, whereas «авторка» и «докторка» are not a
part of standards.
Online survey was conducted to reveal the main trends in Russian language and
collect data concerning attitudes towards lexical representation of gender stereotypes
and gender neutral language(feminitives included). Also,
it is suggested that there is a
correlation between gender equality and gender neutral language.
The target audience was young people all genders aged from 18 to 25. The aim of the
survey was to find out whether young people are aware of the phenomenon of
feminitives, how feminitives are perceived in Russian society and whether young
people correlate the concept of feminitives with gender stereotypes. Moreover, we
can observe whether young people realise the correlation between feminism
movement and language changes.
The pie charts below illustrate the results of the conducted survey. We can see that
feminism is a quite controversial issue in Russia as this movement is supported by the
minority of the respondents. Also, the research demonstrates the fact that, even
though the majority of people are acquainted with the notion of feminitive, they do
not use them in their speech. More than that, the survey revealed that the major part
of the respondents stated that they are not able to perceive feminitives in other
people’s speech. The answers were “it is strange”, “annoying”, “cannot get used to”.
Moreover, interviewees do not support the idea that the language is not free of bias
reflects gender stereotypes.
Consequently, the majority of the respondents do not consider the Russian language
standards to reinforce existing gender stereotypes and therefore do not believe that
feminitives should be set as a grammatical and lexical norm in the Russian language.
The results reflect society’s attitude towards feminitives and gender stereotypes
represented lexically in the language and show that people in Russia are not ready for
language reform and do not perceive feminitives as a necessary tool for achieving
gender equality and eliminating gender stereotypes in language.
Red- male
Blue- female
1.
Gender identity of respondents.
Red- neutral
Orange- negative
Blue- positive
2.
Attitude towards feminism movement.
Red- no awareness
Blue -awareness
3.
The awareness of the feminitives phenomenon.
Red-use
Blue- do not use
4. The usage of feminitives in the speech.
Red- disagree
Blue- agree
5. The Russian language standards reinforce gender stereotypes.
Red- for
Blue- against
6. Feminitives as language standards.
Red- disagree
Blue- agree
Orange- hesitate to answer
7. Feminitives eliminate gender stereotypes.
In addition, it can be deduced that feminitives in Russian
give rise to lively debate
and in some cases are even rejected by modern society. In this context, it means that
the formation of gender-neutral language does not seem feasible so far.
It is not a surprising fact as it can be explained through the fact that Russia is
traditionally considered to be a rather conservative country with considerably
patriarchal cultural practices.
This statement is supported by the official data collected by
WCIOM
(Russian Public
Opinion Research Center). According to the statistics, only 31% of Russians support
24
the feminist movement.
Moreover, referring to Global Gender Gap Index 2016 it can be stated that a lot more
work needs to be done towards gender equality and close the gender gap. Remarkably
enough, Russia ranks as the 75th out of 144 countries and is assigned with 0.691
index, whereas 1 stands for the complete equality and 0 is the lowest possible score
and indicates complete inequality. 25 (App.1.)
4.2 Neutral language in UK
Moving on to the English language, it should emphasized that, conversely, United
Kingdom is ranked 20 in the above-mentioned report with the higher index of 0.752.
(App. 2.)
It is important to mention that nowadays in English a few nouns that traditionally
ended in -man are replaced by more neutral equivalents that are more commonly used
24
ttps://tass.ru/obschestvo/6237664
h
25
http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/rankings/
and are considered to be gender-inclusive, i.e
.chair/chairperson for chairman, police
officer for policeman/policewoman, firefighter for fireman. More detailed
information is presented in Table 1. (App.3).
What is more, if in the past women were either ‘Mrs.’ or ‘Miss’ , now, ‘Ms.’ is used
to refer to all women
. ‘Ms.’ reflects that it is not essential anymore to identify
whether a woman is married or not. In particular, it was revealed that written
Business communication has been profoundly modified as the form “Ms” “is more
frequent as Mrs.and Miss”.26 (Fuertes-Olivera, P. (2007).)
than 9 times as
In addition, to collect data concerning lexical representation of gender stereotypes
we decided to analyze lexical representation of gender stereotypes in the workplace.
According to Heilman & Eagly in this particular field “gender stereotypes are
alive, well, and busy producing gender discrimination” (Heilman & Eagly,
2008
, p. 393). In some early research which studied the perception of ob
advertisement it was found out that a greater number of women were
interested in applying for a counter-stereotypical position due to the fact that
advertisement used gender neutral language.(Bem & Bem, 1973).
Additionally, recent research has indicated that women’ s motivation to apply
for the position is strongly influenced by the fact that masculine pronouns
characterize the ideal applicants. More than that, they reduce their “sense of
belongingness and identification with the work context and the job”. (Stout &
Dasgupta, 2011).
Global
Taking into consideration all that was said above, if we look at the
Gender Gap Index 2016 we can observe that UK as a
country with more gender neutral language holds a
26
Fuertes-Olivera, P. (2007). A corpus-based view of lexical gender in written Business English. English For
Specific Purposes, 26(2), 219-234. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.07.001
higher position in the ranking in terms of gender
equality.
In contrast, Russia as a country with distinct gendered
language is ranked much lower.
Thus, having conducted the analysis, it is possible to conclude that there really is
a correlation between gender neutral language and gender equality.
Conclusion
All things considered, the research studied the concept of gendered language and
means of its representation.
The research has established that language plays a pivotal role in forming the reality
around us including forming perception of concepts and people.
The study observed gender neutral language as a tool to eliminate gender stereotypes
reflected in the language and to move towards gender equality.
A new gender policy was studied to reveal the main trends in using neutral language
in the UK.
The data collected via conducted survey was used to define the perception of gender
neutral language and gender stereotypes in the Russian language.
Thus, the research made it possible to establish a link between the usage of gender
neutral language and the level of gender equality.
However, more research is needed to be done in this field to study more profound
effects of thу above mentioned concept.
App.
Recent change in American and British English: a corpus-driven approach
Paul Baker
Lancaster University
https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/gender-neutral-job-titles
Anchorman Anchor
Assemblyman Assemblyperson
Businessman Businessperson
Cameraman Camera Operator
Chairman Chair, Chairperson
Clergyman Minister, Pastor
Congressman Member of Congress
Construction Man Construction Worker
Councilman Council Member
Craftsman Artisan
Crewman Crew Member
Doorman Door Keeper, Door Attendant
Fireman Firefighter
Foreman Supervisor, Boss
Garbage Man Trash Collector
Handyman Maintenance Person, Fixer
Longshoreman Stevedore
Mailman Postal Worker, Letter/Mail Carrier
Maintenance Man Janitor, Caretaker
Patrolman Police Officer
Pizza Man Pizza Person
Policeman Police Officer
Salesman Salesperson
Stuntman Stuntperson
Weatherman Meteorolgist
App.3.
Alternative gender-neutral titles.
References
Europe, C. (2015). Home. [online] Gender Equality. Available at:
https://www.coe.int/web/genderequality [Accessed 22 Mar. 2019].
Talbot, Mary 20013. Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge p.468
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-r
eleases/gender-stereotypes
http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/
Pauwels, Anne (2003). "Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism". The Handbook and
Language of Gender.
Money, J. (1955) Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic
Findings. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. 96. р. 253-264.
Pauwels, Anne (1999-11-14). "Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?". Linguistik Online
(in German). 2(1). ISSN1615-3014
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language.
Social communication (pp. 163–187). New York: Psychology.
Men versus Women: A man's brain is 11% bigger than a woman's on average.
Retrieved from:news.yahoo.com/.../whoknew-men-versus-women... on 20, Nov. 2012.
Pauwels, Anne (1999-11-14). "Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?". Linguistik Online
(in German). 2(1). ISSN1615-3014
https://unbabel.com/blog/should-language-be-more-gender-neutral/
НОРМ
Bem, S., & Bem, D. (1973). Does Sex-biased Job Advertising "Aid and Abet" Sex Discrimination?1.
Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 6-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01290.x
Bishop, K., & Wahlstein, D. (1997). Sex Differences in the Human Corpus
Callosum: Myth or Reality?.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
21(5),
581-601. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(96)00049-8
Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think?. New
York: Vintage.,116-129.
Hall, R. (1951). Sex Reference and Grammatical Gender in English.
American
Speech,26(3), 170. doi: 10.2307/453074
Heilman, M., & Eagly, A. (2008). Gender Stereotypes Are Alive, Well, and Busy Producing
Workplace Discrimination. Industrial And Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398. doi:
10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.x
Henley, N., & Thorne, B. (1975).
Language and sex.Cambridge, Mass.:
Newbury.
Huddleston, R., Pullum, G., & Bauer, L. (2002).
The Cambridge grammar of
the English language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place.
Language In Society,
2(01),
45. doi: 10.1017/s0047404500000051
Liddicoat, A. (2011). Feminist language planning.
Current Issues In Language
Planning,12(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2011.548314
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn’t mean you: Gender-exclusive
language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 757–769.
Spender, D. (1981). Man made language. London [etc.]: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Tannen, P. (1990). You Just Don't Understand. New York: William Morrow
and Co., Inc.
Wasserman, B., & Weseley, A. (2009). ¿Qué? Quoi? Do Languages with
Grammatical Gender Promote Sexist Attitudes?.
Sex Roles,
61(9-10), 634-643.
doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9696-3
Whorf, B. (1945). Grammatical Categories.
Language,
21(1), 1. doi:
10.2307/410199
UNITED NATIONS Gender-inclusive language. (2019). Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml
