Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:54:55.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Fatemeh Khosroshahi
Fatemeh Khosroshahi
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is often implicitly assumed to be true independent of its empirical status. Feminist attempts to eliminate the generic he must assume that language somehow affects thought, since there is no intrinsic harm in the word itself. Research to date has, in fact, shown that generic he tends to suggest a male referent in the mind of the reader. This study asks whether people's interpretation of a generic sentence varies depending on whether or not they have followed feminist proposals and reformed their own language. Fifty-five college students read sex-indefinite paragraphs involving either the generic he, he or she, or they, and made drawings to represent the mental images evoked by what they read. The sex of the figure drawn was the dependent variable. Students' term papers were used to determine whether their own language was “reformed” or “traditional.” He was found to be least likely to evoke female referents, he or she most likely, and they in between. However, regardless of the pronoun, men drew more male and fewer female pictures than women. Moreover, whereas men did not differ in their imagery, whether their language was reformed or traditional, women did. Traditional-language women had more male images than female. Reformed-language women showed the opposite. Results are discussed in terms of the theory of social identity (Tajfel 1981), and it is concluded that the weak, correlational form of Whorf's thesis applies to women, the group that initiated the reform in the first place. (Gender and language, pronouns, social psychology of language, Sapir–Whorf hypothesis)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 505 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. D. (1976). The psychology of memory. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Baron, D. (1986). Grammar and gender. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bertilson, H. S., Springer, D. K., & Fierke, K. M. (1982). Underrepresentation of female referents as pronouns, examples, and pictures in introductory college textbooks. Psychological Reports 51:923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she.” Language in Society 4:129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. (1982). Language policies and language attitudes: Le monde de la francophonie. In Ryan, E. B. & Giles, H. (eds.), Attitudes towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold. 34–62.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In Giles, H. (ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations. London: Academic. 117–35.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1976). Reference: In memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition 4:125–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology. The second edition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Oilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press. 253–76.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1985). What has gender got to do with sex? Language and Communication 5:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Casagrande, J. B. (1958). The function of language classifications in behavior. In Maccoby, E. E., Newcomb, T. M., & Hartley, E. L. (eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 18–31.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In Newcomb, T. M. & Hartley, E. L. (eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt. 169–78.Google Scholar
Crawford, M., & English, L. (1984). Generic versus specific inclusion of women in language: Effects on recall. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13:373–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. M. (1978). Introduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 17:5–15.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1979). Question intonation and sex roles. Language in Society 8:15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, C. H., & Dominic, J. F. (eds.) (1981). Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (ed.) (1977). Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles, H. (ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations. London: Academic. 307–48.Google Scholar
Graham, A. (1975). The making of a nonsexist dictionary. In Thome, B. & N, Henley (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 57–63.Google Scholar
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women's and men's speech. Language in Society 15:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hraba, J., & Grant, G. (1970). Black is beautiful: A reexamination of racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, A. (1985). Hearts and minds: The relationship between racial attitudes and self-esteem in young children. Unpublished honors thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist 86:65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1974). Social influence and linkages between the individual and the social system. In Tedeschi, J. T. (ed.), Perspectives on social power. Chicago: Aldine. 125–71.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1980). The role of action in attitude change. In Howe, H. E. Jr., & Page, M. M. (eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Beliefs, attitudes, and values, 1979. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 117–94.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J. J. (1976). And some are more equal than others. American Sociologist 11:85–93.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kramarae, C. (1982). Gender: How she speaks. In Ryan, E. B. & Giles, H. (eds.), Attitudes towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold. 84–98.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2:45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23:91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: Concept and action. In Izard, C. E., Kagan, J., & Zajonc, R. B. (eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 192–226.Google Scholar
Langer, E. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1980). Psychology, prescriptive grammar, and the pronoun problem. American Psychologist 35:444–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1983). A reply to Pateman on singular they. Language in Society 12:75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. G., & Fulkerson, D. C. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:661–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1980a). Beyond the “he/man” approach: The case for nonsexist language. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5:482–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1980b). The psychology of the generic masculine. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 69–78.Google Scholar
Maurice, S. (1985). Evaluative reactions to spoken languages: Attitudes of French Canadians. McGill Student Journal of Psychology 1:84–97.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1984). The origins of sexist language in discourse. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433:123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: Random House. 233–346.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90:227–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: Random House. 347–412.Google Scholar
Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Psychology in action: Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist 33:1032–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 55–85.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (eds.) (1982). Attitudes towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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 sociology. American Sociologist 8:12–18.Google Scholar
Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. Women's Studies International Quarterly 3:165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. M. (1985). Language, the sexes, and society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: Random House. 599–658.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:645–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. M., Bassili, J. N., & Aboud, F. E. (1973). Dimensions of ethnic identity: An example from Quebec. Journal of Social Psychology 89:185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (ed. by Carroll, J. B.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Giles, H. (1978). The changing status of women in society: An intergroup perspective. In Tajfel, H. (ed.), Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic. 431–46.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). “Don't ‘dear’ me!” In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 79–92.Google Scholar