Diana K. Ivy, Laurie Bullis-Moore, Kim Norvell, Phil Backlund and Monoocher Jauidi conducted a study on the use of exclusive language and its instruction. The main purpose of the study was to urge educators to see the problems that arise with the use of inclusive language, and to educate towards its demise. Martynam conducted a study in 1978 that is used as a basis in this study, and as a comparison.
One hundred and forty five undergraduate students were asked to characterize subjects in sentence fragments as either male, female or neutral. The sentences were given in an oral and written format, and their answers were recorded statistically. The first two hypotheses dealt with the students completing these fragments (hypothesis 1- male subject fragments completed with male pronouns and images, hypothesis 2- female subject fragments completed with female pronouns and image). Hypothesis one resulted in having the highest accuracy of the two, but both were partially correct.
Hypothesis three was that women in the three areas of sentence fragments (male, female or individual) would use he or its derivatives less often to complete sentences than men. This hypothesis was proven false. Women and men responded equally in their chosen completions.
The fourth hypothesis was that the responses of the students in pronominal choice would not be different when done orally or written. This was proven partially correct. 1/3 of the male fragments, all female fragments, and no neutral fragments were reveled as having any difference. Some other questions were researched to see if they curbed student's responses: their traditional vs. nontraditional sex role views; their level of instruction or exposure to inclusive language; their recollection of education on inclusive language uses. The answering of these questions also helped form the conclusion.
The results indicated a language bias towards the male form of
language, with predominately male pronouns and images utilized.
Exclusive language can damage views of the genders in society
and limit the fields of opportunity for each sex. The results
even more strongly committed the researchers in their quest to
educate on inclusive language.
This article's research gives great insight into how real the problem of exclusive language actually is. In my educational past, I cannot recall or remember a time I was taught about using or not using inclusive language. Lack of education is a troubling factor that is occurring all across the nation. The use of exclusive language does segregate sections of the population into devalued positions. It seems that women are the main victims, but men suffer also. This article was persuasive and believable to its purpose. The research and results stressed the need for greater instruction of inclusive language. Their methods and results all point to this need with convincing viewpoints and discoveries. The comparison with Mantyna's 1978 study stresses the lack of improvement of inclusive language usage in today's society. Throughout a decade, much has changed with equality in gender, but it seems as if language is still at a sexually biased stage.
There was a total number of 145 students that participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 18-49 with the average age being 22. The age gave the study a look at the younger generations use of language. An interesting aspect of the study was that of the 145 participants, 65% were female. That number creates the possibility of having a female bias in the study. The results ran the opposite way, though with male pronouns and images favored over female. In turn, the dominating number of female participants show that is not only one gender (male) participating in the use of inclusive language.
The placing of male subjects into high status jobs (judges, lawyers, and engineers), and females subjects into low status jobs (librarians, teachers, and baby-sitters) raises questions about gender status roles in society. Student's responses were primarily male orientated, but it is unknown whether the student's use of male pronouns (he) was supposed to be generic or not. The English language can be considered female biased in other areas too. Casey Miller and Kate Swift, in their article "One Small Step for Genkind," give some specific points like "mankind" or "land where our fathers died," which are both common sayings in the English language that should include women too in their pronominal usage.
Even though transitions are being made in gender roles, the English language seems to have been lagging behind. In the study, two thirds of the male fragments were completed in male pronouns and images, but only one third of female fragments were completed with female pronouns and images. These findings seem to indicate a reluctance of people to place women in the workplace. Women are working, some even in high status positions, but language usage often does not give them credit. The Whorfian Hypothesis states that language shapes perception and thought. According to this the use of inclusive language aids in the limitations that are set upon each gender within our society. The transition of the English language to be more gender friendly will not solve all of our culture's equality problems, but it will contribute a step to its achievement.
© author's name, Winona (MN) State University, 30 January 1997. This document may be freely distributed for educational use as long as this notice of its authorship accompanies its distribution.
Return to annotated bibliography on language, gender, and writing.