Sex Roles, VoL 22, Nos. 1/2, 1990
The Impact of Generic Word Choices: An Empirical Investigation of Age- and Sex-Related Differences 1 Jo Young Switzer Indiana University-Purdue Universityat Fort Wayne Previous studies of receivers" responses to generic words have found that adults generally develop masculine imagery for neutral words and that men do this more than women. The present investigation o f school-aged children (n = 471)found that they, like adults, develop sex-specific masculine imagery in response to apparently neutral messages. Early adolescents, however, reported significantly more inclusive imagery than 6-7-year-olds. Different pronoun conditions elicited different mental imagery for the receivers o f the messages with "he~she" eliciting more o f a balance between male and female images and "they" eliciting more inclusive imagery.
Communication scholars have long tried to identify factors that affect the accuracy and effectiveness of oral communication. Clearly, language choices have a p r o f o u n d effect on clarity and impact of any given message. While language choices have been examined f r o m a variety o f perspectives, within the past decade much attention has focused on the impact o f particular words on receivers o f messages, especially the impact of the socalled generic term on listeners. Generic terms are those relating to a description o f an entire group or class. They are intended to create non-sex-specific or inclusive imagery in the minds o f the senders and receivers o f messages. In linguistic terms, generic words are " u n m a r k e d " terms that can refer either to males or to females. U n m a r k e d words, those that are c o m m o n l y called "generic," contrast with " m a r k e d " words, which are those used exclusively to refer to one sex. "She," for example, is marked for the female sex, while "he" is u n m a r k e d because it can refer either to males or females depending on the context in which it is used (Anttila, 1972; Oksaar, 1983). tThis work was supported by a grant from the Indiana University- Purdue University at Fort Wayne Research and Instructional Development Support Program. 69 0360-0025/90/0100-0069506.00/0 © 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation
70
Switzer
For many years, communicators have assumed that generic words function consistently and gender neutrally. If the speakers used generic terms to refer to inclusive referents, the assumption was that the receivers similarly generated neutral or inclusive referents. Research conducted in the past 15 years has shown that assumption to be inaccurate (Moulton, Robison, & Elias, 1978; Wise & Rafferty, 1982; Todd-Mancillas, 1981). Despite the intent of users of the terms to convey neutral meanings, receivers generate vastly different referents in responses to the same generic terms. The impact of generic terms appears stronger and more complex than originally thought. Therefore, research in a variety of disciplines is increasing understanding about this vital part of the communicative process. Much research has occurred in linguistics Vetterling-Braggin, Elliston, & English, 1981; McConnell-Ginet, Borker, & Furman, 1980), psychology (Fisk, 1985; Hyde, 1984; Adamsky, 1981; Moulton et al., 1978), and education (Schneider & Hacker, 1973; Brooks, 1983; Schau & Scott, 1984). Research on generic words has shown in general that generic terms, even when they are intended to generate neutral imagery, do not necessarily do so. In an early article on this topic, Bate (1975) described the social implications of widespread use of generic terms that generated predominately masculine imagery for the listeners. She described the potentially negative consequences of a linguistic "invisibility of women" (p. 84). More recently, Todd-Mancillas (1981) summarized results from 14 studies to determine whether "man-linked" generic terms, the masculine generics, created both masculine and feminine referents for their users. He concluded that masculine generics do not lead to a balance between male and female referents. Other investigations have identified varied reactions to nonmasculine generics such as "they" (Moulton et al., 1978; Fisk, 1985). For example, Moulton et al. found that a hypothetical story in which the central character was described as "they" elicited referents that were 46070 female (p. 1034). Fisk's study with children found that although children consistently gave male interpretation of the male generic "he," a non-male-biased response was elicited with the pronoun condition "they". These results indicate that different presentation modes may function more generically than others. The second broad research finding is that males generally develop more sex-specific masculine imagery when they hear generic terms than females do. One study that has been replicated several times and on which the design of the present study is based (Moulton et al., 1978) hypothesized that when he was used with the intent to be understood generically, there was no guarantee that it would be interpreted neutrally. They tested that hypothesis in an experiment with college students, 226 males and 264 females. Each subjects received written instructions to "make up a story creating a fictional charac-
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
71
ter who fits the following t h e m e . . , in a large coeducational institution, the average students will feel isolated in _ _ courses." Into the blank, the researchers inserted one of three language choices: his, their, his or her. After the stories were completed, the experimenters determined the sex of the characters in the stories by examining pronouns and proper names. Overall, when the masculine generic "his" was used, 35% of the characters described were female. When "their" was used, 46% were female; and when "his or her" was used, 56% were female. Chi-square analysis found a significant main effect for the language condition (p < .0001). Other studies have reached similar conclusions (Hyde, 1984; Gelb, 1987; Wise & Rafferty, 1982). Because sophistication in language use increases greatly from childhood to adulthood and because gender roles become solidified during that same developmental period, a logical question derived from previous research is, At what point do these patterns of a bias toward masculine imagery develop? Studies involving adult subjects indicate a clear difference between the mental imagery that men and women develop after they receive messages that include generic wording (Wise & Rafferty, 1982; Moulton et al., 1978). Similar studies with very young children as subjects, however, do not elicit the same patterns (Eikenberry & Keller, 1986). In fact, although much has been written about language development in very young children, relatively few studies address the generic word issue. Eikenberry and Keller found no sex differences in preschool boys and girls (n = 62) in their replication of the Moulton et al. study. Moreover, various pronoun conditions failed to elicit different responses from the subjects, i.e., preschoolers who heard stories including the masculine generic "he" were no likelier to describe males than those who heard the more inclusive pronoun conditions "he or she" or "they." Fisk's investigation of kindergartners and first graders (n = 72) identified patterns both similar to and different from those exhibited by adult subjects (1985). Fisk found no significant sex differences in the "s/he" presentation, but did find significant sex differences in the "they" condition, which led him to conclude that "they" functioned most generically for children. Additional analysis traced this difference to kindergarten where 6 of 6 boys chose the male picture in response to the "they" condition. Kindergarten girls and first-grade boys and girls showed a "non-male-biased pattern of responding" (p. 483). Fisk discussed this difference as one indicating more self-imaging in the younger boy subjects, i.e., that the younger boys imagined themselves as the subject of neutral referents more frequently than the other subjects did. Richmond and Gorman (1988) surveyed 1529 children in grades K-12 to examine the relationship between gender role orientation and referent usages. While their findings provide insights into the way that language usage affects self-perceptions, their grouping of subjects into age categories that
72
Switzer
spanned three and four years made precise identification of developmental change points difficult. The pattern of emerging differences in responses to generic wording ranges from no apparent differences in preschoolers (Eikenberry & Keller, 1986), to a mixture of responses in kindergartners and first graders (Fisk, 1985), to the clear male orientation found in numerous studies of adults. A more focused investigation that isolates age differences more clearly is therefore warranted. The present investigation addressed several fundamental questions about the impact of generic terms on oral messages: 1. Do early primary and early adolescent children exhibit similar masculine orientations in their reception of generic messages as adults? 2. Do early primary and early adolescent boys and girls differ in the kinds of imagery they develop upon reception of generic messages? 3. Do various presentation modes fuction comparably for children? The reason for focusing on two particular age groups, 6-7-year-olds (first graders) and 12-13-year-olds (seventh graders), was that these two particular periods are especially important in two ways: (a) development of language awareness and (13) clarification of gender roles. The literature on children's acquisition of language finds that young children tend not to respond to subtle grammar variations, although they are aware of major oral infractions of fundamental grammatical rules. In studies of children's responses to syntactical errors, children are frequently distracted by issues that are not relevant to the grammatical questions. Lindfors (1980) explains that young children, even those as old as 5, have difficulty focusing on grammatical forms because their attention is often drawn to the message content. Moreover, the child's ability to develop metalinguistic awareness, an awareness of language and its structure apart from actually using it, may not develop until the time that children begin to attend school (Lindfors, 1980, p. 157). Consistent with Lindfors's assertions, Oksaar's research found that until the age of 4 years, 3 months, children were virtually incapable of detecting anything less obvious than blatant variations and deviations in syntax (Oksaar, 1983). Since variation in pronoun condition such as that used in this investigation is a much more subtle manipulation of language than those described by Lindfors and Oksaar, it is fitting to engage subjects who have moved beyond the developmental stage at which language metaawareness has developed. Fisk's investigation (1985) found that kindergartners and first graders exhibited responses that clearly showed more sensitivity to language than those found in preschoolers (Eikenberry & Keller, 1986). Moreover, in the "they" condition, Fisk identified a significant age differ-
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
73
ence between kindergarten and first-grade boys. Fisk's findings highlight the need to look more closely at differences that become apparent once children have keener language capacity. Hence, this study tested first graders and compared them to seventh graders-both groups of which were also assumed to have a basic level of metalinguistic awareness. Also, the particular age groups were selected because both of these developmental periods are important posts for gender role acquisition. Around the age of 6, children solidify their ideas about behaviors that are appropriate for men and for women as well as for boys and for girls (Williams, Bennett, & Best, 1975). Later, in early adolescence, they become increasingly aware of gender differences. Hence, important developmental milestones occur both in language and in gender role socialization during the early primary and early adolescent years. Since the majority of research has been conducted with adults, it is fitting to test groups at different ages in order to isolate and identify the age mileposts at which differences in responses to generic terms emerge. This particular study examined first graders and seventh graders with the goal of identifying the transitional points at which important differences occur more specifically. The present study was designed to test seven hypotheses that emerge from a synthesis of previous related findings: 1. Children will exhibit more masculine than feminine or inclusive imagery in all language conditions. 2. Boys will exhibit more masculine imagery in all language conditions than girls will. 3. Girls will exhibit more feminine imagery in all language conditions than boys will. 4. Girls will exhibit more inclusive imagery in all language conditions than boys will. 5. The early adolescents will exhibit more masculine imagery than the early primary children in all language conditions. 6. The early adolescents will exhibit more inclusive imagery than will the early primary children. 7. Alternative language forms to the generic he will function more generically than he does. METHOD
Subjects A total of 471 subjects participated: 225 first graders and 246 seventh graders. There were 233 females and 238 males. Six different Midwestern
74
Switzer
public elementary and middle schools provided the subjects. Appropriate approval and consent procedures were followed. The 12 schools were located in two settings: a middle-sized city (population: 225,000) and a neighboring small town (8000). Students reflected great variety of socioeconomic levels and ability groupings. In the classrooms, which were assigned to the study by the school districts, all students in each classroom participated. This random assignment accounts for the variation in cell size. Classes ranged in size from 13 to 27. No students were rejected from participation, nor did any refuse to participate. Of the 471 students who participated, only four provided data too incomplete or illegible to code in its entirety.
Procedure The researcher met with the subjects in their regular classes. The students were told that their help was needed in a project to learn more about how people learn. The students were instructed that the survey did not have right or wrong answers: instead, the researcher was interested in the students' own ideas. Following the basic design of the Moulton et al. study and its replications, the students heard a beginning to a story and then were asked to write a brief ending to the story. The story was adapted appropriately to the ages of the subjects, yet it maintained the basic focus of the original Moulton et al. stimulus sentences. The story that all children heard was as follows: Pretend that (teacher's name) told you that a new student is coming to be a part of your class. Tomo rrow will be . first day. Describe how you think _ _ will feel on the first day. If you want, you can m a k e up a name for _ _ .
Each classroom of subjects heard the story with the blanks filled in with one of the four language conditions: he, he or she, they, or the student. Each subject heard the story with only one of the four language conditions. The distribution of language conditions was assigned randomly among the classes participating. Each student received a sheet of paper with blank lines provided for the ending of the story. In addition, the paper provided a place for the hypothetical new student's name so that in the event that the student-generated text did not unequivocally demonstrate the sex of the hypothetical new student, the name might. Moreover, each subject provided information about the subject's own age and sex. In all classes, the researcher read the questionnaire aloud to the subjects, one question at a time. The subjects wrote their answers in the spaces provided before the researcher moved to the next question. All subjects were able to complete the questionnaires, although
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
75
data from four subjects were incomplete. The only assistance provided to the subjects was that related to spelling. This assistance was needed only by some first graders. When the students completed their answer sheets, the researcher collected them, thanked the class, and left the room. Teachers were informed in follow-up letters about the focus of the research.
RESULTS
Analysis Data were coded by two trained coders. Judgments were based on the pronouns and nouns used in the student-generated text. Attributions about sex of the hypothetical student were male, female, or inclusive. Responses which employed an obviously male name (e.g., Matt) or male pronouns were coded as male. Those that referred to the new subject with feminine pronouns or obviously female names (e.g., Heather) were coded as female. If the descriptive sentences did not include pronouns or specific names, coders based their judgments on the name provided on the questionnaire for the subjects to "make up a name for the new student." Additionally, those responses that described the student using sex-ambiguous names (e.g., Chris) a n d / o r which used pronoun structure such as "they" or "she or he" were coded as inclusive. The few descriptions that included a mixture of male and female names a n d / o r pronouns were coded as inclusive. Intercoder reliability was .94 by Pearson. Statistical analysis was conducted with chi-square procedures since the data were all categorical. This approach to analysis was appropriate given the nominal nature o f the data (Bowers & Courtright, 1984, pp. 278-283).
Findings Hypothesis 1. Confirmed. Across all subjects in all language conditions, more masculine imagery developed than feminine. Overall, 61.7°70 of the descriptions o f the hypothetical new student described boys, 24.4070 described girls, and 13.9°70 provided an inclusive description (x z = 100.76395, df = 6, p < .00001). Hypothesis 2. Confirmed. Across all subjects and all language conditions, boys exhibited more masculine orientation in their responses than did girls (X2 = 96.41, df = 2, p < .00001). As Table I indicates, regardless o f which language condition they had heard, 82.907o of the imagery developed by male
76
Switzer Table I. Sex Differences in Attributions of Sex of Hypothetical Student: Comparison of Boys' and Girls' Responses a Sex attributed Male Boys Girls Totals Overall percentages
194/234 82.9070 94/233 40.3070 288/467 61.7o/0
Female
Inclusive
17/234 7.2070 97/233 41.6070 114/467
23/24 9.8070 42/233 18.007o 65/467
24.4070
13.907o
aX2 = 96.41472, d f = 2, p = 0.0001, M i n i m u m Expected Frequency = 32.430. Missing observations = 4.
subjects was masculine. Only 40.3o70 of the female subjects wrote stories involving males. Hypothesis 3. Confirmed. Across all subjects and all language conditions, girls exhibited more feminine orientation in their responses than boys. Table I provides data demonstrating that girls wrote about females 41.6°7o of the time compared to the boys' 7.2°7o. Hypothesis 4. Confirmed. Girls in both age groups and all language conditions wrote more inclusive descriptions than did boys. Table I demonstrates that girls wrote inclusive descriptions 18.0070 of the time compared to boys' 9.8o70. Hypothesis 5. Rejected. 62.6o70 of the first graders and 60.8°70 of the seventh graders wrote about males (see Table II). This nonsignificant difference did not demonstrate the anticipated pattern toward a more adult-like masculine orientation to language among the older subjects. A more marked contrast between responses was in the patterns of those who responded with female Table II. Grade Differences in Attributions of Sex of Hypothetical Student: Comparison Across Sex and Age Subject ° Sex attributed Male First grade Seventh grade Totals Overall percentages
Female
Inclusive
139/222 62.6% 149/245 60.8070 288/467
69/222 31.0% 45/245 18.3070 114/467
14/222 6.3% 51/245 20.8070 65/467
61.707o
24.4070
13.007o
aX2 = 25.39022, d f = 2, p = 0.0001, Min. EF = 30.899. Missing observations = 4.
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
77
or inclusive answers. Among first graders, as Table II indicates, 31.0070 described females while the seventh graders described females only 18.3 °70 of the time. The greatest shift is in the inclusive descriptors, which only 6.3070 of the first graders exhibited, contrasting with 20.8070 of the seventh graders. While there was a clear pattern of difference, the girls in the two age groups did not differ in a statistically significant way in their responses to variations in language condition. Hypothesis 6. Confirmed. The early adolescents demonstrated significantly more use of inclusive imagery than did the young children (x2 = 25.39022, df = 2, p < .0001). As shown in Table II, the 7th graders wrote three times more inclusive stories than did the first graders, 20.8070 compared to 6.3070. Variations of this pattern within the different language conditions are noteworthy. Table III demonstrates that of the first graders who heard stories with "he," no boys or girls at all reported inclusive imagery. Of the seventh graders who heard that same version of the story, no boys reported inclusive imagery, and 9.5°70 of the girls did. In the "he or she" story, the results were different. Among first graders, 3.6070 of the boys and 3.4070 of the girls wrote inclusive responses; and among seventh graders, no boys and 21.6°70 of the girls wrote inclusive responses. First graders hearing the "they" story responded inclusively to a greater extent than in other conditions: boys -- 6.9070 and girls = 22.2070. The seventh graders demonstrated even greater inclusivity in this language condition: boys 40.6070 and girls 48.0070. Comparing responses of boys at both age levels, seventh graders who heard "they" were more likely to respond inclusively (x2 = 12.32990, df = 2, p < .0021). In the final condition in which the hypothetical child was referred to as "the student," 5.3070 of the first grade boys and 4.8070 of the first-grader girls described inclusive imagery. Among the seventh graders, 20.7070 of the boys and 29.4070 of the girls answered inclusively. Two patterns are evident in this data. First, the early adolescents are much likelier to respond to the generic stimuli with inclusive imagery than are the first graders. Second, adolescent girls respond consistently more inclusively than do boys. Hypothesis 7. Confirmed. Variations in language choice clearly affected the degree to which the stories were interpreted generically (X2 = 100.76395, df = 3, p < .00001). As Table IV demonstrates, when students heard the "he" story, 93070 of them described males, 5.207o described females, and only 1.707o of them described an inclusive referent. Subjects who heard "he or she" responded with descriptions that were 48.8070 male, 43.3070 female, and 7.907o inclusive. When subjects heard the "they" story, the imagery they developed was 44.2070 male, 27.0070 female,
£
t~
t~
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
79
and 28.8°70 inclusive. Last, when the story character was referred to as "the student," 63.1°70 described a male, 19.4070 described a female, and 17.5070 described inclusively. Consistent with earlier findings, the commonly used masculine generic he did not function generically in this study. While the "he/she" condition generated more of a balance between male and female referents (48.8°70 and 43.307o), use of the term "they" generated more inclusive referents (28.7070 compared to 7.9°70 for he/she). The balance between male and female imagery reported in subjects who heard "he/she" may demonstrate self-imaging in those subjects. Martyna (1978) detected this pattern in her male subjects who reported that they selected "he" for neutral sentences for reasons such as "I think of myself." Fisk (1985) also found this self-imaging pattern in kindergarten boys, although he did not detect it in the older subjects nor in the kindergarten girls. He concluded that by the ages of 6 and 7, children do not respond to pronouns by automatically projecting their own sex into the subject. The present investigation found that the "he/she" condition generated more sex-specific imagery. Moreover, boys tended to imagine males when hearing "he/she" (first grade = 67.9070; seventh grade = 91.0°70) and girls tended to imagine females (first grade = 79.3070; seventh grade = 56.807o). Whether this was triggered by an automatic self-imaging response or by the power of he/she to elicit more sex-specific response is not clear. The results from this study add to the strength of conclusions drawn in numerous other investigations that the standard use of "he" in third person singular simply does not function generically. In this study, all 264 boys generated masculine imagery when they heard generic "he." For users who genuinely intend to convey a neutral meaning for the receiver, the "he" that is the approved grammatically correct form will not work. "He" does not function generically even in children. When three other language forms were offered, receivers generated other patterns of imagery. When children heard the story in the "he or she" condition, the girls created much feminine imagery and the boys created much masculine imagery. Among first graders, boys who heard "he or she" described males 67.9070 while girls described females 79.3070 of the time (X2 = 15.41193, d f = 2, p < .0005). At seventh grade, boys hearing "he or she" described males 91.0070 and girls described females 56.80/0 (X~ = 34.11968, d f = 8, p < .00001). In this investigation, the "he or she" form appeared not to function generically, but rather allowed receivers to project their own sex into the stimulus message. In a sense, the generic form of "he or she" does not function neutrally, but rather sex specifically. Thus, users' own identities affected the mental imagery that emerged. Only the "they" stimulus produced a large portion of genuinely inclusive responses: first-grade boys created 6.907o inclusive and girls created 22.2070 inclusive, while seventh-grade boys created 40.6070 inclusive and girls created 48.007o. Hence, the "he" func-
80
Switzer Table IV. S u m m a r y Differences in Attributions of Sex of Hypothetical Student: Comparison Across P r o n o u n Conditions a He
He or She
They
The student
107/115 93.0%
62/127 48.8%
54/122 44.2%
65/103 63.1%
Female
6/115 5.2%
55/127 43.3%
33/122 27.0%
20/103 19.4%
Inclusive
2/115 1.7%
10/127 7.9o70
35/122 28.80/0
18/103 19.5O7o
Male
aX2 -- 100.76395, df = 3, p = 0.00001, Min. EF = 14.336. Missing observations = 4.
tioned as a sex-specific masculine term, "he or she" generated more balance between sex-specific responses, and "they" created the most inclusive referents, mostly among the adolescent subjects.
DISCUSSION Children from early primary age to early adolescence tend to respond to generic terms in patterns similar to adults. The primary similarity is the tendency for the children to respond, like adults, with masculine imagery to a variety of generic stimulus terms. Many boys and girls, like men and women, report sex-specific imagery, primarily male, upon hearing generic terms that are usually intended to function neutrally. The literature in developmental psychology suggests that fairly solidified gender role understandings are in place by the time that children enter school. The children in this study, including first graders who have just passed that gender role developmental milepost, reflect the same basic pattern of response to generic language that adults have, i.e., generic terms create sex-specific rather than neutral imagery. Moreover, those sex-specific images are likelier to be male than female. Another similarity between children and adults' responses is a sex difference in responses to generic terms. Consistently, men and boys exhibit more sex-specific imagery upon hearing neutral terms than do women and girls. Females create inclusive imagery with more frequency than males. Evidence of a sex difference is apparent in that females generate more inclusive imagery than men. But an age difference may also be even more important in regard to inclusive imagery. While first graders in this study did not report any significant amount of inclusive imagery, the adolescents clearly did. The appearance of inclusive responses in the adolescents indicates both (1) awareness of the possibility that the generic person may not be a male, and (2) intentionality in language use so that the inclusive refer-
The Impact of Generic Word Choices
81
ent was described more dearly by the subject. The early adolescents in the present study reflect the logical consequence of combining their metalinguistic awareness and its consequent ability to allow them to write inclusively with their social awareness of the changing social roles for women and men. The tendency for adolescent girls in particular to write more inclusively is consistent with the adult findings in which women also generate more neutral imagery upon hearing generic terms. These finding provide practical insights about how communicators can make choices about wording in order to be less sex biased. For children as for adults, the so-called generic "he" functions in an obviously sex-biased way. For communicators who want to elicit inclusive imagery, the pronoun "they" functions most inclusively with children. And for those who want to generate a balance between female and male imagery, the pronoun combination "he/she" functions best. Although much work continues to be needed to untangle the complex forces at work in the language as it is interpreted by receivers of all ages, this study helps identify more clearly the patterns in responses to generic terms, key points of development in those patterns, and language choices that can maximize the likelihood that generic terms really function generically.
REFERENCES Adamsky, C. (1981). Changes in pronominal usages in a classroom situation. Psychology of Women Quarterly 5, 773-779. Anttila, R. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Bate, B. (1975). Generic man, invisible woman: Language, thought, and social change. University of Michigan Papers in Women's Studies, 2, 83-95. Bowers, J. W., & Courtwright, J. A. (1984). Communication research methods. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company. Brooks, L. (1983). Sexist language in occupational information: Does it make a difference? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 227-232. Eikenberry, P. M., & Keller, J. E. (1986). Can 'he" be gender-neutral: Moulton, Robison, and Elias revisited. Paper presented at Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL. Fisk, W. R. (1985). Responses to 'neutral' pronoun presentations and the development of sexbiased responding. Developmental Psychology, 21, 481-485. Gelb, S. A. (1987). Generic pronouns in early childhood education: Were there female dinosaurs, too? Resources in Education, Document Number ED-285-673. Hyde, J. S. (1984). Children's understanding of sexist language. Developmental Psychology, 20, 697-706. Lindfors, J. W. (1980). Children's Language and Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-hall. Martyna, W. (1978). What does "he" mean? Use of the Masculine Genetic. Journal of Communication, 28, 131-138. McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (Eds.). (1980). Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger.
$2
Switzer
Moulton, J., Robinson, G., & Elias, C. (1978, November). Sex bias in language use: 'Neutral' pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1032-1036. Oksaar, E. (1983). Language acquisition in the early years: An introduction to paedolinguistics. New York: St. Martin's Press. Richmond, V. P., & Gorham, J. (1988). Language patterns and gender role orientation among students in grades K-12. Communication Education, 37, 142-149. Schau, C. G., & Scott, K. P. (1984). Impact of gender characteristics of instructional materials: An integration of the research literature. Journal of EducationaIPsychology, 76, 183-193. Schneider, J., & Hacker, S. (1973). Sex role imagery and the use of generic 'man' in introductory texts. American Sociologist, 8, 12-18. Todd-Mancillas, W. R. (1981). Masculine generics = sexist language: A review of literature and implications for speech communication professionals. Communication Quarterly, 29, 107-115. Vetterling-Braggin, M., Ellinston, F. A., & English, J. (1981). Feminism and philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Williams, J. E., Bennett, S., & Best, D. (1975). Awareness and expression of sex stereotypes in young children. Developmental Psychology, 11, 635-642. Wise, E., & Rafferty, J. (1982). Sex bias and language. Sex Roles, 8, 1189-1196.
