ELTWeekly Issue#33, Article: Sexism in Linguistics

Sexism in Linguistics

by Murali Vemula (Ph.D), Research Scholar, Kakatiya University, Warangal.A.P.

Introduction

It is difficult to separate linguistic features that are sexist from linguistic features that help to maintain sexual stereotypes. For example, the choice of ‘he’ as the sex-indefinite pronoun is sexist because it excludes women (femininity) but it also perpetuates the idea that women are of secondary importance. Some times language is used to make sexual divisions, nut simply as one aspect of a more general sexual discrimination. Several books/schools, for example use gender differences between pupils as a convenient way of dividing the class. Teachers list girls and boys separately in their registers; they may also play one gender off against the other, hoping to encourage the class to finish their work quickly. Language is involved here, but it is not the only way that a sexual division is enforced, girls and boys may be made to sit separately in assembly and even to enter school by separate doors (see Delamont, 1980). This is not sexual stereotyping but it prepares the way for it by encouraging children to strongly identify with their own sex and to view the opposite sex as completely distinct from them. Although language plays a part in this, it is not the language that needs to be changed, but the divisible practices of the schools.

Gender Bias

Some times, however, language is more directly involved in making necessary gender distinctions. Some universities list surname and initials but list female students with their full name and marital status and most make the same distinctions in their lists of academic staff. There are several cases, though, where language clearly reflects stereotyped sex-roles. For example, some “pairs” of words like “to mother and to father” are parallel in form (both are verbs derived from nouns) but not in meaning. As Lakoff (1973) points out, the phrase “she mothered the child” implies a psychological as well as a biological relationship, reflecting the fact that traditionally it is the mother who is responsible for the upbringing of children. Whereas “he fathered the child” implies only a limited biological act. Some writers have made conscious efforts to dispel the stereotypes implied by pairs of this kind; Dodson (1975a) and Parke (1981) use “to father” as a Semantic parallel to the verb “to mother in their books” “How to father” and fathering”, and Dodson introduces a neutral term in a second book entitled “How to Parent” (Dodson, 1975b).

Dictionary definitions often reveal the existence of sexual stereotypes and, of course, perpetuate them. The concise Oxford Dictionary (1976), For example, defines manly in terms of virtues said to be possessed by men: “having a man’s virtues, courage, frankness, etc.But it mainly is used to describe woman qualities rather than virtues are involved “(of woman) having a man’s qualities. Womanly,is contrast, is defined not in terms of inherent virtues but in terms of unspecified qualities that are considered suitable for women; “(of woman or her feelings, conduct etc.) having or showing the qualities befitting a woman. The shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973), which gives fuller definitions, adds independence and uprightness to the list of manly virtues, and gives gentleness and devotion as examples of qualities of women.

The use of examples that assign to women virtues that traditionally have been attributed to men (for example, “she has brains and courage”). Similarly, characteristics that are usually considered to be feminine are attributed to men, in sentences such as “tears welled up in his eyes or “striving to attain” “mastery” over his emotions. Job stereotyping is also corrected, by using sentences like “teaches kindergarten “and he studies typing at night” (Graham, 1975). The dictionary is designed to be used by school children. Which means that it will play an important role in educating the next generation towards a less sexually divisive society?

Work on sexual stereotyping in children’s books has led to attempts to correct it. Sex roles; they do not merely fail to prepare children for a more egalitarian society, but they even fail to depict life as it is at present. These days vast majority of children’s books portray stereotyped. Sex roles;  the reading skills that are use to most commonly in British Schools have twice as many male characters as female characters. Where as in Indian context it differs, and shows the male characters taking part in wider variety of roles and activities than the female characters. In Britain the Equal Opportunities Commission (1979, 1980) and the National Council for Civil Liberties (1978) have published practical suggestions for avoiding inadvertent sex discrimination in Schools that includes a discussion of stereotyping in children’s books.

Now-a-days stereotyping tends to be more subtle and often results from the pictures rather than the working of the advertisements (for example, see, Goffman, 1979). Language is still sometimes involved, through as in the current advertisements for instance, ‘fcku’ letters are seen on either sides of the T-Shirts printed by unknown textile companies and they are worn by both the genders too. “This exploits women” or “This insults women”. Advertisements portray male stereotypes as well as female stereotypes. Language is still involved, though, as in the current advertisements for and Airlines, which has the words “Fly me” accompanying photographs of pretty airhostess. In both the USA and Britain, stickers can be obtained with messages, “This ad insults women” or Exploits women and spoiling the self-respect of the women in particular, and these have been used on advertisements in public places.

The advertisements portray male stereotypes as well as female stereotypes, of course. In the USA some advertising companies are beginning to reverse traditional stereotypes in an attempt to correct them “for example, see Komisar, 1971). The advertisements of course, reinforce traditional stereotypes by making fun of the issue, but they may nevertheless attract the attention of people who had not thought about stereotyping before. Sex-role stereotypes also exist in job descriptions with Sex Discrimination Act of 1975: Airhostess, to flight attendants. Changing the titles of jobs will help to avoid sex roles stereotyping but the language that is used in job descriptions needs to be changed also. The third person singular in mind. Language, as social phenomenon, inevitably reflects social attitudes towards women and men. But it also influences and to some extent moulds the views of its speakers. This means  that the changes in languages use that have been outlined should lead to changes in the way that society treats men  and women, which in turn, will lead to further changes in language. Language change and social change in other words, are mutually reinforcing.

Several religious bodies are also changing the language used in their publications. Although religious bodies in Britain are not renowned for equality in the treatment of the sexes, for example, the refusal until last year to admit women into the Ministry, and the persistence of all-male choirs in the churches also. The revised version of “the Methodist Hymn Book, omits some hymns that are considered to be blatantly sexist, and contains adopted versions of others. Children are particularly susceptible, of course, to discriminating language. Although the majority of the school Books used in some countries, not in Indian Context, still contains sexist language, some teachers and educators are now pointing out the social implications to their colleagues and their pupils. The 1980 Special Issue of the Journal “Women in Education”, for example, provides a checklist designed to be used by teachers for assessing the language used in school books. It warns that few books will be free of sexism, but gives suggestions for overcoming its effect, such as through class discussions or projects involving writing to publishers. There are also books designed for use in the class room that points how the way in which the position of women in society is reflected in language. Though most of these are primarily concerned with sexual stereotyping, some also deal with sexism in English (see for example, Adams & Laurikietis, 1976, 3, unit 1: 3).

Linguistics features can occur in both a Standard English and a non-Standard English form, the surveys have found that female speakers tend to use more of the Standard English forms than male speakers. One reason may be that women are more conscious of the social significance of different linguistic features, so that they sue more of the socially prestigious speech forms, another reason is, perhaps, that non-standard working – class speech has masculine connotations of “roughness” and ” toughness” in Western Society, so that men choose to use mire non-standard forms.(Trudgill,1974a).

The analysis of sec differences in language has been useful within linguistics by helping to explain some of the social mechanisms that are involved in language change. Children who speak non-Standard English are at a disadvantage at school, because their variety of English is not the same as the variety used by the teachers and in school reading books. They have to choose, perhaps at an unconscious level, whether to use the Standard English forms that are linked with mainstream culture and the school, or the non-standard English forms that symbolize solidarity with the vernacular culture.

Sex roles have been changing during the course of this century, and we would normally expect these social changes to be accompanied by gradual changes in language. The main application of work on the relationship between language and sex has, of course, been in attempts to change our use of discriminatory language in order to remove sexual inequality from society. It has wider applications also, however, that have been only briefly mentioned. It helps our general understanding of the way in which language reflects and maintains social divisions, and of the way in which our thinking is often unconsciously moulded by our language. An understanding of this will help to eliminate not only sexual inequality in all areas of social life.

Closing Comments

Changes that take place in society are reflected in language, though language change tends to lag behind social change. Sex roles in the USA and in Britain have been changing gradually. The practical applications are accelerating the rate at which language is changing and this should, in turn, accelerate the rate at which society is changing. In the field of language pathology, for example, where it seems that sex-role stereotyping could account for some language disorders in male speakers (see, Kramer, 1974).

Language, as a social phenomenon, inevitably reflects social attitudes towards women and men. But it also influences and to some extent moulds the views of its speakers, as Kress and Hodge (1979) points out. This means that the changes in language use that have been outlined should lead to changes in the way that society treats men and women, which in turn, will lead to further changes in language. Language change and social change, in other words, are mutually reinforcing.

References

Adams and Laurikietis, R. (1976), “The Gender Trap”: a closer look at sex roles”. Virago, London.

Dodson, F.(1975a), “How To Parent”, Star books, London.

Dodson, F.(1975b), “How To Father”, New American Library, New York.

Delamont, S.(1980). “The Sociology of Women”, George Allen and Unwin. London.

Graham, A. (1975). The making of a nonsexist dictionary. In “Language and sex:

Difference and dominance”,(B.Thorne and N.Henley, eds), Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, Mass.

Lakoff, R.(1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in society,2(1), 45-79.

National Council for Civil Liberties. (1978). “Sex discrimination in schools: how to fight it”.

Peter Trudgill. P. (1974b). “The Social differentiation of English In Norwich”, Cambridge University press, London.

Peter Trudgill, P (1974a). “Sociolinguists”, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Kramer. C. (1974). “Women’s Speech: separate but unequal.” “Quarterly Journal of Speech.” 60(February), 14-24. Reprinted in Thorne and Henley, 1975.

Graham. A. (1975) In “Language and Sex: difference and dominance”, (B. Thorne and N.Henley,eds)New Bury House Publishers, Rowley. Mass.

Goffman, E(19790, “Gender Advertisements”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Parke.R.(1981). “Fathering”, Fontana, London.

Kress, G. and Hodge, R. (1979). “Language as Idealogy”, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

** ELTWeekly would like to thank Murali Vemula for contributing this article.