mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/84)
I apologise for re-opening a long-dormant discussion, but the following
abstract appears in a recent issue of J. Psycholinguistic Research:
Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall
Mary Crawford and Linda English
J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373
Considerable evidence suggests that although "generic" terms (he, his,
man, men) may be intended to refer to both women and men, they are often
interpreted literally and thus function to exclude women. Two experiments
tested the hypothesis that readers' sensitivity to and literal
interpretation of gender references in prose can affect performance in
a memory task. College student subjects read essays that were identical
except for the use of "generic" terms versus those that deliberately
include women (he/she, his/her, people). In experiment 1, the Generic
essay form led to better recall of the essay's factual content by male
subjects, while the Specific form produced better recall by females.
A similar pattern was found for female subjects in experiment 2. In both
experiments, effects were stronger for good learners. Results suggest
that Generic and Specific styles are more relevant to men and women,
respectively, and that the observed differences in recall may be mediated
by differences in interpretation and interest based on perceived relevance.
=============
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtgarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/03/85)
> Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall > > Mary Crawford and Linda English > > J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373 > > ... College student subjects read essays that were identical > except for the use of "generic" terms versus those that deliberately > include women (he/she, his/her, people). In experiment 1, the Generic > essay form led to better recall of the essay's factual content by male > subjects, while the Specific form produced better recall by females. Wonderful. So no matter how I write, I will be discriminating against *somebody*, in that what I write will be harder for females to grasp if I use generic terms, and harder for males to grasp if I use he/she. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
sunny@sun.uucp (01/03/85)
> > Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall > > > > Mary Crawford and Linda English > > > > J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373 > > > > ... College student subjects read essays that were identical > > except for the use of "generic" terms versus those that deliberately > > include women (he/she, his/her, people). In experiment 1, the Generic > > essay form led to better recall of the essay's factual content by male > > subjects, while the Specific form produced better recall by females. > > Wonderful. So no matter how I write, I will be discriminating > against *somebody*, in that what I write will be harder for females > to grasp if I use generic terms, and harder for males to grasp if > I use he/she. > > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/04/85)
> Wonderful. So no matter how I write, I will be discriminating > against *somebody*, in that what I write will be harder for females > to grasp if I use generic terms, and harder for males to grasp if > I use he/she. > > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys Not really. The study overlooked experimenting with "they", so we don't know what the subjective effect of that usage is. Despite popular belief, there is nothing wrong with using "they" with a singular antecedent. ("he/she" "s/he" and "he or she" sound clumsy to me). -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam "Everything you know is wrong"
pgf@hou5g.UUCP (Paul Fox) (01/04/85)
a
Why is it that studies like that never do all of the comparisons I'd
like to see? While very interesting that generic (he/him/his) style
is remembered better by men, and specific (he/she, his/her, etc) style
is remembered better by women, it would be interesting to know the
relative retentions for a genderless (one, their, person) style. I
don't think anyone should write using he/she-- it's too awkward, and
it's *always* possible to do it neutrally and make it sound natural
without resorting to that sort of device.
--
Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ.
[ihnp4|vax135]!hou5g!pgf (201)834-3740rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (01/04/85)
> > Wonderful. So no matter how I write, I will be discriminating > > against *somebody*, in that what I write will be harder for females > > to grasp if I use generic terms, and harder for males to grasp if > > I use he/she. > > > > Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: > it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. EASIER TO READ?! Don't discriminate against men or women! Discriminate against humans! Ralph Hartley siesmo!rlgvav!cvl!rlh rlh@cvl
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/05/85)
From: sun!sunny@DECWRL.ARPA (Sunny Kirsten) >Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > Sunny No, no, no! Please! *cringe* On a more rational note... I think there are a lot of people out there who have the same reaction to "their" that I do; I do a double-take because I had thought the author was referring to a single person, and I sometimes will look back to see if I've missed something. Not that I can speak for women in general, but I prefer "he" to "their" by several orders of magnitude, and I think that all this "he/she", "he or she", and "s/he" nonsense is more distracting than useful. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
pskay@hou2e.UUCP (P.KAY) (01/05/85)
>> > Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall >> > >> > Mary Crawford and Linda English >> > >> > J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373 >> > >> > [Abstact from learned treatise on language and recall] >> >> [Gary complains about what this means to his formal writing] > >Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > Sunny Bravo Sunny! While I don't use that form in formal writing, I do use "they" or "their" in in conversation or informal writing as the generic form for a Homo sap. of unknown or irrelivent gender. From observation this is generally acceptable to all but grouchy, pain in the (insert part of human anatomy), old English teachers (e.g. my mom :-)). So what do you say, netters? Lets invoke Grimm's Rule of Usage and make our language (U.S. Standard English in this case, the rest of you can start your own crusades) reflect the social changes of the last decade or so. Paul S. Kay UUCP: ...ihnp4!hou2e!pskay ...ihnp4!mvuxe!psk (the real me) USPS: Bell Labs, 1600 Osgood St. N. Andover, Mass.* * Please note change from UNIX 5.0. Merrimack Valley is back in Mass. It has never been in Maine, no matter what mm says!
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (01/05/85)
... So no matter how I write, I will be discriminating against
*somebody*, in that what I write will be harder for females to grasp
if I use generic terms, and harder for males to grasp if I use he/she.
Gary Samuelson, ittvax!bunker!garys
Somehow I suspect that if the test was run using "she" as well we'd find
that women could relate even better to that. I prefer the form that gives
everyone an even chance. Writing the "he/she" form is not descrimination
against men, it is simply non-preferential treatment.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracysteiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/06/85)
> > >Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: > >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > > No, no, no! Please! *cringe* > > On a more rational note... I think there are a lot of people out there who > have the same reaction to "their" that I do; I do a double-take because I > had thought the author was referring to a single person, and I sometimes will > look back to see if I've missed something. You do? Maybe if it is written down. People use "their" as a third person singualar indefinate pronoun in speech. It is like that old Latin rule about having the cases agree across a copular verb, "It is I" instead of "It's me." It is a rule from books for people that like to follow rules and has never been a rule of English. No one would ever say: Someone came early, didn't he or she? A person has many choices, doesn't he or she. In spoken English (English) we use "their", "they", and "them" if the word is referring to a third person singular *indefinate*. It sounds too specific to say "he", and even if there were to be a special word "he" that signified a sexless indefinate individual, "he or she" or "he and she" do not have the same interpretation. If someone uses the construction "someone ... he or she", it makes me think I missed something, the specific person that is being referred to. I had a professor who insisted that it was wrong and confusing to use "their" as an third singular pronoun, yet he used it himself in his speech. He was a linguistics professor and sould have known better. People have a variety of different strategies for reading, and that probably explains why it confuses people when it is written down and not when it is spoken. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
presley@mhuxj.UUCP (Joe Presley) (01/06/85)
>Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons:
NO! Please use "there", which is the accepted USENET spelling of the
pronoun :-).
--
Joe Presley (ihnp4!j.presley)rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (01/06/85)
[ Why do they call it "fixing" your cat, when after you're done, it's broken?]
Personally, I like "thing" and "it" when I'm trying to be gender-neutral.
You know, the mailthing walks down the street, and falls into an ithole...
--
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less" -- Humpty Dumpty, the noted linguist
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!ricked@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (01/07/85)
> From: sun!sunny@DECWRL.ARPA (Sunny Kirsten) > >Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: > >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > > Sunny > > No, no, no! Please! *cringe* > > Not that I can speak for women in > general, but I prefer "he" to "their" by several orders of magnitude, and I > think that all this "he/she", "he or she", and "s/he" nonsense is more > distracting than useful. > > -Dragon > -- > UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon > ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg I found the use of "their" in the singular distasteful when I first heard it, too. Now that I've gotten used to it, I like it just fine. I still don't use it for most written things; there I rephrase things to be neuter in different ways - usually by writing in the plural whenever possible. Overall, I'm glad that I put up with a minor distaste for a while. It allows me to be happier about the way I talk about non-gender specific third persons. I agree, too, that the multi-specific forms (he/she, s/he, et. al.) are too distracting to be useful. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 (I'd rather not be parochial.)
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (01/08/85)
Ah ha! I've been just WAITING for this topic to come up again to post the following from our company "rag"... "Confronted with his or her inability to change their personality in a genuine way..." Has DELICIOUS possibilities, yes??? Patty
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/08/85)
[ Why do they call it "fixing" your cat, when after you're done, it's broken?] Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC Better than calling a `spay' a spay. Ed Nather -- Random Response Dept, UTX
berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (01/09/85)
All you folks complaining over the use of 'they' and 'their' as non-gender- specific singular pronouns should read the book on usage by Jim Quinn. Sorry I cannot remember the title, but it will be obvious which of the Quinn books the library has is the one I mean. SOmeone posted a quote from it recently, too. I used to be a grammar fascist too, until I read this book. Simply put, 'they' and 'their' have been used in this way for centuries, and people are not about to stop now. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, Milton and Wordsworth, it's good enough for me. Furthermore, s/he and the ilk are ugly and tend to derail my train of thought. -- "Take this //JOB and run it!" Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900
ag5@pucc-k (Henry Mensch) (01/09/85)
<<>>
I don't know if this gender-non-specific stuff is
worth wrenching our hands (and minds) over ... Many of the
world's languages have this bug <or is it a feature?> and,
quite frankly, I think it's rather neat..
And I certainly don't people in net-land referring
to this article as "their" (meaning mine). It sounds bloody
ridiculous!
BTW, this sort of stuff is almost as tacky as Ms .
While I do approve of a "courtesy title" for women which
does *not* indicate marital status, I think that Ms (Miz)
is bottom-of-the-barrel and (if I were a woman) I wouldn't
stand for it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
BITNET: HCMENSCH@SUVM CSNET: hcmensch@syr-cis-aos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . he wasn't festive but was probably ambidextrous"guy@enmasse.UUCP (Guy K. Hillyer) (01/09/85)
In article <> ag5@pucc-k (Henry Mensch) writes: > > BTW, this sort of stuff is almost as tacky as Ms . >While I do approve of a "courtesy title" for women which >does *not* indicate marital status, I think that Ms (Miz) >is bottom-of-the-barrel and (if I were a woman) I wouldn't >stand for it. What are some alternatives? -- -- Guy K. Hillyer {decvax,linus,allegra}!genrad!enmasse! guy enmasse! guy @harvard.arpa
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/10/85)
>>>Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: > > >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > ... People use > "their" as a third person singualar indefinate pronoun in speech. > scc!steiny There's a precedent for the plural form of a pronoun taking over the singular--the second person, "you". One says "you are" even when speaking of (to) a single person. The original singular form "thou" has largely disappeared. --JoSH
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/10/85)
> All you folks complaining over the use of 'they' and 'their' as non-gender- > specific singular pronouns should read the book on usage by Jim Quinn. The title of the book is "American Tongue and Cheek: A Populist Guide to the English Language." If anyone would like a copy of the justification for the use of 'they', drop me a note and I'll mail it to you. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/10/85)
In article <1067@hcrvx1.UUCP> tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) writes: >Somehow I suspect that if the test was run using "she" as well we'd find >that women could relate even better to that. I prefer the form that gives >everyone an even chance. Writing the "he/she" form is not descrimination >against men, it is simply non-preferential treatment. > > Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!... Actually, I think that using "she" would probably *increase* the recall rate for everybody. Using she (or she or he instead of he or she) is so unusual that I find I tend to remember the occurance and the information related in the article. Maybe it's just personal, but these sort of 'suprises' tend to help recollection. (Apparently there's one prof at U of T (in psych, of course) who uses this to some effect to get important points over.) Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/10/85)
> Simply put, 'they' and 'their' have been used in this way for centuries, > and people are not about to stop now. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, > Milton and Wordsworth, it's good enough for me. > > Furthermore, s/he and the ilk are ugly and tend to derail my train of thought. Use of the plurals derails my thought train. take: The pilot of a single place aircraft should take care of their health so as to always remain alert. Who's health? Is taking care of a lot of people's health a known way of keeping alert? To me the word 'their' is clearly not a reference to 'the pilot'. In this case I would use 'his', though 'his/her' would be more acceptable than 'their'. (When I use 'his' in a place like this I don't usually think of a male person - just a person. Maybe it's because my first flight instructor was female (-8 )). Some places the use of the plural pronoun is acceptable. The singular words 'everyone' and 'noone' take the plural pronoun fairly naturally since both include (or exclude) large classes of people. But if the referent of the pronoun in both syntactically and semantically singular (especially if the number is explicitly given), then the plural pronoun seems VERY unnatural. Note that the list of famous writers who used the plural pronoun in this way ALWAYS used it only for those referents that were semantically plural (everyone, noone, etc.). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Women have always had their own pronouns, men have to share theirs - the language is therefore biased in favour of women. (*8 James Giles
mgv@duke.UUCP (Marco G. Valtorta) (01/11/85)
It may be interesting to note that in Italian the
courtesy form for "you" (singular) is "Lei" which
means "her" (and, colloqially only, "she").
"If you need to use the phone, please let me know"
would sound something like
"If her needs to use the phone, please let me know."
("Se Lei ha bisogno di usare il telefono,
me lo faccia sapere.")
"Lei" in this case is usually capitalized.idallen@watmath.UUCP (01/14/85)
>Despite popular belief, there is nothing wrong with using "they" with >a singular antecedent. You'll never edit any of *my* writing. I enjoy some of the pedantic rules of English, and I would hope that any person with your education and background would find their sentiments in accord. Who(m)ever they is. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
chabot@amber.DEC (l s chabot) (01/14/85)
Alternatives to "Ms." (-: proposed since "Ms." evidentally horrifies some
amongst us :-) :
Well, personally, in these happy days of arrived-equality :-!, the term "Mr.",
pronounced "mister" is incorrect: it is derived from "master", and therefore
is technically and politically wrong wrong WRONG! >ahem< , because men aren't
masters of anything any more than women are [ (-: previously, would this
sentence have been "...because men aren't masters of anything any more than
women" ? :-) ]. Soooo, we could replace "Ms." with "Mr." (or even replace "Mr."
with "Ms.", since the latter provides an equivalently appealing abbreviation
for "mister"/"master"), denoting the equal status, but I would rather propose
alternate honorifics to encompass all sexes at once. :-)
"Ma'am." This handy little honorific already exists as an excepted
or "Mam." (American) english word. We're just going to change the
or "Mamm." meaning to denote "Ma-a-a-ammal" (ba-a-a-a-a-a). Or, perhaps
or "Mm." it could be short for "Mammonite" (from human beings being the
only mammals to worship money). ["Mammonite" could also be
abbrev. "Mme."] {Another abbreviation for "Mammal", "ML", has
been reported to already be in use in certain circles (or
"hoops").}
"NH" Meaning "No Honorific" (similar to "NMI" and "NMN"). This
title has potential large appeal for militant radical whosits
who wish to demonstrate their departure from traditional
and degrading class (/gender distinctions. Them, and also the
interminably depressed ("I don't deserve an honorific").
Until such time as a universally appealing honorific can be agreed upon, we
should use some place holder honorific, such as "Foo" (or the original spelling,
"Fu."). "X" would work too, since I believe all of us are supposed to have at
least one of those, right?
;-). L. S. Chabot
UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (01/14/85)
[Du kanst nicht mich essen] > It may be interesting to note that in Italian the > courtesy form for "you" (singular) is "Lei" which > means "her" (and, colloqially only, "she"). And since I haven't seen anyone else mention German - in German, the polite form for `you' is `Sie' - literally `they'. It is capitalized and it is always used with a (3rd person) plural verb even when referring to one person. German, unlike French but like Spanish, has both singular and plural forms of familiar `you' (Du and Ihr). -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Extend USENET to omicron Ceti.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/16/85)
> >Despite popular belief, there is nothing wrong with using "they" with > >a singular antecedent. > You'll never edit any of *my* writing. I enjoy some of the pedantic > rules of English, and I would hope that any person with your education > and background would find their sentiments in accord. Who(m)ever they is. > -- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo "Pedantic" is the word! You have no idea where the rules come from, but you follow them anyway. But the point here is that the "rules" are inconsistent the real world, with literary tradition, with the best authors in the English language -- with the OED. Indeed, someone with my education and backround prefers to use *those* things to help me use the language, rather than your "rules", whereever they came from. By the way, by "find their sentiments in accord" did you mean to say "agree with"? (Ooops, not supposed to edit your writing). -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/16/85)
I have no objections to "Ms." whatever, and since it seems to be officially accepted, I can only admire the fine sense of antiquity which apparently drives some people to still complain about it. However, in reading L S's article, although she wrote "honorific", my mind persisted in seeing "horrific". Is this significant? Perhaps I am a monster - or even worse, a hairy beast (GROWL)! Do beasts get titles, too? Don't answer that. Feeling weird, Jeff Winslow
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (01/17/85)
more about German:
the way they say "one" is "man".
in German: man = Mann,
woman = frau
one = man
If you read feminist literature in German, you'll discover some writers
substitute "frau" everywhere one would normally use "man".
(Germans use sentences with the word "one" ("man") much more often
then one sees it in English.)
--
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdhsaj@uvacs.UUCP (Steve Jacquot) (01/17/85)
> ...alternate honorifics to encompass all sexes at once. :-)
How about 'Comrade' or 'Citizen' ? (make up your own abbrev.)rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (01/21/85)
> more about German: > > the way they say "one" is "man". > > in German: man = Mann, > woman = frau > one = man > Something similar happened in French. In a few cases, the older nominative and accusative cases of the same noun in Old French gave rise to two separate nouns of Modern French. The nominative form of the word for 'man' gave rise to the Modern French word for 'one' (generic person): case Latin -> Old French -> Mod French Mod French meaning nom. homo -> om -> on one (the generic person) acc. hominem -> homme -> homme man -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob