Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate sexist and non-sexist language in a second language (L2). More precisely, this study seeks to examine the use, attitudes and processing of sexist and non-sexist language of native speakers (L1) of Iberian Spanish, a language with grammatical gender, and Finnish, a language without grammatical gender, in English, a language with notional gender.
The methods used to analyze language processing, linguistic attitudes, and language use were eye tracking measurements and a questionnaire. The eye tracking study was designed to analyze the effect of an individual’s L1 and gender on their processing of sexist and non-sexist language, based on the ideas of linguistic relativity, which postulates that languages influence their speakers’ worldview and cognition, and the eye-mind hypothesis which supports the claim that the eye movements are the direct response to the ongoing processing needs of the reader (Henderson & Ferreira, 1990, Just & Carpenter, 1980, Reali et al., 2014, Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998). The eye tracking measurements used to test the hypothesis were fixations and visit counts, and the tests used were multi-factor ANOVA. The sample consisted of 42 participants who were studying English at university, 22 of whom (6 male, 16 female) were native speakers of Spanish and the remaining 20 (7 males and 13 females) of whom were native speakers of Finnish.
The questionnaire was designed to address the language use and the linguistic attitudes towards (non-)sexist language in the L2. The quantitative data was analyzed using the χ2 test and the qualitative data using inductive content analysis. The questionnaire sample involved 327 participants who fulfilled the same requirement as in the eye tracking study. In total, 195 participants spoke Spanish (154 women, 38 men, 3 people who either didn’t want to disclose their gender or were non-binary) and 132 spoke Finnish (87 women, 35 men, and 10 people who either did not want to disclose their gender or are non-binary).
The results of the study yielded three major findings. First, the eye tracking study indicates that neither the L1 nor the gender of a person impacts the comprehension of sexist and non-sexist language in the L2. Therefore, there is not enough empirical support for a claim that the L1 or the gender of a person influences the way sexist and non-sexist language is processed in an L2. Secondly, Spaniards and Finns used linguistic gender differently. More specifically, Spaniards used more gendered forms, some of which are perceived as sexist in English, and more visualization strategies, while Finns avoided expressing gender, both lexically and grammatically. The findings are not only aligned with the grammatical features of their L1 but also match the proposals for non-sexist language in Finnish and Spanish. This means that these two aspects are instrumental in the use of linguistic gender in an L2 and that they influence the speakers’ perception of what is sexist or not. On the other hand, the similarities between men and women in the use of lexical and grammatical gender contradict previous studies that indicate that women are more likely to use non-sexist language than men (Parks & Roberton, 2002, 2005, Sarrasin et al. 2012, Douglas & Sutton 2014). The third finding was that an individual’s L1 and gender contribute to their opinions and attitudes towards sexist and non-sexist language, even if these opinions do not match or even contradict their linguistic choices.
For these reasons, the principal theoretical implication of this study is that the influence of language is limited: it does not affect unconscious processes such as reading comprehension of (non-)sexist language, but it does influence more conscious processes such as the use of and attitudes towards sexist language. In addition, the findings suggest the gender of a speaker does not play a significant role in the processing and use of gender, although it affects the attitudes towards (non-)sexist language. More particularly, the findings suggest that in some instances, women are more receptive to non-sexist language than men despite their actual language use not differing much.
The methods used to analyze language processing, linguistic attitudes, and language use were eye tracking measurements and a questionnaire. The eye tracking study was designed to analyze the effect of an individual’s L1 and gender on their processing of sexist and non-sexist language, based on the ideas of linguistic relativity, which postulates that languages influence their speakers’ worldview and cognition, and the eye-mind hypothesis which supports the claim that the eye movements are the direct response to the ongoing processing needs of the reader (Henderson & Ferreira, 1990, Just & Carpenter, 1980, Reali et al., 2014, Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998). The eye tracking measurements used to test the hypothesis were fixations and visit counts, and the tests used were multi-factor ANOVA. The sample consisted of 42 participants who were studying English at university, 22 of whom (6 male, 16 female) were native speakers of Spanish and the remaining 20 (7 males and 13 females) of whom were native speakers of Finnish.
The questionnaire was designed to address the language use and the linguistic attitudes towards (non-)sexist language in the L2. The quantitative data was analyzed using the χ2 test and the qualitative data using inductive content analysis. The questionnaire sample involved 327 participants who fulfilled the same requirement as in the eye tracking study. In total, 195 participants spoke Spanish (154 women, 38 men, 3 people who either didn’t want to disclose their gender or were non-binary) and 132 spoke Finnish (87 women, 35 men, and 10 people who either did not want to disclose their gender or are non-binary).
The results of the study yielded three major findings. First, the eye tracking study indicates that neither the L1 nor the gender of a person impacts the comprehension of sexist and non-sexist language in the L2. Therefore, there is not enough empirical support for a claim that the L1 or the gender of a person influences the way sexist and non-sexist language is processed in an L2. Secondly, Spaniards and Finns used linguistic gender differently. More specifically, Spaniards used more gendered forms, some of which are perceived as sexist in English, and more visualization strategies, while Finns avoided expressing gender, both lexically and grammatically. The findings are not only aligned with the grammatical features of their L1 but also match the proposals for non-sexist language in Finnish and Spanish. This means that these two aspects are instrumental in the use of linguistic gender in an L2 and that they influence the speakers’ perception of what is sexist or not. On the other hand, the similarities between men and women in the use of lexical and grammatical gender contradict previous studies that indicate that women are more likely to use non-sexist language than men (Parks & Roberton, 2002, 2005, Sarrasin et al. 2012, Douglas & Sutton 2014). The third finding was that an individual’s L1 and gender contribute to their opinions and attitudes towards sexist and non-sexist language, even if these opinions do not match or even contradict their linguistic choices.
For these reasons, the principal theoretical implication of this study is that the influence of language is limited: it does not affect unconscious processes such as reading comprehension of (non-)sexist language, but it does influence more conscious processes such as the use of and attitudes towards sexist language. In addition, the findings suggest the gender of a speaker does not play a significant role in the processing and use of gender, although it affects the attitudes towards (non-)sexist language. More particularly, the findings suggest that in some instances, women are more receptive to non-sexist language than men despite their actual language use not differing much.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Tampere |
| Publisher | Tampere University |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-952-03-2806-1 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-952-03-2805-4 |
| Publication status | Published - 2023 |
| Publication type | G4 Doctoral dissertation (monograph) |
Publication series
| Name | Tampere University Dissertations - Tampereen yliopiston väitöskirjat |
|---|---|
| Volume | 761 |
| ISSN (Print) | 2489-9860 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 2490-0028 |