Cover not available

Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 111/112 (1996) ► pp.61–85

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Gender

Perception of Attribuites in Inanimate Referents

 | Department of French Language and Literature University of Kentucky
Published online: 1 January 1996
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.111-112.03zou
Abstract
In English,inanimate referents that are not clearly defined in terms of sex-related attributes do not seem readily classifiable into feminine or masculine categories.
The present study of gender use by American speakers tested the gender connotations of English inanimate referents commonly considered or perceived as "neuter".
The results suggest that, when a noun is strongly connoted the natural gender rule applies, showing more salience for women than for men. However, contrary to the findings of current research, when the inanimate noun is conceived as neuter it is not necessarily labeled as masculine. Women are more likely than men to classify inanimate referents into feminine and masculine categories, and a confidence level test revealed that answers were more often random for male respondents while females tended to favor the feminine category. In light of this feminization tendency, this study suggests that in addition to its major function as a reference-tracking device, gender could be used as a "status marker".
References (16)
References
CORBETT, G. G. (1988). Gender. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CORNISH, F. (1986). Anaphoric relations in English and French: A discourse perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ERVIN, S.M. (1962). The connotations of gender. Word, 181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
GREENBERG, J.H. (1966). Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
HALL, R.A. (1965). The "neuter" in Romance: a pseudo-problem. Word 211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
HOCKETT, C.F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: McMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IBRAHIM, M.H. (1973). Grammatical gender. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
JAKOBSON, R. (1966). On translation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LEHRER, A. (1985). Markedness and antonymy. Journal of Linguistics, 211 (21). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LYONS, J. (1977). Semantics, II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MACKAY, D.G. (1980). On the goals, principles and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular they. Language in Society, 9 (3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MILLS, A.E. (1986). The acquisition of gender: A study of English and German. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SLOBIN, D.I. (1986a). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SPENCE, N.C.W. (1980). The gender of French Compounds. Zeitschrift für romanische philologie. 961. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TUCKER G.R., LAMBERT W.E., RIGAULT A.A. (1977). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: an example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague; Paris: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
WIESE, B. (1983). Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics, 211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue