Abstract

Hen is a Swedish gender-neutral pronoun used for non-binary individuals and as a generic singular pronoun form. Hen was added to the Swedish Academy Glossary (SAOL) in 2015, and opponents of hen have argued that gender-neutral pronouns are difficult to process, and therefore should not be used. As of yet, this has not been empirically tested. This pre-registered study used eye-tracking to experimentally test if hen has a processing cost by measuring the process of understanding whom a pronoun refers to (i.e., pronoun resolution). Participants (N = 120) read 48 sentence pairs where the first sentence included a noun referring to a person (e.g., sister, hairdresser, person) and the second included a pronoun referring to the noun. The pronouns were either gendered (she and he) or gender-neutral (hen). The nouns were either neutral (e.g., person, colleague) or gendered, either by lexically referring to gender (e.g., sister, king), or by being associated with stereotypes based on occupational gender segregation (e.g., occupational titles like hairdresser, carpenter). We tested if hen had a greater processing cost than gendered pronouns, and whether the type of noun moderated this effect. The hypotheses were that hen referring to neutral nouns would lead to a smaller processing cost than hen referring to gendered nouns. Furthermore, we hypothesized that hen referring to lexically gendered nouns would lead to larger processing costs than stereotypically gendered role nouns. The processing cost of hen was measured by reading time spent on three regions of the sentence pairs; the pronoun, the spillover region (i.e., the words following the pronoun), and the noun. The only processing cost for hen occurred in the spillover region. The processing cost in this region was greater when hen referred to neutral nouns than when hen referred to a noun associated with gender. In contrast to the hypothesis, the type of gender information associated with the noun did not interact with these effects (i.e., the same reading time for hen following e.g., the queen or carpenter). Altogether, the results do not support that gender-neutral pronouns should be avoided because they are difficult to process.

Highlights

  • Language constrains how individuals can be referred to using pronouns

  • The processing cost of hen was measured in three regions: (a) pronoun, (b) spillover region, and (c) noun

  • A negative attitude toward hen was not associated with a greater processing cost for hen. This eye-tracking experiment tested whether there was a processing cost associated with reading the new gender-neutral pronoun hen in Swedish during pronoun resolution

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Language constrains how individuals can be referred to using pronouns. In many languages, only female and male (binary) gendered third-person pronouns are available to refer to a single individual (she and he) (Prewitt-Freilino et al, 2012). They was processed faster than generic he or she, especially when it referred to an indefinite noun (Foertsch and Gernsbacher, 1997; Speyer and Schleef, 2018) It remains to be tested whether novel genderneutral pronouns, such as ze in English and hen in Swedish have a greater processing cost than gendered pronouns. We expect that a new gender-neutral pronoun (hen) that refers to a noun indicating masculine or feminine (binary) gender, will lead to a greater processing cost in comparison to a binary pronoun that matches the noun’s gender (Hypothesis 1). Because difficulties in processing could be a result of a new word, we control for participants’ previous experience with hen in all hypothesis testing

Participants
Design and Materials
Procedure
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call