Changing the Sexist Language: The Theory Behind the Practice

Abstract

The existence of sexism in the structure and usage of the English language has recently been extensively documented by linguists, psychologists, feminists, publishers, and others. This awareness of sexism in language has led to numerous suggestions for change, but their implementation has been difficult for the following reasons: (1) alternative proposals were frequently made (e.g., at least 10 alternatives to the use of the masculine pronouns as generics have been proposed); (2) some suggestions contradict each other (e.g., chairman may be retained and contrasted with chairwoman, or chairman may be eliminated from usage and chairperson used for both sexes); (3) misunderstanding of some of the suggestions has occurred (e.g., chairperson has been used in reference to only females, while chairman has been retained for males); (4) a frequent response to some of the suggestions for change has been ridicule, often in the form of overextensions of the original suggestions (e.g., woperson). In this paper, as a first step toward clarifying the inconsistencies, identifying the problems in implementation, and undermining the basis for continued misunderstanding and ridicule, I have categorized the various suggestions regarding changing sexist language according to their underlying rationale. I have identified the following alternative approaches: (1) indirect change, (2) change via circumvention, and (3) change via emphasis on feminine terms. Within these approaches, various alternative strategies for implementation are discussed, and the arguments and research supportive of and critical of the underlying rationales are identified and evaluated. The paper concludes with a recommendation of changes in usage that are suggested by the latter two approaches. The need for further research on the differing psychological effects of those alternatives is noted.