Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:09:04.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender bias in morphological inferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2021

Sara Finley Open the ORCID record for Sara Finley [Opens in a new window] ,
Saara Charania ,
Tiarra Lewis ,
Barbara Millward  and
Stella Wang
Sara Finley*
Affiliation:
Pacific Lutheran University
Saara Charania
Affiliation:
Pacific Lutheran University
Tiarra Lewis
Affiliation:
Pacific Lutheran University
Barbara Millward
Affiliation:
Pacific Lutheran University
Stella Wang
Affiliation:
Pacific Lutheran University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study explores how language learners apply gender stereotypes in learning a novel language with grammatical gender. Adult, English-speaking participants were exposed to picture–sound pairs from a miniature language. Each picture was of a matched gendered professional (e.g., male tennis player, female tennis player) with a nonsense form [CVCV-go/gu]. Participants were exposed to 32 picture–sound pairs (16 male, and 16 female, all matched) five times in a randomized order. Following training, participants were given a two-alternative forced-choice test with novel picture–word pairs. Participants were presented with a novel picture paired with two words (e.g., [befegu vs. befebo]) and were asked to choose which word most likely portrayed the meaning conveyed by the picture. These novel items contained gender-matched professions (e.g., male and female chemist), neutral items (office supplies), stereotypically female items (makeup), and stereotypically male items (tools). Participants assigned the appropriate gender to the novel professions, and assigned gender in line with the stereotyped objects at a rate significantly greater than chance (but not for neutral items). These results support the hypothesis that learning a language with a binary grammatical gender might be influenced by gender stereotypes.

Keywords

artificial language learningmorphologynoun classesgender stereotypes
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 47 - 60
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, L. (2019). Syntactic and cognitive issues in investigating gendered coreference. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, A., Trumpeter, N. & Weathington, B. (2006). Gender differences in memory recall. Modern Psychological Studies 12(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassetti, B. A. L. (2007). Bilingualism and thought: grammatical gender and concepts of objects in Italian–German bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 11(3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassetti, B. A. L. & Nicoladis, E. (2016). Research on grammatical gender and thought in early and emergent bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, S., Brattebø, K. F., Lavik, K. O., Reigstad, R. D. & Bender, A. (2015). Culture or language: What drives effects of grammatical gender? Cognitive Linguistics 26(2), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42(2), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88(4), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, A., Beller, S. & Klauer, K. C. (2011). Grammatical gender in German: A case for linguistic relativity? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(9), 1821–1835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blakemore, J. E. O. & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys’ and girls’ toys. Sex Roles 53(9/10), 619–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Online <http://praat.org>..>Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. & Schmidt, L. A. (2000). Sex, syntax, and semantics. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 22(22), 1–7.Google Scholar
Conry-Murray, C. (2015). Children’s judgments of inequitable distributions that conform to gender norms. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 61(3), 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. T., Leynes, P. A., Mayhorn, C. B. & Bink, M. L. (2004). Champagne, beer, or coffee? A corpus of gender-related and neutral words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36(3), 444–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J., Gagliardi, A. & Smith, K. (2017). Competition between phonological and semantic cues in noun class learning. Journal of Memory and Language 92, 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., Jarvinen, H., Haggarty, F. & Smith, K. (2019). Children’s sensitivity to phonological and semantic cues during noun class learning: evidence for a phonological bias. Language 95(2), 268–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. (2018). From curlers to chainsaws: women and their machines. Women’s Studies 47(6), 679–680.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Scheutz, M. & Heilman, M. (2005). An empirical and computational test of linguistic relativity. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 27, 618–623.Google Scholar
Flaherty, M. (2001). How a language gender system creeps into perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Rivero, M. R. & Sera, M. D. (2008). Grammatical gender affects bilinguals’ conceptual gender: implications for linguistic relativity and decision making. Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1(1), 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, A & Lidz, J. (2014). Statistical insensitivity in the acquisition of Tsez noun classes. Language 90(1), 58–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, K., Matsak, E., Abboud, H., Schultz, H. & Zeitlin, V. (2014). SuperLab 5. Cedrus Corporation.Google Scholar
Kurinski, E., Jambor, E. & Sera, M. D. (2016). Spanish grammatical gender: its effects on categorization in native Hungarian speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(1), 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurinski, E. & Sera, M. D. (2011). Does learning Spanish grammatical gender change English-speaking adults’ categorization of inanimate objects? Bilingualism 14(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-Squares Means: the R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software 69(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2018). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. & Lupyan, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes are reflected in the distributional structure of 25 languages. Nature Human Behaviour 4(10), 1021–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. & Gagliardi, A. (2015). How nature meets nurture: Universal Grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, I. M. & Shatz, M. (1996). Linguistic influences on categorization in preschool children. Journal of Child Language 23(3), 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, B. R. (2017). Judging the gender of the inanimate: benevolent sexism and gender stereotypes guide impressions of physical objects. British Journal of Social Psychology 56(3), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mickan, A., Schiefke, M. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2014). Key is a llave is a Schlüssel: a failure to replicate an experiment from Boroditsky et al. 2003. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, W. & Boroditsky, L. (2003). Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 928–933.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team, R. (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In Team, R. D. C. (ed.), R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Vol. 1, Issue 2.11.1, p. 409). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ramos, S. & Roberson, D. (2011). What constrains grammatical gender effects on semantic judgements? Evidence from Portuguese. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23(1), 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. 2020. Online <http://www.rstudio.com/>..>Google Scholar
Samuel, S., Cole, G. & Eacott, M. J. (2019). Grammatical gender and linguistic relativity: a systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 26(6), 1767–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, S. & Athanasopoulos, P. (2018). Grammatical gender affects gender perception: evidence for the structural-feedback hypothesis. Cognition 176, 220–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, G. G., Keitel, A., Becirspahic, M., Donnell, P. J. O. & Sereno, S. C. (2019). The Glasgow Norms: ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior Research Methods 51(3), 1258–1270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segel, E. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology 1, e2010.00244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sera, M. D., Berge, C. A. H. & Pintado, J. del C. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development 9(3), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Burch, M. C., Forbes, J., Rodríguez, W. & Dubois, D. P. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: an analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131(3), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sereno, S. C. & O’Donnell, P. J. (2009). Participant and word gender in age of acquisition effects: the role of gender socialization. Sex Roles 61(7/8), 510–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F. & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134(4), 501–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuksanović, J., Bjekić, J. & Radivojević, N. (2015). Grammatical gender and mental representation of object: the case of musical instruments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(4), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yorkston, E. & De Mello, G. E. (2005). Linguistic gender marking and categorization. Journal of Consumer Research 32(2), 224–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Finley et al. supplementary material

Finley et al. supplementary material

Download Finley et al. supplementary material(File)
File 25.9 KB