The meanings of Linguistic Gender may reflect positive and negative values, and the relative

importance, of Social Genders.

11.2 Social inequalities through gender asymmetries
The historical asymmetry in male and female Social Genders and their stereotypes find their
expression many a time in derogatory and demeaning overtones of female terms and functions.

Numerous feminine derivations and compounds referring to women in English have overtones
which go beyond what Baron (1986: 115) calls ‘the simple recording of gender’. A woman
appears as distinctly inferior in conventional pairs the weaker sex versus the stronger sex.
Referring to a woman as the fair sex or the gentler sex, and men as the superior sex indicates
disparity and lack of equality between men and women. In a few instances, feminine forms have
no pejorative connotations—the most oft-quoted examples are aristocratic titles in pairs such
as baron/baroness, duke/duchess, prince/princess, and count/countess. But in an overwhelming
majority of cases compounds and derivations referring to women have negative overtones.

We saw, in §7.5, how a feminine derivational form spinster in English has somewhat pejorative
connotations of an unmarried woman who is unwanted and ‘on the shelf’. Its masculine
counterpart, bachelor, does not. In English, one can talk about ‘an eligible bachelor’; but ‘an
eligible spinster’ sounds like a joke. In English, words denoting women acquire debased or
obscene connotations, e.g. madam or mistress. The equivalent masculine terms—sir or master—
do not. The pair mistress–master is a (p.188) very clear, and oft-quoted, example of disparity in
meaning of forms with female and with male reference.
The term master, ‘a person, predominantly a man, having control and authority’, was borrowed
into Old English (as mægester) about AD 900 from classical Latin magister. The feminine
form mistress was borrowed around 1300, into Middle English, from Middle French maistresse,
first of all in the meaning of ‘woman at the head of a household’. Mistress, in its pejorative sense
of a woman ‘other than his wife with whom a man has a long-lasting sexual relationship’, was
first recorded in 1601. There has never been a corresponding word for a ‘male extramarital
lover’—which, in Cheshire’s (1985: 22) words, ‘is a telling reflection of the freedom that society
has tolerated for men, but not for women’. However, nowadays, as times are changing, the
word mistress is often replaced by lover, which can refer to people of any sex.

The noun mistress is still used in compounds such as schoolmistress and headmistress, as female

counterpart of schoolmaster and headmaster. An alternative to either would
be schoolteacher and headteacher. However, as Cheshire (2008) reports in her follow-up to her
1985 paper, in a sample of 500 BBC web-pages, headmaster appears to be used more frequently
than headteacher, and headmistress is lagging behind both of them. The pair headmaster–
headmistress continue being unequal.

Further asymmetry lies in the generic use of the word master: according to the Oxford English
Dictionary Online, master started being used in the second half of the twentieth century to
include women, e.g. In her field, she is a master (from Miller and Swift 1981: 144). Master is
also one of the words with what R. M. W. Dixon (2014) calls ‘double duty’: it can be used as a
verb, and as a modifier. How to master the art of French cooking refers to a person of any sex.
Anyone can become a ‘master landscape architect’, if they are good enough to master the art.
Miller and Swift (1981: 144) conclude that the word master has ‘outgrown its masculine gender
origins’.

In contrast, the noun mistress has retained its female-only reference. A few examples of a

verb mistress in the sense of ‘master something, by a female’ are offered by the Oxford English
Dictionary Online: all are said be ‘used humorously or ironically after master’ (as a verb). The
latest example given is from Fiona Cooper’s 1991 novel Jay loves Lucy: ‘“What’s this?” said
Piggy-wig, straddling a chair with the triumph of one who has mistressed a Zanussi
automatic.’ The term master in its generic and Natural-Gender-neutral sense appears in
numerous derivations and compounds, including masterful, mastery, masterpiece, mastermind,
and mastersinger.7

Generic masculines—author, actor, poet—cover members of either sex. Their feminine

equivalents may acquire unwanted overtones of lesser, feminine-only, professionals.8 The
generic uses of masculine terms fit in with the functionally unmarked character of masculine
Linguistic Gender in many languages. Many feminine forms are derived from, or formed on the
basis of, the erstwhile masculine ones. The exceptions include professions which are considered
traditionally female—such as nurse or prostitute. A male representative of such a profession will
then be (p.189) marked—we talk about male nurses and male prostitutes. This is how, in
Henley’s (1989: 60–1) words, ‘language stereotypes women’, and also deprecates them—
reflecting traditional practices, even if on their way to obsolescence.
11.3 The value of ‘man’ through gender in lexicon
The asymmetry between male and female Social Genders is especially conspicuous in the
lexicon. The positive overtones of ‘malehood’ in contrast to negative overtones of ‘femalehood’
are reflected in the lexicon and derivations in many languages.

11.4 How Linguistic Genders reflect social change

Changes in social structures and attitudes may find their reflection in how Linguistic Genders,
and other noun categorization devices, apply to humans.

Language change lags behind the changes in a society.17 Despite the purported equality of men
and women during the Soviet period, the asymmetry between feminine and masculine
derivational forms remains.18 Masculine forms of nouns denoting prestigious (and especially
traditionally male) professions continue being used as generics. This is an established feature of
the language—as Roman Jakobson (1971: 213) put it, in his description of Russian gender in
terms of its markedness, ‘the general meaning of the masculine does not necessarily specify sex’,
since the masculine form is used to refer to people in general.

The meanings of derivational gendered forms reflect social asymmetries in the position of men and
women—in Robin Lakoff’s (1975: 69) words, ‘linguistic imbalances’ which ‘bring into sharper focus real-
world imbalances and inequities’. How (p.194) can the lack of balance be redressed, by conscious
linguistic reform? This is what we turn to now.

11.5 Thwarting ‘sexist language’

‘Sexist language’ is a term used to describe unequal representation of men and women across many
languages of the world. The following features are seen as its reflections. 21

First, a cross-linguistically common tendency for the masculine Linguistic Gender to be the functionally
unmarked choice is seen as a way of subsuming women under ‘men’ and making them invisible (see also
§7.7). A major bone of contention in the English ‘sexist language’ has been—and partly continues to be—
the generic use of masculine singular he to refer to people in general (if their sex is not known or
irrelevant). 

Secondly, a tendency to use terms with male reference as general terms for humans and for professions
has been seen as a sexist way of portraying a man, or the male, as the main representative of the species, a
benchmark for all human beings. The man is seen as a reference point, or norm. A woman becomes
invisible and subsumed under the category of ‘man’. A term for a woman is often derived from that for a
man (e.g. Hebrew is᷈ ‘man’, is᷈-a ‘woman’). This markedness is seen as showing woman as a ‘deviation’ or
‘exception’ from an essentially male norm.

Thirdly, address practices in the Western world focus on women’s (but not men’s) marital status—once
again putting them in the shadow of a male being. Sexist naming practices expect women to take on
names of their fathers and husbands—making them invisible and their achievements slighted.

Personal pronouns in English (she, he, it) are the major means for expressing Linguistic Gender. What
English lacks is a general indefinite form which could refer to both men and women without specifying
their sex. A generic non-gender specific pronoun monn, man, mann, mane, manne, monne (all derived
from an unstressed form of the noun man) did exist in Old English and in Middle English; its latest
occurrence goes back to 1500.23 In earlier stages of English, the generic use of masculine singular
pronoun he was an alternative to they covering ‘man’ and ‘woman’ (Curzan 2003: 71). In 11.2, from Old
English, generic he refers to a person in general.

The ‘masculinization’ of language had its roots in the grammatical system of the language where
masculine Linguistic Gender is the functionally unmarked choice.

Feminists were not the first to feel that the generic use of he reflected sexual bias within the language.
Otto Jespersen (1894: 27–9) believed that introducing a common gender pronoun would make sexual
bias less prominent.

The most recent ones are the attempts to create special pronouns for the transgender community—
gender-neutral ze (and its possessive hir) was introduced by students of Wesleyan University.

The generic use of he came under attack as a direct reflection of male dominance in the second half of the
twentieth century with the rise of the feminist movement (the major question being whether women were
to be included in the scope of he as a generic pronoun or excluded from it: in the latter case, he is seen as
‘pseudo-generic’).26 Experimental studies showed a tendency to identify ‘he’ as a male.27 Echoing a
sweeping statement by Penelope (1990: 94), that ‘in English all persons are assumed to be male unless
otherwise specified’. See §7.6, and also Henley and Abueg (2003), Henley (1989), Cheshire (1985) and
Miller and Swift (1981: 44–60).

In her guidelines to changing sexist language, Pauwels (1998: 127) outlines a number of alternatives—
recasting a sentence in the plural, using passive, repeating a generic noun, replacing he with
singular they or he or she, and many further variants, such as s/he, she/he, he/she. We find similar
guidelines in the Handbook of non-sexist writing for writers, editors and speakers by Miller and Swift
(1981).

The guidelines for European international organizations (such as the Council of Europe) follow similar
principles. And so do most publishers. In The Cambridge Australian English style guide, Peters (1995:
332) states that ‘in ordinary usage he/his/him seems to be losing its capacity to be common and generic’.
The generic ‘unsex’ they is becoming the preferred option (with the singular reflexive themself no longer
rejected as ‘incorrect’).

Over the last decades we—as lingusts—have witnessed a rather remarkable change in the grammar of
English which has affected the closed class of pronouns. The sphere of use of the generic he is now
drastically diminished. But this is not to say that the generic he is fully obsolete;

11.5.2 Fighting the ‘generic masculine’ throughout the language

As women started entering professions previously considered ‘male only’, the question of ‘feminization’ of
job titles became ripe. 

11.5.3 Bias in address terms and naming patterns

 Women are addressed on the basis of their marital status: a married woman will be traditionally
addressed as a Mrs

In contrast, there is just one way of addressing a man; special courtesy titles for young unmarried men,
such as Master in English and Jonge Heer in Dutch, are not often used and more markers of age than of
marital status. The marital status of women has traditionally been flagged—in contrast to that of men—
signalling the lack of equality between Social Genders. As Silverstein (2015) put it, the private becomes
political (echoing a slogan of the second wave feminist movement). The term Ms in English was registered
in the Oxford English Dictionary Online as early as 1901 and was later adopted as an alternative to avoid
marking marital status (though it is not accepted by everyone).43 See Pauwels (1998: 58–63), Braun
(2000a), and Spender (1980: 27) for the criticism of such practices from a feminist perspective. See Miller
and Swift (1981: 128–9) on Ms.

Western naming practices have—traditionally—ensured that women remain invisible. How Gender
Shapes the World (205p)

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

Published in print:2016Published Online:October 2016

ISBN:9780198723752eISBN:9780191791093

Item type:book

Publisher:Oxford University Press

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723752.001.0001

11.6 Expression of Linguistic Gender and social change: a summary

The meanings of Linguistic Gender may reflect the status, and the occupations, of men and women. So do
other noun categorization devices applied to humans, including numeral classifiers. Linguistic Genders,
especially the use of pronouns and derivational forms, may mirror social changes through language
reforms. The most remarkable (p.207) success story for feminist reformers is that of a gradual demise of
generic man and generic he in English, as a way of removing the masculine bias. A number of earlier
attempts to create a generic sex-neutral (or ‘epicene’) pronoun, variation in anaphoric agreement, and
other options—such as a generic they, with singular reference—prepared a fertile ground for this change.
The demise of generic he was not an innovation: rather, this was an engineered enhancement of already
existing patterns.
Scholars of gender should be careful in making their associations too straightforward. Having feminine
gender as the functionally unmarked choice does not mean that men and women are socially equal, or
that women occupy a privileged position. A conventionalized generic use of an erstwhile feminine
pronoun does not in any way imply a privileged status of women. (207)

Despite numerous substantial efforts in formulating, and imposing, guidelines for eliminating gender-
biased language, some analysts remain pessimistic. At the end of their comprehensive analysis of
European international organizations and language reform, Teso and Crolley (2013: 155) remark on ‘a
disturbing gap between language policy initiatives and practice’, leading to ‘the lack of success in the
feminisation of language’, even in the languages of Western Europe. A full ‘feminization’ of any language
is an impossible task: it would be linguistically naive to try and override grammatical rules—such as
masculine agreement forms for mixed sex groups—for the sake of political struggle to make men and
women equal. 

As demonstrated by Baker (2014) in his analysis of adjectives used with ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the
Historical Corpus of American English, the imbalance appears to be slowly changing (with men’s bodies
being sexualized as much as women’s). As Jenny Cheshire (2008: 10) puts it in her reappraisal of
linguistic sexism, ‘there have been changes in the use of English in the last twenty-three years that suggest
to me that our language is freer than before of masculine bias, even if the reform is far from complete.
What needs to be determined now is the extent to which our thinking is equally free of masculine bias.’