Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:18:37.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don't Touch my Projectile: Gender Bias and Stereotyping in Syntactic Examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Monica Macaulay and
Colleen Brice
Monica Macaulay*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Colleen Brice*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
*
Monica Macaulay, Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 5370 [mmacaula@facstaff.wisc.edu]
Colleen Brice, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 [colleen@omni.cc.purdue.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the results of two studies which show that gender bias and stereotyping are widespread in the example sentences of syntax textbooks. Results from both studies indicate that little has changed over the past twenty-five years: virtually all of the authors favor male-gendered NPs as subjects and agents and regularly stereotype both genders. Throughout the paper we make reference to the LSA guidelines for nonsexist usage, pointing out the need for such guidelines, and highlighting the gaps in the current version.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , December 1997, pp. 798 - 825
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Association of University Women. 1992. How schools shortchange girls—the AAUW report: A study of major findings on girls and education. New York: Marlowe & Company.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1997. Guidelines for nonsexist usage. SECOL Review 21. 104–25.Google Scholar
Bem, Sandra L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42. 155–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, Sandra L. 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88. 354–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, Helen. 1992. Virgin or vamp: How the press covers sex crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, John. 1972. Ways of seeing. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bergvall, Victoria. 1994. Cultural projections in constructed linguistic examples: Gender representations in introductory texts. Cultural performances: Proceedings of the third Berkeley women and language conference, ed. by Bucholtz, Mary, Liang, A. C., Sutton, Laurel A., and Hines, Caitlin, 15–27. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Bergvall, Victoria. 1996. ‘Merely data‘? Gender bias in constructed linguistic examples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Bertilson, H. S., Springer, D. K.; and Fierke, K. M. 1982. Underrepresentation of female referents as pronouns, examples, and pictures in introductory college textbooks. Psychological Reports 51. 923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaubergs, Maija S. 1980. An analysis of classic arguments against changing of sexist language. Women's Studies International Quarterly 3. 135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Jeanne H. 1976. Debatable conclusions about sex differences. Contemporary Psychology 21. 517–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briere, John, and Lanktree, Cheryl. 1983. Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex Roles 9. 625–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapman, Carol. 1996. Review of Christopher Beedham, German linguistics: An introduction. The Web Journal of Modern Language Linguistics 1.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1992. A concise introduction to syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, George L. 1977. Introduction to contemporary linguistic semantics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Frank, Francine W., and Treichler, Paula A. 1989. Language, gender, and professional writing. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Frug, Mary Joe. 1985. A symposium of critical legal study: Re-reading contracts: A feminist analysis of a contracts casebook. The American University Law Review 34. 1065–1139.Google Scholar
Helgeson, Candace. 1976. The prisoners of texts: Male chauvinism in college handbooks and rhetorics. College English 38. 396–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellinger, Marlis. 1980. ‘For men must work, and women must weep’: Sexism in English language textbooks used in German schools. Women's Studies International Quarterly 3. 267–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Janet S., Fennema, Elizabeth, Ryan, Marilyn, Frost, Laurie A.; and Hopp, Carolyn. 1990. Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly 107. 139–55.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kanarian, Mary A., and Quina, Kathryn. 1984. Sex-related differences in mathematics: Aptitude or attitude? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1989. Sexist and nonsexist language in legal texts: The state of the art. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 80. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Sidney. 1985. The expression of changing social values in dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 7. 261–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Stereotypes: Their consequences for race and ethnic interaction. Research in race and ethnic relations, ed. by Marrett, Cora Bagley and Leggon, Cheryl, vol. 4, 113–37. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Linguist. 1993. The Linguist electronic discussion list, 4-1110, Thursday, December 30, 1993. ISSN: 1068–4875. Subject: Review of Levin, English verb classes.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. 1992. LSA guidelines for nonsexist usage. LSA Bulletin, December 1992.8.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. 1995. LSA guidelines for nonsexist usage. LSA Bulletin, December 1995.73.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica, and Colleen Brice. 1994. Gentlemen prefer blondes: A study of gender bias in example sentences. Cultural performances: Proceedings of the third Berkeley women and language conference, ed. by Bucholtz, Mary, Liang, A. C., Sutton, Laurel A., and Hines, Caitlin, 449–61. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
McMurdy, Deirdre. 1992. Gender and the numbers. Macleans, 9 November 1992, 64–67.Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 1995. Feminist stylistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milton, George A. 1958. Five studies of the relation between sex role identification and achievement in problem solving. Technical Report no. 3, Department of Industrial Administration, Department of Psychology, Yale University.Google Scholar
Montemayor, Raymond. 1974. Children's performance in a game and their attention to it as a function of sex-typed labels. Child Development 45. 152–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moonwomon-Baird, Birch. 1996. Where are Adam and Steve, Fatima and Eve? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Moynihan, Mary M. 1991. Another view of Berger's Invitation to sociology: A he-manistic perspective. Teaching Sociology 19. 281–83.Google Scholar
Mulvey, Laura. 1990. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Issues in feminist film criticism, ed. by Erens, Patricia, 28–40. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Daniel J., and Dugan, Kimberly B. 1996. Sexism in graduate school classrooms: Consequences for students and faculty. Gender and Society 10. 330–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Elizabeth. 1988. Linguistic sexism in business writing textbooks. Journal of Advanced Composition 8. 55–65.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Alleen Pace. 1987. Guidelines against sexist language: A case history. Women and language in transition, ed. by Penfield, Joyce, 37–64. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Livia, and Strassmann, Diana. 1993. Storytellers and gatekeepers in economics. Paper presented at the Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics conference on language and gender, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Porreca, Karen L. 1984. Sexism in current ESL materials. Women and Language 8. 55–56.Google Scholar
Purcell, Piper, and Stewart, Laura. 1990. Dick and Jane in 1989. Sex Roles 22. 177–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusch, Luise F. 1984. Das Deutsche als Männersprache: Aufsätze und Glossen zur feministischen Linguistik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Römer, Ruth. 1974. Grammatiken, fast lustig zu lesen. Linguistische Berichte 28. 71–79.Google Scholar
Saario, Terry N., Jacklin, Carol Nagy; and Tittle, Carol Kehr. 1973. Sex role stereotyping in the public schools. Harvard Educational Review 43. 386–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Bernice R. 1986. The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women, AAC.Google Scholar
Sherman, Julia A. 1980. Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors: Changes in girls and boys, grades 8–11. Journal of Educational Psychology 7. 476–82.Google Scholar
Sherman, Julia A. 1983. Factors predicting girls' and boys' enrollment in college preparatory mathematics. Psychology of Women Quarterly 7. 272–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Aletha, Pohly, Sheila R.; and Mueller, Edward. 1971. The influence of masculine, feminine, and neutral tasks on children's achievement behavior, expectancies of success and attainment values. Child Development 42. 195–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swann, Joan. 1992. Girls, boys, and language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Treichler, Paula A. 1990. Women and Linguistics: The legacy of institutionalization. Women in the linguistics profession, ed. by Davison, Alice and Eckert, Penelope, 23–32. Washington D.C.: Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics, Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
U'Ren, Margorie B. 1971. The image of woman in textbooks. Woman in sexist society: Studies in power and powerlessness, ed. by Gornick, Vivian and Moran, Barbara K., 218–25. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore J., Eifler, Deborah, Hokada, Elizabeth; and Ross, Catherine. 1972. Sex-role socialization in picture books for preschool children. American Journal of Sociology 77. 1125–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weitzman, Lenore J., and Rizzo, Diane. 1974. Images of males and females in elementary school textbooks. New York: National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund.Google Scholar
Women on Words and Images. 1972. Dick and Jane as victims: Sex stereotyping in children's readers. Princeton, N.J.: Women on Words and Images.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. A. 1995. Women as ‘victims’ and as ‘resisters’: Depictions of the oppression of women in criminology textbooks. Teaching Sociology 23. 111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylee, Alison. 1995. The contexts of activism on ‘climate’ issues. Breaking anonymity: The chilly climate for women faculty, ed. by The Chilly Collective, 29–60. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar