5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      IN SEARCH OF GENDER NEUTRALITY: Is Singular They a Cognitively Efficient Substitute for Generic He?

      1 , 1
      Psychological science
      Wiley-Blackwell

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          With increasing frequency, writers and speakers are ignoring grammatical proscription and using the plural pronoun they to refer to singular antecedents. This change may, in part, be motivated by efforts to make language more gender inclusive. In the current study, two reading-time experiments demonstrated that singular they is a cognitively efficient substitute for generic he or she, particularly when the antecedent is nonreferential. In such instances, clauses containing they were read (a) much more quickly than clauses containing a gendered pronoun that went against the gender stereotype of the antecedent, and (b) just as quickly as clauses containing a gendered pronoun that matched the stereotype of the antecedent. However, with referential antecedents, for which the gender was presumably known, clauses containing singular they were not read as quickly as clauses containing a gendered pronoun that matched the antecedent's stereotypic gender.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Psychol Sci
          Psychological science
          Wiley-Blackwell
          1467-9280
          0956-7976
          Mar 1997
          : 8
          : 2
          Affiliations
          [1 ] University of Wisconsin-Madison.
          Article
          NIHMS617701
          10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00691.x
          4293036
          25593408
          816d7ac4-bdb2-4d5d-b812-057c432908df
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article