The purpose of the question №10 is to assess the statement “The English language is inclusive(neutral) and respects all genders and identities.” The key aim here is to collect data as no results are anticipated. It is expected that the respondents express their subjunctive opinion so that the conclusion can be drawn. The survey makes it possible to provide data on the perception of the neutrality of the English language based on the second language learners' opinion.

2.2 Survey Results

Stage 4: Survey Analysis. The next step is to analyze the data collected via the google form and provide the results that then are compared with the anticipated results described at the stage 3.

The number of respondents, aged 18-23, that took part in the survey is 45. 75%of the participants identified themselves as females, whereas 25% of the respondents identified themselves as males. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of the target audience are females.

As for the questions №3 and №4, the survey shows that the majority of the respondents (42%) tend to choose masculine pronoun `he' to fill in the gap in the neutral sentence, whereas 46% of respondents opt for gender-neutral options such as`they' (22%), `he/she' (22%) and `one' (2%). The results demonstrate that although the number of respondents who prefer neutral pronouns is prevailing, the gap is small and the number of participants who do not use gender-neutral pronouns is still significant. The assumption №1 that the usage of “he” is no longer regarded as appropriate cannot be completely proved.

Feedback on the questions №5 and №6 shows that 90% of the respondents tend to continue to use words traditionally ended in -man and that are formed from “man” in their speech, although 57 % (25 respondents) are aware of gender-neutral alternatives for these words such as police officer, chair, humankind/humanity.

Assumption №2 that second language learners do not use gendered words in the speech cannot be proved as only 10% of the respondents refuse to use the above-mentioned words in their communication.

Results on the question №7 indicate that second language learners are not aware of the LGBT+ issue and its reflection in the language as 80% have never heard and never used the invented pronouns, whereas only 20% have heard that such pronouns exist.

Question №8 analysis shows that 29% of the respondents use the strategy of the plural noun `they' as a singular generic pronoun; 20% of the respondents tend to use passive constructions as a tool of language neutralization, whereas 25% of the participants opt for personal pronoun `he' as a generic one. Thus, the assumption №4 can be partially proved since the most widely used strategies are the use of personal pronoun “they” as a generic singular pronoun and the implementation of passive constructions as a grammatical tool. However, there is still a significant number of participants who use pronoun `he' as a generic one.

Feedback on the question №9 proves the assumption that respondents tend to avoid constructing sentences with masculine pronoun “he” as only 13% of the participants would prefer to construct a sentence when gender is unmarked using this pronoun. 87% of the respondents tend to choose sentences, which are based on the principle of gender-inclusion.

Finally, the analysis of data collected on the question №10 makes it possible to explore the perception of the neutrality of the English language by the second language learners. According to the scale only 13% of the respondents completely agree with the statement that “The English language is inclusive (neutral) and respects all genders and identities.” 66% of the respondents tend to opt for `agree' and `not sure' that demonstrates that there is no universal and accepted agreement on the question. 20% of the participants tend to disagree with the statement that means they do not find the English language neutral and inclusive to all genders.

Limitations of the survey.

However, it should be noted that the research is limited due to the number of factors. The survey is limited to the certain language system and demographic landscape. In addition, the research is not generalizable to other language. Moreover, the target audience of the research is highly limited to the age group and academic occupation. Finally, the participants are the second language learners, which implies having certain cultural, political and linguistic background that could profoundly affect the results of the conducted survey.

Stage 5: Conclusion. Taking into account the results of the conducted survey it can be deduced that:

1) it is likely that females tend to use the gender-neutral language and avoid using gendered words and gender-specific expressions in their speech;

2)personal pronoun `he' remains the preferable option and is regarded as a generic pronoun among second language learners, when no alternatives are suggested. However,respondents tend to avoid constructing sentences with masculine pronoun “he” when they are given suggested answers;

3) second language learners use gendered words in the speech and gender-neutral alternatives are not widely spread;

4) second language learners are not aware of the LGBT+ issue and its reflection in the language;

5) the most widely used strategies are strategies are the usage of plural nouns to substitute the personal pronoun; the use of personal pronoun “they” as a generic singular pronoun and the implementation of passive constructions;

6) second language learners tend to construct sentences, which are based on the principle of gender-inclusion.

However, the results are quite controversial and we can conclude by saying that second language learners are not aware of the new gender policy and the language reform and the English language is not perceived as neutral among the second language learners.

2.3 Gender Gap Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of the gender gap is a fundamental stage in the investigation of the link between language and gender equality.It is anticipated that there is a strong link between the level of gender equality and the acceptance of gender-neutral language.

In this section of the graduate paper, we look at how efficient the country has been in terms of gender equality and explain the role gender-neutral language has played. In order to track the progress of the United Kingdom in the area of equality promotion it is useful to analyze The Global Gender Gap. We compare the results obtained within the period between 2015 and 2019. The gender gap analysis is further related to the reforms in the English language and the correlation is identified.

According to The Global Gender Gap Report 2015, (The Global Gender Gap Report, 2015) the United Kingdom was ranked as the eighteenth (18) country out of 145 countries on the scale of global ranking. As for UK's score, it scored 0.758 on the scale of global gender equality index where index 1 is considered to be an indicator that gender equality in a country has been achieved.

It is noteworthy that in 2015 several newspapers, magazines and other mass media modified their policies in relation to gender inclusive language. For instance, The Washington Post newspaper included new rules in their writing guide. (Berger, 2019). Thus, an assumption can be put forward that those changes were introduced due to increased social demand for neutrality in mass media.

In 2016 the United Kingdom was ranked 20 in the above-mentioned report with the index of 0.752.

Moving on to the next year, it is critical to emphasize that in 2017 the United Kingdom was ranked higher on the scale of global index of gender equality. Being ranked as the fifteenth (15) country on the list (144 countries), the United Kingdom scored 0.770 out of 1. This result could imply that the level of gender equality slightly increased. In the meantime, it should be noted here that in 2017 the word “they” as a gender inclusive means of expression was included in the Associated Press Stylebook, which is considered to be one of the most credible resources for writers and mass media specialists. (Berger, 2019) One may presume that that change helped to raise awareness about gender neutral forms. Consequently, the more people incorporated gender inclusive words and grammatical structures into their speech, the more positive results were achieved in terms of equality promotion.

As far as 2018 is concerned, in accordance with the Global Gender Equality Report 2018, (The Global Gender Gap Report, 2018) the United Kingdom was ranked as the fifteenth (15) country out of 149 with a slightly higher index of 0.774 (1 means gender equality is established). We argue that the higher acceptance of gender inclusive language could lead to a greater degree of gender equality in the country. More and more official institutions tended to introduce gender neutral language guidelines to their structures in 2018. For instance, Chartered Insurance Institute issued “Inclusive Language Guidelines” where it was proposed to implement new rules. It was suggested that inclusive language could celebrate diversity and contribute to higher tolerance towards numerous gender identities.

When it comes to 2019, the Global Gender Equality Report suggests that the United Kingdom was ranked as the twenty-first country on the list with the score of 0.767 out of 1.(Neate, 2020) These falling numbers could possibly be explained by external economic, financial, political and socio-cultural factors. At the same time, 2019 was marked as a year when the dictionary Merriam-Webster integrated the singular form of `they' pronoun into the corpus of words. This form of address is supposed to refer to a binary person or to someone who prefers not to explicitly reveal their gender identity. ("Definition of THEY", 2020)

2.4 Gender Gap results

As for the results of the gender gap analysis, it can be deduced that the language is a powerful tool and its impact is difficult to overestimate. Using gender inclusive language proves to be a small step towards a tremendous change in the way society treats minority groups (e.g. women). Introducing official guidelines into formal organizational structures may be exceptionally effective for gender equality promotion. What is more, one of the most efficient ways to support inclusion and equal enjoyment of rights is to add gender-neutral forms of expression through legislative measures and practices. The UK is the country, where a new gender policy is widely accepted, as a result, gender equality in the UK is practically achieved, according to the ranking.

Conclusion

Overall, in the first chapter of the paper the notions of gender and gender-neutral language were observed. The means of language neutralization were identified and the history of gender linguistics was described. We explored a new gender policy and the language reform and concentrated on the ongoing debate on whether there is a social demand for the language reform. We investigated the potential significance of the implementation of a new gender policy and the beneficial impact it could have on the societies.

In the second part of the thesis the hypothesis of the research that there is a link between the usage of gender-neutral language and gender equality was tested. The hypothesis was proven right as the gender gap analysis showed that the UK can be regarded as a country with a relatively high gender equality. The results of the analysis were explained. The survey demonstrated the necessity to raise public awareness on the issue of gender-neutral language. We made certain assumption based on the obtained results of the survey. The results indicate that a new gender policy is not widely accepted among second language learners. The outcomes of the research could be further investigated and implemented into a wider frame of research on gender-neutral language.

References

Aikhenvald, A. (2016). How gender shapes the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198723752.

Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.

Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think?. New York: Vintage., 116-129.

Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism And Linguistic Theory. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language (3rd ed.). London: Longman.

Conway, J., Bourque, S., & Scott, J. (1987). Introduction: The Concept of Gender. Daedalus, 116(4), XXI-XXX. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/20025120

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's wellbeing: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1385-1401.

Crolley, Liz & Teso, L. (2012). Gender-based Linguistic Reform in International Organisations. Language Policy. 12. 10.1007/s1-993-012-9241-z.

Duflo, E. (2012). Women Empowerment and Economic Development. Journal Of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1051-1079. doi: 10.1257/jel.50.4.1051

Dunant, S., (1994). The war of the words: The political correctness debate. London: Virago.

Flanagan, J. (2013). The Use and Evolution of Gender Neutral Language in an Intentional Community. Women & Gender.

Frank, F., & Treichler, P. (1997). Language, gender, and professional writing. New York: Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession, Modern Language Association of America.

Freed, A. (2003). Epilogue: Reflections on language and gender research. In: J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, eds. The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell, 699-721.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. (2007). A corpus-based view of lexical gender in written Business English. English For Specific Purposes, 26(2), 219-234. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.07.001

Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Key, A. C. (2011). Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 109-128.

Hechavarrнa, D., Terjesen, S., Stenholm, P., Brдnnback, M., & Lеng, S. (2018). More than Words: Do Gendered Linguistic Structures Widen the Gender Gap in Entrepreneurial Activity?. Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 42(5), 797-817.

Heilman, M., & Eagly, A. (2008). Gender Stereotypes Are Alive, Well, and Busy Producing Workplace Discrimination. Industrial And Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393-398. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.

Hellinger, M., & Bussmann, H. (2002). Gender across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Henley, N., & Thorne, B. (1975). Language and sex. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury.

Huddleston, R., Pullum, G., & Bauer, L. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in Language. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.

Kramarae, C. and Treichler, P. (1985) A Feminist Dictionary, London, Pandora

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe

Liddicoat, A. (2011). Feminist language planning. Current Issues In Language Planning, 12(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2011.548314

Lindqvist, A., Renstrцm, E., & Gustafsson Sendйn, M. (2018). Reducing a Male Bias in Language? Establishing the Efficiency of Three Different Gender-Fair Language Strategies. Sex Roles, 81(1-2), 109-117. doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9

McElhinny, B. (2003). Three Approaches to the Study of Language and Gender. American Anthropologist, 105(4), 848-852. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/3567152

McGoldrick, D. (2016). The Development and Status of Sexual Orientation Discrimination under International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Law Review, 16(4), 613-668. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngw030

Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. New York: Anchor Press.

Miller, C., & Swift, K. (2001). The handbook of nonsexist writing. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com, Inc.

Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics. London: Routledge.

Mills, S. (2003). Third wave feminist linguistics and the analysis of sexism [Electronic version]. Discourse Analysis Online, 2. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/ articles/open/2003/001/mills2003001.html

Mills, S. (2006). Feminist stylistics. In: K. Brown, ed. Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 221-223.

Mills, S., Mullany, L. (2011). Language, gender and feminism. Theory, methodology and practice. London and New York: Routledge.

Mucchi-Faina, A. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales - SOC SCI INFORM. 44. 189-215. 10.1177/0539018405050466.

Parks, J. B., & Mary Ann, R. (2004). Attitudes Toward Women Mediate the Gender Effect on Attitudes Toward Sexist Language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00140.x

Pauwels, A. (1998). Women changing language. London: Longmans. 

Pauwels, A. (1999). Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?. Linguistik Online (in German). 2 (1). ISSN1615-3014

Pauwels, A. (2001). Spreading the feminist word: The case of the new courtesy title Ms in Australian English. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women (pp. 137-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Prewitt-Freilino, Jennifer & Caswell, T. Andrew & Laakso, Emmi. (2011). The Gendering of Language: A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages. Sex Roles. 66. 10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5.

Sarrasin, O., Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2012). Sexism and attitudes toward gender-neutral language: The case of English, French, and German. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71(3), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000078

Scheflogg, E. A. (1999). Naivete vs Sophistication or Discipline vs Self-Indulgence: A Rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004008

Schwarz, J. (2003). Non0sexist language at the beginning of the 21^st century: a feminist topic in a postfeminist era. 

Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination? Frontiers In Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025

Shute, S. (1981). Sexist language and sexism. In M. Vettering-Braggin (Ed.), Sexist language: A modern philosphical analysis (pp. 23-33). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.

Silveira, J. (1980). Generic masculine words and thinking. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3(2-3), 165-178. doi: 10.1016/s0148-0685(80)92113-2

Smith, P. (1989). Language, the sexes and society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge.

Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. Social communication (pp. 163-187). New York: Psychology.

Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 757-769.

Talbot, M. (2013). Gender stereotypes: reproduction and challenge'. Holmes J, Meyerhoff M (eds.) The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tannen, P. (1990). You Just Don't Understand. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc.

Tavits, M., & Pйrez, E. (2019). Language influences mass opinion toward gender and LGBT equality. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 116(34), 16781-16786. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908156116

Vergoossen, H., Renstrцm, E., Lindqvist, A., & Gustafsson Sendйn, M. (2020). Four Dimensions of Criticism Against Gender-Fair Language. Sex Roles. doi: 10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x

Weatherall, A. (2006). Book Review: Talking Gender and Sexuality; Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 419-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/095792650601700308

Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. (2010). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.

Zdravomyslova, E, Tyomkina, A. (2015) 12 lekcij po gendernoj sociologii. SPb.: ­Izdatel'stvo Evropejskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge.

Online resources

Berger, M. (2019). A Guide To How Gender-Neutral Language Is Developing Around The World. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/12/15/guide-how-gender-neutral-language-is-developing-around-world

Definition of GENDER. (2020). Retrieved 15 January 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

Definition of THEY. (2020). Retrieved 15 February 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

Global Gender Gap Report, 2015. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org

Global Gender Gap Report 2016. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/rankings

Global Gender Gap Report 2018. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org

Inclusive Security and DCAF. (2017) A Women's Guide to Security Sector Reform: Training Curriculum (Washington, D.C.: Inclusive Security and DCAF) Retrieved March 15, 2019, from https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/

National Council of Teachers of English. (1975) Retrieved 15 February 2020

Neate, R. (2020). UK falls six places in gender equality rankings. Retrieved 18 February 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/16/uk-falls-six-places-in-gender-equality-rankings

Oxford English Dictionary. (2020). Retrieved 15 February 2020, from https://www.oed.com/

Papadimoulis, D. (2018). Gender neutral language in the European Parliament guidelines. The European Parliament. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/151780/GNL_Guidelines_EN.pdf

UN (n.d.). Guidelines for the gender-inclusive language in English. The United Nations. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from http://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml

Размещено на Allbest.ru