Does word order perpetuate outdated images about women and men? |
You probably say pots
and pans, not pans and pots, and lords and ladies, not ladies and lords. Why, though? What
makes us always produce one of the words in a pair first?
A previous post on this blog discussed ordering in word
pairs in general (which
way round?). Heiko
Motschenbacher, though, argues that pairs involving personal nouns like lords and ladies need special treatment
since, unlike pots and pans, pairs that refer to females and
males can reflect and perpetuate power differences in society. The term that
comes first in the pair is usually thought to represent the social role with
the higher social ranking. This is why guidelines for non-sexist language often
recommend placing the female term in first position, to symbolically reverse
the traditional order.
Motschenbacher analysed 30 frequent mixed-gender word pairs in
the 88 million word written part of the British
National Corpus. These pairs occurred a total of 8, 156 times. In addition
to general terms denoting men and women such as girl/boy, he/she, the pairs included address terms (ladies/gentlemen), nobility terms (lords/ladies), occupational terms (actor/actress) traditionally
heterosexual role terms (husband/wife)
and kinship terms (aunt/uncle). She found that the order of the words in the
pairs perpetuated images about the social roles of women and men that now seem
outdated. Men came first in general, especially in pairs referring to
professions (doctors and nurses) and
the nobility. The conventional ordering in sons
and daughters reflects, she claims, previous traditions of sons being more
important than daughters. The ordering in word pairs related to marriage
reflects traditional gender discourses: men dominate during marriage (husband and wife) but women come first when
they are not yet married (bride and
bridegroom), no longer married (widow
and widower) or when raising children (mum
and dad).
Other factors affect word order too. Just as with non-personal
nouns, words with a smaller number of syllables tend to come first (hence,
perhaps, ladies and gentlemen). This tendency
is more common, though, when it is the male form that is shorter. The form of
the word is also relevant, with less complex words occurring first (prince and princess, for example). The
sex of the author had a small effect, with male authors using man and woman more often than woman and man, compared to female
authors and mixed sex (co) authors. Male authors also had the highest rates of father and mother, preferring this to the
more usual mother and father. The sex
of the target audience also had an effect: higher female-first rates were found
only in writing stereotypically targeted towards women (for example, in a book
entitled The Art of Starvation).
In most cases though, the strongest factor overall was whether
the word referred to a male or a female. This corresponds to research on word
pairs in general, which finds that conceptually more salient semantic features prevail
over other factors as far as the ordering of terms is concerned. Male-first
predominance is not absolute though: as we have seen, there are some domains
where females come first, reflecting traditional views about gendered social
roles.
Motschenbacher does not want to make suggestions for
language reform, arguing that for some pairs it would be hard to find
gender-neutral alternatives and that in any case most recommendations are
likely to be biased in some way. She is in favour instead of raising awareness
of the fact that no linguistic choices are neutral. Individuals have the choice
of shifting away from a traditional ordering that perpetuates harmful
discourses about socially ‘appropriate’ roles of the two sexes; we need,
therefore, to make up our minds about which messages we wish to convey. We
should bear in mind, though, that putting females first is not necessarily the
best way forward, since it can entrench domain-specific female stereotypes (in mother and father, for example). Word pairs that specify the two genders,
she points out, are almost invariably connected to gender inequality.
It’s much easier talking about pots and pans, isn’t it?!
--------------------------------------
Motschenbacher, Heiko (2013) Gentlemen before ladies? A
corpus-based study of conjunct order in personal binomials. Journal of English Linguistics 41 (3):
212-242.
doi. 10.1177/0075424213489993
This summary was written by Jenny Cheshire
I wonder if "ladies and gentlemen" is just the shortened form of "lords, ladies, and gentlemen"...
ReplyDeleteIt's to do with phonetics, not discrimination. We say "pots and pans" and not "pans and pots" because the 's' in pots is unvoiced and so is the 'p' in pans, whereas the 's' in pans is voiced.
ReplyDeleteIn general when there are two words, we say the shorter word before the "and" and the longer word after. Bread and butter, salt and pepper, cops and robbers, ladies and gentlemen, men and women. Gender has nothing to do with it, it's all to do with phonetics and euphony.