UNASSIGNED: The proliferation of gender-fair language as a medium of communication that represents all genders can be considered as an exciting development in today\'s rapidly changing world. In this context, the use of the gender asterisk has become especially prominent in German, it being a grammatical gender language. However, critics often argue that gender-fair language makes texts less comprehensible and decreases its aesthetic appeal. The present study tests this assumption for the German language and is the first one to test the influence of an academic background on the comprehensibility of gender-fair language.
UNASSIGNED: A text, either written in gender-fair language using the gender star in its singular and plural form or a version using only masculine-only forms, was randomly assigned to 81 adults without an academic background and 82 adults with an academic background (77% women in both groups). Participants were asked to fill out a web-based questionnaire answering questions on text comprehensibility and on their attitudes toward gender-fair language.
UNASSIGNED: The results show no statistically significant difference in comprehensibility ratings between participants who read a text in gender-fair language and those who read a text in masculine-only language. In addition, attitudes toward gender-fair language did not affect comprehensibility ratings in participants who read the text written in gender-fair language using the gender star. Further, the academic background had no effect on the assessment of gender-fair language.
UNASSIGNED: To conclude, the present study suggests that there is no evidence that gender-fair language reduces the comprehensibility of texts.

In many languages with grammatical gender, the use of masculine forms as a generic reference has been associated with a bias favoring masculine-specific representations. This article examines the efficiency of gender-fair forms, specifically gender-unmarked forms (neutralization strategy, e.g., \"l\'enfant\") and contracted double forms (re-feminization strategy, e.g., \"un·e enfant\"), in reducing gender biases in language. Extensive empirical research has shown that gender-fair forms have the potential to promote more gender-balanced representations. However, the relative efficiency of these strategies remains a subject of debate in the scientific literature. In order to explore these questions, two experiments were conducted in French. We analyzed the response times and percent correct scores using a sentence evaluation paradigm, where the participants had to decide whether a second sentence starting with a gendered personal pronoun (\"il\" or \"elle\") was a sensible continuation of the first sentence written in a gender-fair form. Experiment 1 confirmed that gender-unmarked forms are not fully effective in neutralizing the masculine bias. In Experiment 2, a comparison was made between gender-unmarked forms and contracted double forms, to assess their respective abilities to generate more balanced representations. The findings indicated that contracted double forms are more effective in promoting gender balance compared to gender-unmarked forms. This study contributes to the existing scientific literature by shedding light on the relative efficiency of neutralization and re-feminization strategies in reducing gender biases in language. These results have implications for informing efforts to promote more inclusive and unbiased language practices.

In most gender-marked languages, the masculine form is used to refer to male people specifically as well as to people of any gender generically. This dual functionality was shown in behavioral studies to lead to male-biased mental representations. Here, using EEG, we targeted the neurophysiological basis of this bias by investigating whether and how the generic masculine influences the early perceptual and cognitive processing of anaphoric references to men and women. We found that ERP amplitudes in the P200 range were larger for references to women than to men after generic masculine role nouns, while amplitudes in the P300 range were larger for references to men than to women after the feminine-masculine pair form. These findings suggest that the generic masculine primes the perceptual system towards processing men and that neither this form nor the feminine-masculine pair form elicits gender-balanced computations during early processing in the human brain.

Recently, the gender asterisk (\"Gendersternchen\") has become more widespread in grammatical gender languages in order to represent all genders. Such gender-fair language is intended to help better address women and other genders and make their interests and achievements more visible. Critics often argue this would make the language less comprehensible and less aesthetically appealing. Two experiments examined the effects of the gender asterisk on text comprehensibility, aesthetic perception, and interest. N = 159 and N = 127 participants were randomly provided with a text in either masculine-only form or alternatively in gender-fair language with the gender asterisk. The results of the first experiment showed no impairment of comprehensibility and aesthetic evaluation of the texts by the gender asterisk and no effect on interest in the game, while the second experiment showed significant impairments of comprehensibility, aesthetic evaluation, and interest in the game by the gender asterisk. The proportion of singular forms is discussed as a possible explanation for the different results. Experiment 1 predominantly used plural forms like die Spieler*innen (∼\"the fe*male players\") and did not include forms such as der*die Spieler*in (∼\"the*the fe*male player\"), whereas Experiment 2 included many such more complex singular forms. We argue that this issue might be crucial, and that it deserves full attention in future studies.

Hen is a Swedish gender-neutral pronoun used for non-binary individuals and as a generic singular pronoun form. Hen was added to the Swedish Academy Glossary (SAOL) in 2015, and opponents of hen have argued that gender-neutral pronouns are difficult to process, and therefore should not be used. As of yet, this has not been empirically tested. This pre-registered study used eye-tracking to experimentally test if hen has a processing cost by measuring the process of understanding whom a pronoun refers to (i.e., pronoun resolution). Participants (N = 120) read 48 sentence pairs where the first sentence included a noun referring to a person (e.g., sister, hairdresser, person) and the second included a pronoun referring to the noun. The pronouns were either gendered (she and he) or gender-neutral (hen). The nouns were either neutral (e.g., person, colleague) or gendered, either by lexically referring to gender (e.g., sister, king), or by being associated with stereotypes based on occupational gender segregation (e.g., occupational titles like hairdresser, carpenter). We tested if hen had a greater processing cost than gendered pronouns, and whether the type of noun moderated this effect. The hypotheses were that hen referring to neutral nouns would lead to a smaller processing cost than hen referring to gendered nouns. Furthermore, we hypothesized that hen referring to lexically gendered nouns would lead to larger processing costs than stereotypically gendered role nouns. The processing cost of hen was measured by reading time spent on three regions of the sentence pairs; the pronoun, the spillover region (i.e., the words following the pronoun), and the noun. The only processing cost for hen occurred in the spillover region. The processing cost in this region was greater when hen referred to neutral nouns than when hen referred to a noun associated with gender. In contrast to the hypothesis, the type of gender information associated with the noun did not interact with these effects (i.e., the same reading time for hen following e.g., the queen or carpenter). Altogether, the results do not support that gender-neutral pronouns should be avoided because they are difficult to process.

This experimental online-survey study investigated if different written language forms in German have an effect on male bias in thinking. We used answers to the specialist riddle as an indicator for male bias in mental representations of expertise. The difficulty of this thinking task lies in the fact that a gender-unspecified specialist is often automatically assumed to be a man due to gender stereotypes. We expected that reading a text in gender-fair language before processing the specialist riddle helps readers achieve control over automatically activated gender stereotypes and thus facilitates the restructuring and reinterpretation of the problem, which is necessary to reach the conclusion that the specialist is a woman. We randomly assigned 517 native German speakers (68% women) to reading a text on expertise written either in gender-fair language or in masculine generics. Subsequently, participants were asked to solve the specialist riddle. The results show that reading a text in gender-fair language before processing the riddle led to higher rates of answers indicating that the specialist is a women compared to reading a text in masculine generics (44% vs. 33%) in women and men regardless of their self-stereotyping concerning agency and communion. The findings indicate that reading even a very short text in gender-fair language can help people break their gender-stereotype habit and thus reduce male bias in thinking. Our research emphasizes the importance of using gender-fair language in German-language texts for reducing gender stereotypes.

暂无摘要。

The way media depict women and men can reinforce or diminish gender stereotyping. Which part does language play in this context? Are roles perceived as more gender-balanced when feminine role nouns are used in addition to masculine ones? Research on gender-inclusive language shows that the use of feminine-masculine word pairs tends to increase the visibility of women in various social roles. For example, when speakers of German were asked to name their favorite \"heroine or hero in a novel,\" they listed more female characters than when asked to name their favorite \"hero in a novel.\" The research reported in this article examines how the use of gender-inclusive language in news reports affects readers\' own usage of such forms as well as their mental representation of women and men in the respective roles. In the main experiment, German participants (N = 256) read short reports about heroes or murderers which contained either masculine generics or gender-inclusive forms (feminine-masculine word pairs). Gender-inclusive forms enhanced participants\' own usage of gender-inclusive language and this resulted in more gender-balanced mental representations of these roles. Reading about \"heroines and heroes\" made participants assume a higher percentage of women among persons performing heroic acts than reading about \"heroes\" only, but there was no such effect for murderers. A post-test suggested that this might be due to a higher accessibility of female exemplars in the category heroes than in the category murderers. Importantly, the influence of gender-inclusive language on the perceived percentage of women in a role was mediated by speakers\' own usage of inclusive forms. This suggests that people who encounter gender-inclusive forms and are given an opportunity to use them, use them more themselves and in turn have more gender-balanced mental representations of social roles.

Gender-fair language (GFL) aims at reducing gender stereotyping and discrimination. Two principle strategies have been employed to make languages gender-fair and to treat women and men symmetrically: neutralization and feminization. Neutralization is achieved, for example, by replacing male-masculine forms (policeman) with gender-unmarked forms (police officer), whereas feminization relies on the use of feminine forms to make female referents visible (i.e., the applicant… he or she instead of the applicant… he). By integrating research on (1) language structures, (2) language policies, and (3) individual language behavior, we provide a critical review of how GFL contributes to the reduction of gender stereotyping and discrimination. Our review provides a basis for future research and for scientifically based policy-making.

In many languages, masculine forms (e.g., German Lehrer, \"teachers, masc.\") have traditionally been used to refer to both women and men, although feminine forms are available, too. Feminine-masculine word pairs (e.g., German Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, \"teachers, fem. and teachers, masc.\") are recommended as gender-fair alternatives. A large body of empirical research documents that the use of gender-fair forms instead of masculine forms has a substantial impact on mental representations. Masculine forms activate more male representations even when used in a generic sense, whereas word pairs (e.g., German Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, \"teachers, fem. and teachers, masc.\") lead to a higher cognitive inclusion of women (i.e., visibility of women). Some recent studies, however, have also shown that in a professional context word pairs may be associated with lesser status. The present research is the first to investigate both effects within a single paradigm. A cross-linguistic (Italian and German) study with 391 participants shows that word pairs help to avoid a male bias in the gender-typing of professions and increase women\'s visibility; at the same time, they decrease the estimated salaries of typically feminine professions (but do not affect perceived social status or competence). This potential payoff has implications for language policies aiming at gender-fairness.