Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:49:36.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gender/sex discrepancies in pronominal references to animals: a statistical analysis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

LAURE GARDELLE*
Affiliation:
15 parvis René Descartes, English Department / UMR ICAR (CNRS section 34), Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 69007 Lyon, Francelaure.gardelle@ens-lyon.fr

Abstract

Although the English gender system is a semantic system largely based on sex, it is well known that in references to animals there is widespread discrepancy between pronominal gender and sex, and that gender selection is dependent on speaker's point of view (degree of interest in the animal, projection of personality and so on). What is yet to be established, however, is whether point of view still prevails in references to animals when the antecedent noun specifies the sex of the referent (e.g. stallion, ewe). In that case the neuter is known to occur but there is no quantitative assessment of the phenomenon, although it is crucial to understanding the influence of sex on gender selection. This article therefore proposes a statistical analysis of gender use in personal pronouns focusing exclusively on cases in which the antecedent noun specifies the sex of the animal. The analysis is carried out at the scale of the multi-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), using Pearson's chi-square test complemented by the odds ratio estimate. Three questions are considered: how common is the neuter? Is its relative frequency the same with female animals as with males? Finally, do the proportions vary according to the position of the anaphor relative to its antecedent?

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)

Footnotes

1

Special thanks are due to Rodney Huddleston for his most valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. I also wish to thank Bas Aarts and two anonymous referees of ELL for their very helpful suggestions.

References

Biber, Douglas Stig Johannson, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language in three volumes, vol. 3: Syntax. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Evelyn, John. 1983 [1620–1706]. The diary, ed. Bowle, John. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure. 2006. Le genre en anglais moderne (16e siècle à nos jours): le système des pronoms. PhD dissertation. Université Paris IV–Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1965 [1942]. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 7: Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Joly, André. 1987. Toward a theory of gender in Modern English. In Essais de systématique énonciative, 197244. Lille: Lille University Press.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko & Erades, P. A.. 1960. An English grammar, vol. 1: Accidence and syntax, 8th edn.Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre (ed.). 1997. La structuration conceptuelle du langage. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1994. A communicative grammar of English, 2nd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Morris, Lori. 1997. The grammatical role of English pronominal gender. In Larrivée (ed.), 149–70.Google Scholar
Mülhäusler, Peter & Harré, Ron. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ordan, Noam & Wintner, Shuly. 2005. Representing natural gender in multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18 (3), 357–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edn, 1989; online version December 2011. www.oed.com.sidproxy.ens-lyon.fr/ (accessed 20 July 2011).Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roggero, Jacques. 1988. Grammaire anglaise. Paris: Nathan université.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2008. Pronominal gender in English: A study of English varieties from a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed.). 1990. Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1997. Practical English usage, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1898. A new English grammar logical and historical. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. H. 1965. A handbook of English grammar, 3rd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar