Kristen Syrett explains how word choices reflect larger transformation
2017 01 17 0002 Rutgers SAS
Kristen Syrett is a professor of linguistics and cognitive science whose research explores complex questions about language acquisition. She is also a keen observer of how language changes over time to reflect larger societal transformation. When the City Council in Berkeley, Calif. voted earlier this year to replace gender-specific words in the city code, Syrett was sought out by reporters and quoted in the initial news coverage. The Berkeley measure replaces words like “manhole” with “maintenance hole” and “manmade” with "human effort" while also replacing pronouns like "she," ''her," ''he," and "him" with "they" and "them." In the interview below, Syrett, a professor in the School of Arts and Sciences, discusses gender bias and how language has the power to reinforce or refute that bias.
Q: What was your reaction to the vote by the Berkeley City Council?
A: I think it was a great move because it draws attention to aspects of our language that could unknowingly exclude groups of people. It helps us all become aware of patterns of usage that can have consequences we might not have appreciated.
Q: Can you give me an example of those consequences?
A: If you are a young girl constantly hearing “councilman,” you might internalize that and think you’re excluded from having that career—without consciously being aware of it.
Q: Berkeley is known as a liberal city. Do you think other communities or institutions will make similar moves?
A: The move away from gender specific terms has actually been going on for a long time and is picking up steam. Years ago, APA Style and Chicago Manual of Style suggested using “he” as a gender neutral term. Later, after people started to remark that “he” is not a gender neutral term, you had the suggestion to use she/he or s/he to be more inclusive. But in the last decade or so, with the movement away from a strict binary gender division, there’s recognition that saying he/she can also exclude because there are people who either don’t want to identify with a particular gender, or perhaps are transitioning from one to another and maybe don’t know what gender they fall into right now, or don’t want to declare whichever they are.
.
Q: What do you make of the singular “they” pronoun, which has become increasingly accepted, but has also generated criticism?
A: We actually have had a singular “they” pronoun for hundreds of years and people use it without even recognizing it. Let’s say someone is walking up the stairway to my office. I don’t know who it is, but I hear the person stumble and I say: “oh, they tripped.”
I know that it’s one person, but I don’t know who it is.
Some of the resistance comes from the fact that pronouns are such a frequent element of our language and ingrained in the way we talk. We use them all the time and it’s hard to stop using them in a particular way.
But language changes, and it changes in ways we simply can’t control. Language change is also prompted by younger generations.
Kristen Syrett Q: Some critics of the Berkeley vote said the council should stick solely to traditional municipal governmental roles, like paving roads and fixing sewers. Do you think the vote by the council, or similar actions in the future could increase the level of political polarization?
A: I think the potential for it being polarized is a bit mitigated now relative to how it could have been 10 or 15 years ago. I understand the objections, but I also think these issues really matter to people, and that government can play a role in fostering a more inclusive society. I remember being a parent chaperone on my daughter’s middle school science field trip. We had driven out to this lake to explore the environment and find out about botany and wildlife. The teacher kept talking about “natural” versus “man-made.” I can remember thinking that many of these students are young women who might go into science, and yet the language is implicitly biased against them. Just a small change helps people think differently about how we are all involved —in science or any other endeavor. It’s really a small change, but it means a lot.
Q: You led the effort several years ago to update the Linguistic Society of America’s Guidelines for Inclusive Language. What were some of the key changes?
A: Some changes were unrelated to gender, such as avoiding generalizations about groups of people even if you think those generalizations are positive. In terms of gender, we noticed that some linguistics textbooks included example sentences that portrayed gender roles in a particularly unfortunate way. So, for example, if a male was mentioned, he was more likely to be the subject of a sentence, and a doctor, while the woman was more likely to be an object or an indirect object.
We also noticed issues with faculty recommendation letters. Females were more likely to be described as "hard-working" or "good committee members" and "diligent." Men were portrayed as "driving" and "talented." It’s important for us as faculty to be aware of the language we use and not to perpetuate gender bias.