Effects of Gender Inclusive/Exclusive Language in Religious Discourse

Abstract

Religious speech (i.e. preaching) is a prominent language event, yet it has received scant attention in research on language and attitudes. In recent years, many religious institutions have adopted reforms mandating gender-inclusive (non-sexist) language. Only a few studies have examined the effects of gender-inclusive or gender-exclusive language use on listeners' judgments of speakers, and none of these examine religious discourse in particular. In addition, few studies have examined how variables like gender-role typing or attitude toward equal rights for women and men might mediate between gender-linked language and judgments of speakers. In the present study, a male and a female audiotaped each of two sermon texts in both gender-inclusive and gender-exclusive language guises. Findings indicate that ministers who adopt gender-inclusive language suffer no negative evaluations. Three mediating variables proved to be especially potent in predicting listeners' responses to the stimulus sermons: attitude toward sexist language, expressive gender-role typing, and perceptions of women's rights. Implications for language reform policies and for further research on gender-inclusive language are discussed.

Attitudes Toward Women Mediate the Gender Effect on Attitudes Toward Sexist Language

“…Two studies have, in fact, suggested that awareness of the secondary status of women in U.S. society is associated with attitudes toward sexist language. Greene and Rubin (1991) found that students who were aware that women did not have the same rights in society as men rated the language of a religious sermon more sexist than did other students. Similarly, Harrigan and Lucic (1988) discovered a positive relationship between membership in the National Organization for Women and concern about eliminating sexist language.…”

On the Public Discourse of Religion: An Analysis of Christianity in the United Kingdom

“…Indeed, that the multifarious and abundant intersections of politics and religion in the modern world need no introduction, and that highlighting them would be a conspicuous and mundane task, aptly demonstrate the salience of the issue. As an obvious field for scholarly endeavor, the topic of religion is one that has also attracted an intense amount of academic attention, traversing a variety of disciplines, often with interdisciplinary overlap between them, including anthropology (Hann 2007; Saler 2008), history (Morris 2003; Mancini 2007), sociology (Davie 2000, 2006; Coleman, Ivani-Challian and Robinson 2004; Crockett and Voas 2006), law (Greenawalt 1998; Danchin 2008); philosophy (Macdonald 2005; Habermas 2006), psychology (Green and Rubin 1991; Barrett 2000; Boyer 2003; Rossano 2006); economics (Lipford and Tollinson 2003; Fase 2005), and political science (Keddie 1998; Kotler-Berkowitz 2001; Philpott 2007). Within this highly congested scholarly sphere, however, the issue of religious discourse has been something of a neglected area.…”

Are Doors Being Opened for the “Ladies’’ of College Sports? A Covariance Analysis

“…The findings are mixed. Greene and Rubin (1991) concluded that undergraduates who listened to audiotapes of preachers using gender-exclusive language (i.e., using "he" or "man" when referring to a generic individual) did not judge these ministers more negatively that preachers using gender-inclusive language (i.e., using generic pronouns to describe both genders). However, other researchers have found an inverse association between the use of gender-exclusive language and college students' evaluations of counselors (Johnson & Dowling-Guyer, 1996).…”