Transcriptivism: An ethical framework for modern linguistics

Kibbey, Tyler

doi:10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4535

“…In the past several years, within the LSA alone, we have seen the adoption of the 'Guidelines for inclusive language' (Linguistic Society of America 2016); 1 several presentations (e.g. Pabst et al 2018, Kibbey 2019, Kurumada & Gardner 2019, Muller et al 2019, Zimman 2019, Haugen & Margaris 2020; plenary events, including the panel 'Our linguistics community: Addressing bias, power dynamics, harassment' (Eckert at al. 2018), the special film showing Talking Black in America: The story of African American English (Language & Life Project 2018), and the talk 'Fostering a culture of racial inclusion in linguistics: For the children of the 9th Ward circa 2005' (Charity Hudley 2020); special sessions such as 'Sharing our views: Native Americans speak about language and linguistics' (Leonard et al 2018), 'A survey of linguists and language researchers: Harassment, bias, and what we can do about it' (Namboodiripad et al 2019), 'Linguistic discrimination on the university campus' (Clements et al 2019), 'Black becoming for language and linguistics researchers' (Lanehart et al 2020), 'Queer and trans digital modalities' (Kibbey et al 2020), and 'Hate speech' (Burkholder et al 2020, Carr et al 2020; and finally, the recent LSA Statement on Race (Linguistic Society of America 2019) and accompanying paper (Charity Hudley et al 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences

Kotek¹,

Dockum²,

Babinski³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the distribution of gender in arguments in example sentences in contemporary linguistics publications. Prior studies have shown that example sentences in syntax textbooks systematically underrepresent women and perpetuate gender stereotypes (Macaulay & Brice 1994, 1997, Pabst et al. 2018). Here we examine example sentences in articles published over the past twenty years in Language, Linguistic Inquiry, and Natural Language & Linguistic Theory and find striking similarities to this prior work. Among our findings, we show a stark imbalance of male (N = 12,117) to female (N = 5,571) arguments, where male-gendered arguments are more likely to be subjects, and female-gendered arguments nonsubjects. We show that femalegendered arguments are more likely to be referred to using a kinship term, to exhibit positive emotions, and to be the object of affection, whereas male-gendered arguments are more likely to have occupations, to exhibit negative emotions, and to perpetrate violence. We show that this pattern has remained stable, with little change, over the course of the twenty years that we examine, leading up to the present day. We conclude with a brief discussion of possible remedies and suggestions for improvement.*

show abstract

“…In the past several years, within the LSA alone, we have seen the adoption of the 'Guidelines for inclusive language' (Linguistic Society of America 2016); 1 several presentations (e.g. Pabst et al 2018, Kibbey 2019, Kurumada & Gardner 2019, Muller et al 2019, Zimman 2019, Haugen & Margaris 2020; plenary events, including the panel 'Our linguistics community: Addressing bias, power dynamics, harassment' (Eckert at al. 2018), the special film showing Talking Black in America: The story of African American English (Language & Life Project 2018), and the talk 'Fostering a culture of racial inclusion in linguistics: For the children of the 9th Ward circa 2005' (Charity Hudley 2020); special sessions such as 'Sharing our views: Native Americans speak about language and linguistics' (Leonard et al 2018), 'A survey of linguists and language researchers: Harassment, bias, and what we can do about it' (Namboodiripad et al 2019), 'Linguistic discrimination on the university campus' (Clements et al 2019), 'Black becoming for language and linguistics researchers' (Lanehart et al 2020), 'Queer and trans digital modalities' (Kibbey et al 2020), and 'Hate speech' (Burkholder et al 2020, Carr et al 2020; and finally, the recent LSA Statement on Race (Linguistic Society of America 2019) and accompanying paper (Charity Hudley et al 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences

Kotek¹,

Dockum²,

Babinski³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the distribution of gender in arguments in example sentences in contemporary linguistics publications. Prior studies have shown that example sentences in syntax textbooks systematically underrepresent women and perpetuate gender stereotypes (Macaulay & Brice 1994, 1997, Pabst et al. 2018). Here we examine example sentences in articles published over the past twenty years in Language, Linguistic Inquiry, and Natural Language & Linguistic Theory and find striking similarities to this prior work. Among our findings, we show a stark imbalance of male (N = 12,117) to female (N = 5,571) arguments, where male-gendered arguments are more likely to be subjects, and female-gendered arguments nonsubjects. We show that femalegendered arguments are more likely to be referred to using a kinship term, to exhibit positive emotions, and to be the object of affection, whereas male-gendered arguments are more likely to have occupations, to exhibit negative emotions, and to perpetrate violence. We show that this pattern has remained stable, with little change, over the course of the twenty years that we examine, leading up to the present day. We conclude with a brief discussion of possible remedies and suggestions for improvement.*

show abstract

Root Rot: Linguistic Conflicts of Place and Agency

Kibbey

¹

2023

American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a counter-theoretical commentary on Paul Reed’s rootedness as an epistemological framework for quantifying the measurement and linguistic realization of place attachment. By examining researcher positionality and problematizing rootedness when examining implications for the study of queer communities, the author shows how the current rootedness framework fails to adequately account for social conflicts between place and agency. Moreover, the author presents a theoretical expansion or counter-theory complementing Reed’s rootedness notion rather than criticizing it. The author explores how personal evaluations of security and communal hostility might undermine current metrics for the study of rootedness in these populations and outline (up)rootedness and root rot as a means of accounting for these complexities.

show abstract

Transcriptivism: An ethical framework for modern linguistics

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences

Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences

Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences

Root Rot: Linguistic Conflicts of Place and Agency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About