The Acquisition of Gender: A Study of English and German

Springer Series in Language and Communication 20 Editor: W. J. M. Levelt

Springer Series in Language and Communication Editor: W.J.M. Levelt

Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7 Volume 8 Volume 9 Volume 10 Volume 11 Volume 12 Volume 13

Volume 14 Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17 Volume 18 Volume 19

Developing Grammars By W. Klein and N. Dittmar The Child's Conception of Language 2nd Printing Editors: A. Sinclair, RI. Jarvella, and W.l.M. Levelt The Logic of Language Development in Early Childhood By M. Miller Inferring from Language By L.G.M. Noordman Retrieval from Semantic Memory By W. Noordman~Vonk Semantics from Different Points of View Editors: R. Bauerle, U. Egli, and A. von Stechow Lectures on Language Performance By Ch. E. Osgood Speech Act Classification By Th. Ballmer and W. Brennenstuhl The Development of Metalinguistic Abilities in Children By D. T. Hakes Modelling Language Behaviour By R. Narasimhan Language in Primates: Perspectives and Implications Editors: J. de Luce and H. T. Wilder Concept Development and the Development of Word Meaning Editors: Th.B. Seiler and W. Wannenmacher The Sun is Feminine A Study on Language Acquisition in Bilingual Children By T. Taeschner Prosody: Models and Measurements Editors: A. Cutler and D. R. Ladd Metalinguistic Awareness in Children Theory, Research, and Implications Editors: W.E. Tunmer, C. Pratt, and M.L. Herriman Dynamic Aspects of Language Processing Focus and Presupposition By J. Engelkamp and H. D. Zimmer Language Awareness and Learning to Read By 1. Downing and R Valtin Cognition, Metacognition, and Reading By D. L. Forrest-Pressley and T. G. Waller Young Children's Knowledge of Relational Terms Some Ifs, Ors, and Buts By L. A. French and K. N eJson

Anne E. Mills

The Acquisition of Gender A Study of English and German

With 14 Figures

Springer~Verlag

Berlin Heidelberg New York London Paris Tokyo

Dr. ANNE E. MILLS

Preface

Department of Language Studies College of Ripon and York St. John Lord Mayor's Walk York, Great Britain Series Editor Professor Dr. WILLEM J. M. LEVELT Max-Planck-Institut fur Psycholinguistik Wundtlaan I 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands

ISBN 3~540-16740-4 Springer-Vedag Berlin Heidelberg New York ISBN 0-387-16740-4 Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Mills, Anne E. The acquisition of gender. (Springer series in language and communication; 20) Bibliography; p. 1. German language-Gender. 2. English language-Gender. 3. German language-Acquisition. 4. English language-Acquisition. 5. German language-Grammar, Comparative-English. 6. English language-Grammar, Comparative-German. 7. Language acquisition. 8. Children-Language. L Title. II. Series. PF3211.M5 1986 435 86-13945

This work is subject to copyright. AU rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in data banks. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law, where copies are made for other than private use, a fee is payable to "VerwertungsgeseUschaft Wort", Munich. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Printed in Germany The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Typesetting: Fotosatz GmbH, Beerfelden. Offsetprinting and BOOkbinding: Konrad Triltsch, Graphischer Betrieb, Wurzburg

2131/3130-543210

This study of gender was conceived when I first took up the position of lecturer in linguistics at the University of Tiibingen in 1975. My particular in, terest in gender arose out of the work with German children and adults conducted in the context of preparing my doctoral dissertation for the University of York; my position at the University of Tiibingen has given me the opportunity to carry out the necessary research in both Germany and Britain. The empirical investigations reported in this study were begun in my first year in Tiibingen and continued over a period of 7 years. In this connection, I would like to express my thanks to the staff and pupils of all the schools who participated in the testing: Kindergarten Waldhauser-Ost, Kindergarten Winkelwiese, Grundschule Wanne, Grundschule Waldhauser-Ost, and Albert Schweitzer Schule (Tiibingen); Somerford Junior and Infants School and Twynham Junior and Infants School (Christchurch, GB); Burdyke Infants, Badger Hill Junior and Infants School and Joseph Rowntree Junior School (York, GB). Thanks must also go to the families of Georg, Hanna and Gisela and of course to the children themselves, who allowed the intrusion of recording equipment so regularly into their homes. I am also grateful to the staff and students of the Universities of Tiibingen, York and Manchester who cooperated in several of the investigations. This work was first submitted in December, 1984, to the Neuphiloiogische Fakultiit of the University of Tiibingen in order to obtain the qualification of Habilitation. In its preparation, I have obtained great help and support from my friends and colleagues, especially of course from Prof. D. A. Reibel. Special mention must be made of Dr. W. Glaser of the Psychoiogisches Institut, Tiibingen, who offered considerable help with the statistical analysis, and of Prof. P. Werth (University of Brussels), Dr. David Warden (University of Strathclyde), Dr. Werner Deutsch (Max Planck Institut, Nijmegen) and Laura Lane (University of Tiibingen), who gave helpful criticism of the manuscript. I am also indebted to Prof. Coseriu, Prof. Kaminski and Prof. Reis, all of the University of Tiibingen, who made constructive proposals for the preparation of this manuscript for publication. Particular thanks go to the secretarial staff and student assistants of Lehrstuhi Linguistik I for their help and patience atevery stage of the work and to Frau Netuschil for her careful typing of the final version. ANNE E. MILLS

Contents

Introductiou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Chapter 1 Gender in Linguistic Description ......................

6

Ontology and Development of Gender ............................ The Grammatical Status of Noun Classification Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . Theories of Opposition and Markedness ..........................

6 8 9

Chapter 2 A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German ..................................................

12

Parts of Speech Affected by Gender .............................. Semantic Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural Gender Rule ........................................ The Animacy and Personal Rule .............................. Common Gender Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personification Rule ......................... .".............. Other Semantic Rules ....................................... Morphological Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derivational Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noun Compounds .......................................... Phonetic Rules ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Interaction of the Rule Types ................................ Function ..................................................... Anticipation of Content ..................................... Marking of the Onset of a Noun Phrase ........................ Distinction of Singular and Plural ............................. Lexical Structuring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaphoric Reference ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deictic Reference ........................................... Functional Importance of the Male/Female Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . Summary ....................................................

13 16 16 17 20 23 26 30 30 30 32 34 36 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 41

VIII

Contents

Chapter 3 Rules and Speakers' Behaviour ....................... . The Psychological Status of Morphological and Phonetic Rules of Gender Assignment of German Nouns ........................... . Evidence from Loan Words ................................. . The Experimental Testing of the Use of Phonetic Rules in Gender Assignment in Adult German Speakers ........................ . The Psychological Status of Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment ... . Evidence from Loan Words ................................. . Conflict of Semantic and Grammatical Gender in German ....... . A Study of Metaphorical Extension in German ................. . Frequency of English Pronoun Forms and a Study of the Use of Generic 'he' in English Children's Literature ................... . The Psychological Status of Unmarked Terms .................... . Summary and Conclusions ..................................... . Chapter 4

43 43 43

45 50 50

51

Contents

IX

Hypotheses ............................................. . Observational Acquisitiou Data ............................ . The Use of Pronouns Referring to Sex-Marked Persons in a Production Task by 3- to 4-Year-Old English and German Children ................................................ . Summary and Conclusions ................................ . Implications for Explanatory Theories in Child Language Acquisition . The Interaction of Formal and Semantic Rules in Acquisition ., ... . The Relative Notion of 'Clear Rule' .......................... . Summary and Conclusions ..................................... .

98 99 101 109 109 109

114 115

53 55 57

59

The Acquisition of Gender in Children ................ .

61

Introduction ................................................. . The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German ...................... . Hypotheses ............................................... . Observational Acquisition Data .............................. . Indefinite Article ......................................... . Definite Article .......................................... . V ocabulary Analysis ...................................... . Gender with Suffixes and Compounds ....................... . Gender and Plural ........................................ . Relative Pronouns and Question Words ..................... . Experimental Investigation .................................. . Experimental Testing of the Selection of the Definite Article for Real Words by 5- to 6-Year-Old German Children ............. . Experimental Testing of the Use of Phonetic Rules in 7- to 8-Year-Old German Children .............................. . Summary and Conclusions .................................. . The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German .......... . The Acquisition of the Animacy and Common Gender Rule ...... . Hypotheses ............................................. . Observational Acquisition Data ............................ . The Use of Pronouns Referring to Animates and Inanimates in a Production Task by 5- to 10-Year-Old English and German Children ................................................ . The Use of Pronouns Referring to Animates and Inanimates in an 'Animating' Context Compared in English Adults and in 9- to 10-Year-Old Children ..................................... . Summary and Conclusions ................................ . Acquisition of the Natural Gender Rule ....................... .

61 62 62 63 64

67 71 72 74 75

77 78 79 85

86 86 86 87 90

95 97

98

Chapter 5 Psychological Gender ............................... .

117

Language and Thought ........................................ . An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender and Sex Assignment in English and German .......................... . An Investigation of Sex Assignment in Children's Literature ...... . Experimental Testing of Sex Assignment ...................... . The Testing of Sex Attributes ................................... . Summary and Conclusions ..................................... .

117

120 120 122

Chapter 6

Conclusions ....................................... .

142

Appendices .................................................. .

145

References .................................................. .

156

Subject Index

167

130

140

Introduction

It could be expected that this book would begin with a general discussion of language acquisition and its principles. Since this has been done by a considerable number of authors and at considerable length elsewhere, I will not attempt such a review, but will restrict myself to setting out as concisely as possible the working framework which directed the organization and interpretation of the research to be reported. Studies in child language acquisition have both a descriptive value and a theoretical explanatory value. The comparison of acquisition in two languages, that is, the cross-linguistic approach to language acquisition, has the primary goal of providing a sounder basis for theories of language acquisition. It is assumed that common principles of language acquisition exist independently of the language to be learned and independently of the language learning situation. This was even recognized by the Sterns in their introduction to the diary study of the language acquisition of their children first published in 1907. Although they report on the learning of German, they emphasize the general nature of the language acquisition process and the possibility of taking evidence from other languages (Stern & Stern, 1928, p. 3). A comparison between two or more languages shows clearly where similarities exist in the acquisition process, so that it is possible to reflect on what the common principles of acquisition underlying the similar behaviour may be. The similarities in acquisition between languages point to the formulation of putative universals. The differences in acquisition are, however, just as informative by high-lighting the effects of different structure and function on the acquisition process. Each language presents a different problem for the child in that it has properties which are distinct from those of other languages. When acquisition is compared in an area where the languages involved have differing structures, the effect of this different structure can be assessed. In the introductory chapter to The Crosslinguistic Study oj Language Acquisition, Slobin writes: "The crosslinguistic method can be used to reveal both developmental universals and language-specific developmental patterns in the iuteraction of form and content" (Slobin, 1986a). In this study, the cross-linguistic method is applied to the area of gender, comparing acquisition of this area in English and German. The two gender systems have some features in common, for example the natural gender rule,

2

Introduction

but also many distinctive features, such as the number of parts of speech on which gender is marked. In these areas of similarity and difference, the importance of the various features can be judged from the similarities and differences occurring in acquisition.

When similarities are found in acquisition, these can be attributed to universal principles of acquisition. Different theoretical approaches formulate such universals in different ways. Within the nativist framework, universal principles of acquisition are seen as innate behaviour resulting from an innate language-learning capacity (Chomsky, 1965, pp. 27 - 37). The language acquisition device is seen as one of the faculties of the mind, but distinct from the others in that it is specific for language. Universals in the structure of languages are seen as related to the structure of the language acquisition device. A knowledge of these universals is attributed to the child, although this need not logically be the case (see Comrie, 1981). The attempts to find evidence that putative linguistic universals (formulated within the transformational generative framework) have their direct equivalents in acquisition universals have not been successful. For example, the specified subject condition postulated by Chomsky (1977, p. 90) to explain the reference of the pronoun each other does not appear to be used in children interpreting sentences of the type the chickens said that the pigs tickled each other; children aged between 4 and 6 make the frequent error of interpreting each other as referring to the subject of the main clause, that is chickens (see Clahsen, 1982a, pp. 16 -17, for a further discussion of this example). It need not, however, be the case that such universals can be observed in child language behaviour. If this premise is accepted, then the influence of the innate language-learning capacity is unobservable, and the nativist theory becomes uninteresting in explaining child language acquisition. A different theoretical framework comes from the direction of psychology, within which universals in language acquisition are related to universals in cognitive development. No language-specific capacity is postulated; language acquisition principles are to be accounted for by principles of learning in general. The name of Piaget is most commonly associated with this theory; he maintained that language development can be explained in terms of general cognitive development (Piaget, 1959). As Atkinson (1982, pp. 171-205) argues, however, it is necessary to find evidence of learning principles which is independent of the evidence of language learning, but from which it can be argued that the general principles clearly underlie and fully explain the language-learning principles. Greenfield, Nelson and Saltzman (1972) have attempted to relate developments in a non-linguistic area with developments in language structure. They compare strategies used by young children in playing with and combining cups with combinations of elements in sentence types. They wish to see "a single competence underlying certain forms of action and grammar" (1972, p. 308). The acquisition of this competence results in nonlinguistic and linguistic behaviour, but it is not clear that the non-linguistic behaviour must necessarily appear before the linguistic behaviour for the

Introduction

3

claim that they result from a single competence to be true. In some cases, cognitive development seems to precede and explain language development (e.g. Karmiloff-Smith, 1979); in other cases, the linguistic development takes place considerably later than the related cognitive development (e.g. Mills, 1986), while in still other cases, the cognitive development occurs concurrently with the linguistic development (e.g. Gopnik, 1984). As with the nativist theory, no conclusive evidence of the correctness of the cognitive theory exists. Slobin, who is usually strongly associated with this theory, has in fact a modified version which explicitly includes some innate knowledge of grammatical structures:

1

There are major pacesetters to language development, involved with the

poles of function and of form: (1) on the functional level, development is paced by the growth of conceptual and communicative capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of cognition; and (2) on the formal level, development is paced by the growth of perceptual and information-processing capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of grammar

(Slobin, 1986a). An aspect which is becoming increasingly more popular in the literature is the role played by interaction in language acquisition (e.g. Wells, 1981). It is rarely claimed that interaction can function as a total explanatory theory of acquisition, and most research which places an emphasis in this area works basically within the cognitive theory described above. The interest in interaction stems from the claim that the acquisition of language functions is a prerequisite for the acquisition of language structures (see Bates, 1976; Miller, 1976); interaction is the context for the acquisition of these functions. Although it is not explicitly claimed that interaction can explain the mechanisms of the acquisition of the structures themselves, the focus on interaction in some research is so intense as to make it appear that it has total explanatory value. The present study takes as its framework the cognitive approach described above; within that framework, interaction and language input are also considered for their possible influence. The features of the acquisition process found in the area of gender will be discussed in reference to the various theories and approaches, but it is not the goal of this work to seek absolute proof or disproof of one or the other. As stated earlier, studies in language acquisition also have a descriptive value. In providing a descriptive account of the acquisition of a particular area of language, it becomes possible to establish norms for the development 1

Slobin does not state from within which linguistic theory he would wish to make claims about innate grammatical schemas, and in that respect, he leaves the door open somewhat for behaviour which is unexplained on general cognitive grounds to be put into an innate grammar category. His position needs to be more rigourously stated.

4

Introduction

patterns in the individual language. In education and clinical practice, these norms and the techniques of description developed in the investigation can be used for diagnosis of children with language problems. This study also contributes towards the description of acquisition in English and German. AI. though a great deal of research has been carried out on English (de Villiers & de Villiers, 1986), work on gender in English is comparatively scarce. Very little is known, however, about the acquisition of German in general. Until re-

cently, there existed only diary studies made at the turn of the century (e. g. Stern & Stern, 1909) and a handful of experimental investigations (see Mills, 1986 for a review). This has meant that the basis for German diagnostic tests has been totally inadequate and, in some cases, simply been transferred from better-researched languages such as English (see Angermaier, 1968; Grimm, 1968; Clahsen, 1983). This study contributes towards providing a more detailed description of the acquisition of German and thereby to the construction of better diagnostic tests. Chapter 1 provides a description of gender in general terms, that is, not specifically related to German or English. The status of gender in various types of linguistic description is investigated, the views on gender as a

linguistic system are preseuted, together with a discussion of related notions such as markedness. This discussion is kept brief and restricted to those points which can be related to acquisition in terms of the predictions which can be made about the acquisition process on the basis of the theoretical description. Chapter 2 presents a comparative and contrastive description of the gender systems of German and English. Any study in child language acquisition needs to have as its background a detailed description of the area to be investigated, firstly, as a basis for knowing what the target behaviour of the child is and, secondly, as a basis for making predictions about acquisition when properties of the system to be learned are related to postulated acquisition principles. The gender systems for German and English have been fairly well researched; this information is brought together, with some new insights, under the headings of formal, semantic and functional properties of the systems. These are then related to acquisition. Chapter 3 examines the evidence for the psychological status of some aspects of the linguistic description set out in the preceding chapter. This evidence is taken from adults' language behaviour, experimental and observational, over and above the analysis of speech utterances, which has led to the formulation of the linguistic descriptive rules. The linguistic behaviour in adults which results from the differing psychological status of rules also forms part of the input to the child and therefore can be seen as an influence on acquisition. The child also learns to produce this linguistic behaviour, and so it forms in turn a part of acquisition. Evidence of this type of language behaviour in adults has been collected for English and German to provide as complete a background to the acquisition studies as possible. Chapter 4 presents the acquisition data collected from German and English children. The data are organized according to the type of gender rules

Introduction

5

being investigated: firstly, the formal rules of gender assignment in German and secondly, in English and German, the semantic rules of animacy and natural gender. In each section, the data are divided into those collected from longitudinal or cross-sectional observation and those collected from experimentation. These two types of data are seen as complementary to one another and both as essential to providing as complete an account of the acquisition process as possible. Whereas observational studies provide detailed information about children's language, such studies are very time-consuming and therefore difficult to carry out with a group of children large enough to generalize from. Experimentation, on the other hand, makes working with larger groups more feasible and allows the detailed examination of particular aspects which it is impossible, or at least difficult, to observe in spontaneous utterances. A combination of data from both sources produces a fuller picture of the acquisition process. In the fmal section of this chapter, the implications for the validity of principles of language acquisition are considered. Chapter 5 investigates the relationship between language and thought as illustrated by the area of gender. The possible effect of the gender classification system on the perception of sex-related features or "psychological" gender is explored in a series of studies with both adults and children. Chapter 6 contains the overall conclusions to be drawn from the research and discusses implications for further work.

Ontology and Development of Gender

CHAPTER 1

Gender in Linguistic Description

Ontology and Development of Gender There are many different types of noun classification systems. These systems have different bases: Some are related to properties of the referents; others have language-internal rules. Among the first type, properties of the referents can be quite diverse. Some North American Indian languages classify according to the shape and size of the referent. The Algonkian languages have a system related to animacy and inanimacy (Bloomfield, 1946).2 Most Indo-European languages base their system on the natural sex distinction, hence the term 3 'gender'. As the basis of a classification system, gender must therefore be seen as one possibility among many. Frequently, parallels are made between the phylogeny of a system and structure in the young organism. If such a parallel is drawn, the origins of noun classification systems can be made to make predictions about the acquisition of such systems in children. Research on the origins of noun classification systems has mainly been carried out on those languages with a gender system, and particularly in Indo-European languages. The discussion therefore necessarily takes this perspective. Not all languages have a noun classification system; Finnish and Chinese are examples of languages that do not. Such a system would seem to be an unlikely candidate for a language universal. If it is assumed that properties of the innate language capacity within Chomsky's (1965) model of language acquisition can be deduced from language universals (see Comrie, 1981, for an alternative view), the learning of a noun classification system would not be based directly on an innate capacity. Some attempts have been made to offer a functional explanation for noun classification systems. Jakobson (1932) argues with respect to Russian that the gender system makes possible reference to an entity which is not marked for sex, but, as Wienold (1967, p. 120) points out, this function is limited to a relatively small number of cases. Martinet (1956), similarly to Meille! (1965), 2 3

Kaa (1976) argues against Bloomfield's interpretation of categories in Algonkian. Although the term gender is derived from genus, which originally meant category in general, the term now refers to sexual categories and will be used in this sense.

7

has argued in functional terms for the development of feminine gender in Indo-European, that is, the feminine gender developed from the necessity of congruence between the demonstrative pronoun and the noun. It is not clear, however, for what reasons such congruence is necessary and for what reasons this is necessary with nouns denoting female beings as opposed to other categories. If a noun classification system could be said to arise from functional necessity, then within the explanatory framework of Bates (1976) and others, who place great emphasis on the functional principles in language acquisition, the child should learn the system quickly once the function has been established. The arguments for the functional necessity of noun classification systems in order to explain their origin are weak, but the connection between function and acquisition may be relevant when considering the functions the system fulfils once established. A traditional view of the origin of gender and the view which lies behind all descriptions of noun classification systems in terms of perceptual properties of the referents is that every noun, not just a core, is ordered to one category or another on the basis of the perceptual properties. Following Herder (1744-1803) and Adelung (1732-1806), Jakob Grimm (1831) also saw the origin of the gender systems in Indo-European languages as being in the perception of all entities as members of one sex or the other. If a noun classification system is based on such perceptual distinctions, then such a system should be reconstructible for the child once the underlying concepts have been established from experience. For a gender system, for example, the concepts of animacy and sex must be learned as a prerequisite for acquisition. In a gender system such as German, which has entities with no natural sex included within sex-related categories, the classification of each noun is described, within this view, as being based on sex-related attributes of the referent. In acquisition, therefore, assuming the features for classification have not changed over time, it should still be possible to learn these attributes and hence the gender system. During the last century, research into the structural properties of early Indo-European led to the view that language-internal changes had produced the development of noun categories (Bindseil, 1836; Brugmann, 1897), although the natural sex view still persisted as an explanation of the separation of masculine and feminine (e.g. Wheeler, 1898; Meillet, 1965). Modern studies on the origin of gender (Fodor, 1959; Ibrahim, 1973; loffe, 1973) conclude that the classification systems have emerged from the interplay of nounadjective agreement systems and changes in morphology and phonology; Ibrahim (1973, p. 92) refers to "an accident of linguistic history". This view implies that the child will learn gender as part of the linguistic structure of his language using whatever language-internal rules are available. According to the theory of acquisition upheld, different predictions can be made as to the learning of these language-internal rules. The three explanations for the development of noun classification systems in particular with respect to gender can be linked to predictions about be-

8

Gender in Linguistic Description

haviour iu acquisition. Predictions can also be based on other aspects of the system: the status accorded to the noun classification system and the extent to which the system affects the linguistic structure of the language in question. These aspects, including the status of noun classification systems in grammar and the theory of markedness, which are related for the most part to the structure of individual languages, will be discussed in sections to follow (see pp. 8-11).

The Grammatical Status of Nouu Classification Systems When considering acquisition, the grammatical status of a structure is only interesting if it is assumed that there is a close relationship between linguistic description and the acquisition process. Within different theories, it is seen as a target of description to reflect closely principles of acquisition in the formulation of grammar (Chomsky, 1965; Pinker, 1982; Givan, 1986). In the present discussion, it will be assumed that such a close relationship exists in order to examine the consequences for the description of acquisition. Martinet argues in his functionalist approach that gender in French carries no meaning and thus should not be considered a morpheme. He writes: If, as I believe we should, we refuse to identify as a linguistic unit a segment

that does not correspond to a new choice of the speaker, we must declare that gender in French is no morpheme (1962, p. 16).

He sees gender as different from number, for example, where the speaker chooses to communicate plurality. This analysis applies to French and by definition to a noun classification system in general, since once the noun has

been selected, the marking will ensue. The consequence must be that gender has no meaning base and must therefore be learned by such formal principles as can apply in acquisition. The status of classification units in linguistic description is pertinent to acquisition. In gender systems, the semantic features [ + male) or [ + female) attached to the noun are generally related to a gender category. Such components or features are based on componential analysis in semantic theory (e.g. Katz & Fodor, 1963). Coseriu and Geckeler (1974) call such general features which occur in different lexical fields 'c!assemes'. Classemes are usually both lexicalized and grammaticalized. Such units, as set up in linguistic description, presumably correspond to units which are used by the speaker in language behaviour and learned by the child in acquisition. The theories do not usually specify how units may be acquired and whether certain units are easier to learn than others. In Chomskyan theory, such types of components are seen as universal and therefore innate. This implies that such components will be accessible to the same degree for learners of all languages.

Theories of Opposition and Markedness

9

The different theories of grammar do not show such great variation in their treatment of a feature such as agreement in relation to a noun classification system. For example, in Chomsky's (1965, pp. 174 -175) treatment of

gender, which in his discussion he relates to German, gender is specified on the noun as an entry in the lexicon and copied by means of an alpha-rule onto those structures which are in agreement with the noun. This description, which places the emphasis on the lexical entry for each individual noun, implies that the child in acquisition will first learn the gender of the noun and then the agreement rules for the affected parts of speech. Information about the existence of a noun classification system and the classification of the indi-

vidual nouns comes at least in part from those parts of speech affected by the agreement rules, so that it can be argued that acquisition could proceed in the reverse direction from that predicted by the linguistic description (see Maratsos & Chalkley, 1980; Maratsos, 1983). This question will be explored further· in the light of the acquisition data. The next question to be raised is the basis for the lexical entry: Whether an arbitrary entry exists for each noun or whether for those cases in which the classification can be made by rule, such rules determine the classification on the principle of economy in linguistic description. Semantic, morphological or phonetic rules can specify the classification of the noun. A problem for the latter solution in linguistic description is the exception to the rule and those cases where more than one rule can apply. For the exception, the lexical entry must be specified. For those cases where more than one rule can apply, it may be possible to stipulate a hierarchy of rules. The solution of arbitrary entries in the lexicon implies for acquisition that the child must learn the classification by rote.' The integration of rules into the system, which may cover the whole or only parts of the lexicon, implies that the child will learn these rules in the acquisition process. The question then arises which rules will be acquired first. A hierarchy of rules in the linguistic description would make predictions about the order of acquisition.

Theories of Opposition and Markedness Opposition is the semantic r,elation between a pair of elements in which the one element is 'opposed to' the other, for example, in English the adjectives big and small. There are problems in defining the notion of opposition exactly, especially, as in the above example, where gradable properties are involved (see Lyons, 1977, pp. 270 - 290), but the question of interest here is the relation of this opposition property to gender systems. Several linguists see gender categories as establishing oppositions within the language (e.g. Hjelmslev, 1956), as for example between animate and inanimate or between male and female. Hjelmslev (1959) argues from his considerations of the development of gender categories in Indo-Germanic that the oppositions can become

10

Gender in Linguistic Description

weaker over time, but the possibility of making an opposition will be reexploited and possibly resemanticized. He suggests that the opposition in Modern German between masculine and feminine genders is based on the appositive properties 'expansive' (fem.) and 'concentrated' (masc.). If such a

system of oppositions is seen as the basis of a gender classification at anyone point in time, these can be expressed as a set of semantic rules determining the

classification. The child's task would then be to learn these rules in his acquisition of the gender system. Of a pair of items which are in opposition to one another, one is frequently described as being 'unmarked', while the other is 'marked'. This notion of marking or markedness originates in the Prague School (See Vachek, 1966) and was flfSt applied in the field of phonology; it has been extended to other areas, in particular to semantics. Two aspects of marking are relevant to the discussion of gender: distributional marking and semantic marking. For distributional marking to apply, one member of an opposition pair must be restricted in its distribution compared with the other. The restricted member is the 'marked' item and the less restricted item the 'unmarked' one. For example, in English the question How - is the X? can usually contain only one of the two adjectives in pairs such as long/short, high/low, old/young; this is the first member in each case. In gender systems, one gender may be more restricted than another and so be described as marked. In French, for example, feminine gender is distributionally marked compared with the masculine, since in the case of a noun phrase containing two conjoined nouns of different genders and an agreeing adjective, the adjective will take masculine agreement, e.g. des boutiques (fern.) et magasins (masc.) fermes (masc.).4 In German and English, the masculine pronoun form is distributionally unmarked compared with the feminine marked form, since, amongst other evidence, indefinite personal pronouns such as someone, jemand, whoever or wer are referred to with the masculine form only. This rule that the unmarked gender forms have masculine gender has also been formalized within a transformational framework (Jacobsen, 1977, p. 1981). Semantic marking means that one of a pair of terms in opposition has a more restricted sense than the other 'unmarked' term. This is frequently related to the property that the distinction which forms the basis of the opposition can be neutralized in one term of the pair. For example, the English word author can be used to refer to a male or a female writer, whereas the word authoress can only be used to refer to a female writer. The semantic marking is in this case also formally marked by the suffix -ess, but this is not always so, as in the pair dog and bitch. For such pairs, the unmarked term functions as its own hypernym. There appears to be a gradation in the extent to which this is possible: Some terms can function with the neutralized opposi4

This rule applies in standard French. However, it m~st be noted that agreement is also frequently made, in spoken French, with the final element of a conjoined set, whatever gender that element may have.

Theories of Opposition and Markedness

11

tion in all contexts, others in only restricted contexts (see Lyons, 1977, pp. 308-311; Lehrer, 1985). Although dog and man are the unmarked terms in the pairs dog/bitch and man/woman, dog can be used in all contexts as the hypernym, but man cannot, as in that dog is a bitch, but not that man is a woman. There is a considerable amount of research on psycholinguistic aspects of marked and unmarked categories. Greenberg (1966a; 1966b) has discussed markednes in great detail and with respect to a large number of structures. He sets out seven criteria for establishing the markedness of a form, covering the points set out above. By his definition, markedness is to be equated with complexity. In terms of semantic markednes, it can be seen that the unmarked term, for which the opposition can be neutralized, is less complex in its description since the distinctive semantic feature is not specified; this neutralized term is less complex than the marked term for which the feature is specified. For children in the process of acquisition, the less complex term or unmarked form should therefore be the easier to acquire. Lyons' notion of a degree of markedness implies a range in complexity, which again has implications for acquisition.

Since semantic markedness frequently goes together with distributional markedness, the latter being the result of the former, the frequency with which one of a pair of items appears in the input to the child could also influence acquisition. The two factors of complexity and frequency cannot be kept apart in this instance. Some research in child language has already suggested that unmarked terms are learned before marked terms, including Donaldson and Wales (1970) on adjective pairs such as high/low and Clark (1971) on the time prepositions before and after. Greenberg (1966a, pp. 36 - 39) has discussed markedness in relationship to gender: He claims that the feature male is unmarked as compared with the feature female. While this appears to be common in languages, it is not a language universal. Items with the feature [ + male] should then be acquired earlier by children than items with the feature [ + female]. This prediction will be examined closely in the acquisition data. This chapter has examined general aspects of the notion of gender in relation to acquisition. The following chapter takes a detailed look at the features of the gender systems in English and German, also from the perspective of relating the description to acquisition and particularly in terms of predicting similarities and differences in the acquisition process.

Parts of Speech Affected by Gender

CHAPTER 2

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

13

of the individual rules would vary according to the theoretical framework adopted. The location of a particular rule does not, however, have clear implications for acquisition since no one has claimed that, for example, rules in the lexicon are more difficult to acquire than others. Such questions are therefore not pursued in the following discussion.

Parts of Speech Affected by Gender

A person who has not studied German can form no idea of what a perplexing language it is .... Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this, one has to have a memory like a memorandum book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl.

Mark Twain, The Awful German Language (1879) Despite Mark Twain's impression of the German gender system, there are far more regularities than he was aware of. In this chapter, the main features of the gender systems of German and English will be presented under different aspects; a comparison of the two systems will be made in order to underline clearly the areas of similarity and difference. 5 This chapter thus serves as part of the background to the work on acquisition of gender. Although different theories of language acquisition will give the formal properties of a linguistic system different weight in predicting behaviour in acquisition (see Introduction), it is evident that they are important in every theory. An area which can be described as having the same conceptual base in two languages, such as reference to past time or reference to plural objects, will not necessarily be learned in the same way or at the same rate in the two languages depending on the linguistic structures involved. Even the theories which root language acquisition in the development of cognition cannot deny the influence of linguistic structure (Cromer, 1974). The formal properties of the gender systems of English and German will now be discussed by trying to evaluate the possible influence of these properties on the acquisition process in both languages. In the course of the presentation, frequent reference will be made to various types of gender assignment rules with varying degrees of absoluteness. Some of these rules could form part of the structure of the lexicon, some could belong to the morphological component of the grammar. The location 5

Hawkins (1985) does not consider gender one of the essential contrasts between the languages, although there are some major differences affecting syntax (see pp. 36 - 41).

In English, the gender assigned to the noun influences only the selection of the form of pronouns and then only in the third person singular. There are three gender paradigms which have related case forms (see Table 2.1). In brief summary, he, (his, him) refers to masculine nouns, she, (her) to feminine nouns and it (its) to impersonal nouns. In Old English, the gender system was more extensive in that it affected not only the pronoun but also the article and adjective (see Brunner, 1961). Owing to phonological and morphological changes, the agreement system was reduced to the pronoun only in Middle English (Baron, 1971; van Glahn, 1918; see also Jesperson, 1914, pp. 174 - 219, for a general discussion of the system). The German system ressembles that of Old English. The gender of the noun influences the selection of the form of the articles, the attributive adjective, ordinal numbers, adjectival pronouns, relative and question pronouns, participles, and the personal pronouns in the third person singular (see Jarnatowskaja, 1968). There are three gender paradigms called masculine, feminine and neuter. The adjective ending varies according to the presence of a definite or indefinite article in the noun phrase. With a definite article, the declension is referred to as 'weak', with the indefinite article as 'mixed' and with no article as 'strong'. Case and gender marking are confounded in that they cannot be related to distinct segments. One form can also have several functions, so that knowledge of case is necessary to place a form in its gender paradigm (see Werner, 1975, for a discussion of the interrelations). The article forms, pronouns, and adjective declensions are set out in Tables 2.2 - 2.4 together with the plural,

Table 2.1. The Gender-Marked Pronoun System in EngliSh

Subject Object Possessive pronoun Possessive adjective a

Masculine

Feminine

Neuter

he him his his

she her hers her

it it its a its

There is no evidence of the use of this form.

14

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Table 2.2. Declension of the Definite and Indefinite Articles in German Case

Masculine singular

Neuter singular

Feminine singular

Plural

Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite Definite Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative

der den des dem

ein eineo

eines eioem

das das des dem

ein ein

die

eine

die

eines einem

der der

eine einer einer

die die

der den

Table 2.3. Declension of the Gender-Marked Pronouns (Third Person) in German 6 Case

Masculine

Feminine

Neuter

Plural

Nominative Accusative Dative Possessive adjective

er ihn

sie sie

es es

sie sie

ihm

ihr ihr

ihm

ihnen

sein

ihr

sein

from which this plurifunction can be easily seen. For example, the form der (see Table 2.2), once it has been established that it is an article, could be masculine nominative, feminine genitive or dative, or plural genitive. Information must be gained from the number marking on the noun from the syntactic function of the noun before gender can be identified. If the child uses the marking of these forms of establish gender on the noun rather than rules associated with the noun itself in terms of phonetic, morphological or semantic rules, then this plurifunction must present problems. The child must have knowledge of cases and plural in order to be able to establish the gender paradigms. This plurifunction is not present in English, although case marking is combined with gender marking on the pronouns. Plurifunction should make acquisition harder for the German children; on the other hand, gender is marked in German on adjectives and articles, which are acquired before pronouns, pronouns being attenuated in their referential function. German children could therefore learn the gender system in association with articles and adjectives before English children learn gender in association with pronouns.

6

The genitive forms should possibly be included here, although they only Occur with a small number of verbs which have their object in genitive case, for example, gedenken 'to honour'. The genitive forms are seiner (masc.), ihrer (fern.) and seiner

or es (old form) (neu!.).

Parts of Speech Affected by Gender

15

16

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Semantic Rules Natural Gender Rule

Both English and German have a natural gender rule, that is, when a noun has the feature [ + male] or [ + female] because its referent possesses natural sex, in the majority of cases, the noun is given masculine or feminine gender respectively. This rule is perceived as central to the German and English noun classification system, hence the use of the term 'gender'. 3 Together with the animacy/inanimacy distinction the masculine/feminine distinction is seen as characteristic of Indo-European languages in general (Lohmann, 1932) For example sister and Schwester have the semantic feature [ + female], brother and Bruder have the feature [+ male], the first pair have then feminine gender, the second pair, masculine. This distinction is not made in the plural in either language, unlike languages such as Spanish. In German, proper names can be used with a preceding article indicating natural gender, e.g. der Peter, die Maria. In English, there are only a few instances in which there is a mismatch between the biological fact and language use: A male can be referred to as she if an emphasis is placed on his effemininacy, such as in the case of homosexuals. A female can almost never be referred to as he. Hall (1951) argues on this basis that English has no grammatical gender. In German, there are only two terms for male humans which have feminine gender, both of which emphasize the lack of masculinity of the referent: die Mumme 'coward' and die Tunte 'effeminate homosexual'. For females, however, Zubin and Kopcke (1981) see the relationship between sex and gender as weaker. They formulate a rule: "Nouns canonically referring to women are feminine or neuter, depending on lexical content for sexual status, kinship status, and derogation" (p. 445). Those nouns which refer to females before the age of recognized sexual status, e.g. das Gar 'girl', or which, in Zubin and K6pcke's formulation, "suggest lack of sexual desirability" e.g. das Weib 'woman', or which have clear derogatory content, e.g. das Mensch 'hussy' have neuter gender. Although the relationship between sex and gender may be described as weaker for females, this must be seen as relative to males. The relationship is still strong; the incidence of neuter gender according to the above rule is comparatively small. In English, the natural gender rule accouuts for a high proportion of the uses of he and she; in other words, masculine and feminine gender are to be attributed to a large proportion of the nouns which are related to a gendermarked form on the basis of the natural gender rule. In German, the natural gender rule accounts for only a relatively small number of nouns to which masculine or feminine gender is assigned. Tisch 'table', for example, is not masculine gender on the basis of the natural gender rule. It is a question of debate, as discussed earlier (pp. 6 - 8), whether gender assignment in such cases is to be attributed to properties of the referent associated with masculinity or femininity, but it clearly cannot be accounted for by the natural gender

Semantic Rules

17

rule. The rule has quite a different status in the two languages, which implies a different degree of difficulty for the language learner. Since in English the natural gender rule is important compared with other rules, the acquisition of this rule should be easier than in German, where it takes its place among other rules affecting the rest of the lexicon (see pp. 26-30).

The Animacy and Personal Rule

In English, the animacy and personal rules account to a large extent for the use of the pronoun it as opposed to he and she. Under normal stylistic conditions, inanimate referents are referred to with it, contrasting with he and she for human or personal animates. The distinction is not upheld in the plural; the pronoun they covers both animates and inanimates. Impersonal animates (plants, insects, animals, etc.) are also pronominalized with it, unless the animate being has been specified for sex, then the natural gender rule applies. Thus, in sentence 1, the dog being unspecified for sex is pronominalized with it (or possibly he, see common gender rule); bitch in sentence 2 must be pronominalized with she. (1) That dog is educated. It barks at politicians. (2)

The bitch is on heat. She is desperate to be let out.

The animacy and personal rules also apply to relative, interrogative, demonstrative and indefinite pronouns in English, although these do not reflect the natural gender rule (see Table 2.5). Hjelmslev (1959, p. 232) records that languages which have no masculine or feminine distinction often have such a rule in this area, so that it appears to reflect a basic notion. The interrogative pronoun what and the relative pronoun which refer to inanimates and impersonal animates, contrasting with who for personal animates. Table 2.5. The Marking of Animacy in Relative, Interrogative, Demonstrative and Indefinite Pronouns in English and German Part of speech Relative pronoun

English

Inanimate/impersonal

Personal

which

who

what was that das

who wer

something, anything

someone, anyone

German

Interrogative pronoun

English German

Demonstrative pronoun Indefinite pronoun

English German English German

everything

everyone

etwas

jemand

18

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

The demonstrative pronoun that can only be used for inanimates and impersonal animates; there is no corresponding animate form of this pronoun. To refer to a person the adjective that must be used with the indefinite noun person. So, while sentence 3 is possible, sentence 4 not. (3) 1 want to buy that. (pointing to a carpet) (4) 1 want to see that. (pointing to a man) In English, the inanimate and impersonal category would seem to be unmarked according to the criteria discussed above (pp. 9-11), since under some circumstances (not all) the terms from this category can act as the terms with the neutralized opposition, as for example in sentences Sa or 5b. (5a) What is standing in the corner? Is it Daniel or the bottle?

(Sb) The bike and its rider, which were both squashed flat by the lorry, ... It does not seem possible to use it as a hypernym, however. Assuming the in-

animate and impersonal terms are unmarked, they should, according to the arguments presented earlier, be acquired first. In German, the neuter gender does not include all inanimate referents, although the class derives its name in the language from the word for 'thing': sachlich 'neuter' from Sache 'thing'. Inanimate referents are distributed across all three genders, although animate referents are concentrated in masculine and feminine genders. By contrast, then, neuter gender may be perceived as being more closely related to the feature 'inanimate'. Once reference has been made to a noun in German, it can be omitted in a following phrase which includes an article and adjective, as the following sentence illustrates: Ich habe zwei Schreibmaschinen. Die alte ist kaputt.

'I have two typewriters. The old (one) is broken'. It is also possible to use the article followed by an adjective, when no linguistic

reference to a noun has preceded, to make general reference to a category. When the masculine article or feminine article is used in such a construction, reference is made to a man or woman respectively, thus der Kranke 'the sick (man)" eine Dicke 'a fat (woman)' (Brinkmann, 1954). When the neuter article is used in this way, the noun phrase refers to the abstract property, for example das Schone 'the beautiful (thing) = the beauty'. Here, the neuter gender contrasts with masculine and feminine in that it refers only to the inanimate. 7

7

The exception is the use of das Kleine 'the little (one)' to refer to a child.

Semantic Rules

19

In some areas of German, the link between neuter gender and inanimacy is clear. As in English, interrogative, demonstrative and indefinite pronouns (not relative pronouns) distinguish the forms referring to inanimates and im-

personal animates from those referring to personal animates (see Table 2.5). So, for example, was 'what' and das 'that' cannot be used to refer to humans. Wer is the interrogative pronoun used to refer to animate personal referents. A differentiation is also made in German in the possible forms of pronoun in combination with a preposition. When the pronoun refers to a personal referent, the pronoun forms ihn, ihm, etc. (see Table 2.3) are used (sentence 6a); whereas with an impersonal referent a general prefixed form is used da- (sentence 6b). (6a) Ich mag den Jungen; ich gehe mit ihm ins Kino. 'I like the boy; I'm going with him to the cinema'. (6b) Ich mag den Hut; ich gehe damit ins Kino. 'I like the hat; I'm going with it to the cinema', (= I'm going to wear it to the cinema'.) (6c) Die Frau, fUr die ich den Aufsatz schrieb, ist pleite. 'The woman for whom I wrote the essay is broke' .

[wofOr ich den Aufsatz schrieb, ist pleite. (6d) D'Ie Z't el ung, fUr die 'The newspaper for which I wrote the essay is broke' .

In relative clauses, the form wo + preposition can be used with impersonal nouns; with personal nouns, this form is impossible. The alternative of preposition + relative pronoun (in most cases, identical to the definite article, see Table 2.2) can be used with both personal and impersonal nouns (see sentences 6c, 6d). The choice is often made on pragmatic grounds, since the form wo gives no information as to gender (see Curme, 1960, p. 201) or case. In questions, the wo + preposition form is essential with impersonal nouns; with personal nouns, the appropriate form of wer is used. In German, the inanimate and impersonal category would seem to be unmarked in the same way as in English; these terms can be used with the neutralized opposition, as sentence 7 illustrates (compare with sentence Sa). (7) Was stehl in der Ecke? Daniel oder die Flasche? In both English and German, there is a tendency to avoid using the impersonal interrogative and demonstrative pronouns when referring to higher animals. This applies particularly to the demonstrative pronoun, since the reference is clear in that case. So, in the context of a zoo visit, it is possible to say Was gibt es im nachsten Kafig? or What is in the next cage? when an animal is clearly being referred to, but it is not clear of what type. However, it is not so acceptable to say with clear reference to a particular, especially higher, animal Dos sieht aber gefahrlich aus or That looks dangerous. The implications of inanimacy appear to be too strong in that context.

20

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

dos Geflugel poultry'

In both languages, it is possible to break the rule deliberately to produce an effect of disparagement through inanimacy (non-humanness) where a personal pronoun would be normally expected. Curme quotes (1935, p. 149) a popular novel: Would you like to marry Malcolm? Fancy being owned by that! Fancy seeing it every day.

21

Semantic Rules

I das Huhn

~chicken~ der Hahn

die Henne 'hen'

'rooster'

In German, a similar effect is possible: Sowas wurde ich nie heiraten.

This use is a deliberate violation of the rule, exploiting the usual associations for unusual effect. English and German would then appear to have many similarities in the application of this animacy and personal rule, but English has a far more extensive association of inanimate and impersonal with it and related forms than German has with neuter gender. It could be the case that German children make use of the distinction in the area of demonstrative pronouns etc. in the learuing of the gender system in nouns and classify all inanimates as neuter gender. In terms of the markedness theory, the forms marking inanimate and impersonal in both languages should be learned before those marking personal.

Common Gender Rule He you know was Jacky She you know was Kit And then there came that baby boy Whom everyone called it.

Beny, rneeny, miney, mo, Put the baby on the po, When he's done Wipe his bum Shove the paper up the lum. Opie and Opie (1959)

In German, there exists a certain association between common gender terms, that is, terms referring to entities which can have sex but where the sex is unspecified, and neuter gender. Zubin and Kopcke (1981) formulate the rule thus: "Nouns denoting domesticated animals without reference to sex are neuter" (p. 444). Terms which do not determine sex are superordinate terms or those referring to the young. An example of this association is taken (1981, p. 444) from the lexical field of chickens illustrated in Figure 2.1. An alternative term for chicken is Hiihnchen (neuter). Although the diminutive suffix -chen assigns neuter gender to the noun by morphological rule (see pp. 30 - 31) the fact that the term is superordinate in the lexical structure fits in with the semantic rule.

das Kuken 'chick'

Fig. 2.1. Lexical field of chickens. (Adapted from Zubin & Kopcke, 1981)

Clearly, the area of application of this rule is limited in scope, but the general feature of sexlessness, as formulated in the natural gender rule for female humans in German, is also associated with neuter gender (see pp. 16-17). Other related items which are also neuter gender are das Kind 'child' and das Baby 'baby' (exception: der Siiugling 'infant'). It is also possible to refer to a baby or small animal, without a previous linguistic reference, using the headless noun-phrase construction discussed in the previous ,ection. For example: Guck mal, so ein Kleines. 'Look, such a little (one, baby)'. In English, the common gender rule and impersonal rule are interrelated since, as was set out above, those impersonal animates which can have sex are usually pronominalized with the pronoun it etc., unless sex has been specified by some aspect of the linguistic or non-linguistic context. It would be possible to separate the two rules by formulating them so that the impersonal rule would apply to those referents which have no sex specification and the common gender rule to those referents which can be specified for sex but where the sex is unknown or irrelevant. In many instances, it would be impossible to know which rule had applied, since this depends on the knowledge of the speaker. For the speaker who does not know that an amoeba can be male or female, for example, and for the speaker who chooses to ignore that fact, the result is the same, i.e. the use of the pronoun it. For human referents, both English and German select the masculine forms to indicate common gender. That is, where the sex of the person is unknown or irrelevant, the gender of the noun, pronouns and related forms are taken from the masculine paradigm. Sentences 8a and 8b illustrate this use with nouns. The speaker is not specifying a male doctor but a person of either sex within that profession. (Sa) I am looking for a doctor. He must come straight away. (8b) Ich suche einen Arzt. Er mu13 sofort kommen.

22

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Indefinite personal pronouns are also masculine (sentences 9a and 9b), but some linguistic contexts make it more difficult to get the common gender reading, as is the case in 9c and 9d compared with 9a and 9b (see Lehrer, 1985, for a discussion of this variation in relation to markedness).

Semantic Rules

23

(9a) Someone has left his coat.

The use of it here does not carry the overlay of disparagement as it does in connection with adults but does emphasize the lack of sex specification. 8 In Modern English, the plural third person pronoun is also used to indicate common gender, even when the referent is clearly singular (Mackay, 1980). So, for example, an alternative version of sentence 9a is sentence 12, although only one coat is mentioned.

(9b) Jemand hat seinen Mantel dagelassen.

(12) Someone has left their coat.

(9c) Who is leaving tomorrow and what train will he be catching? (9d) Wer reist morgen ab und mit welchem Zug fahrt er?

The generic terms for human in both languages are masculine: man and der Mensch. In German, there has not yet emerged an alternative to the masculine as common gender; the indefinite pronouns are assigned masculine grammatical gender. So, even when it is known that the reference group can only consist of females, for example in an antenatal gymnastics class, the indefinite pronoun remains masculine (see Chapter 3). Thus, the following utterance from the physiotherapist to the group: Jemand, def Wehen hat, soli sofort in def Klinik anrufen. 'Anyone who (mase.) has contractions should immediately ring the hospital'.

Some nouns in English appear to be an exception to this rule, in that she is used when indefinite reference is made, for example in sentence 10. (10) When a nurse is on duty, she must wear her cap.

On closer inspection, however, such terms often cannot function as hypernyms and are restricted to the group of females only, so nurse does not include female and male nurses. With a noun such as primary school teacher, which is frequently, but not always, pronominalized with she, the decision appears to

be pragmatic, since most primary school teachers are female. The use of the pronoun she in such contexts is not perceived as including males; it refers to a stereotype. Where an explicit linguistic reference, for example to male and female teachers, had been made beforehand, it would not be possible to continue with the use of the feminine pronoun. Such uses are not to be seen as common gender forms, since the formal criterion of hypernymity is not fulfilled. For small children and babies, it is also used as the common gender form, as well as he (see sentence 11 and the two children's rhymes at the beginning of this section). (11) The baby yelled at the top of its voice.

Despite some variations, in both English and German there is an association of neuter gender with common gender for animate impersonal referents

and an association of masculine gender with common gender for personal referents. The association in the first instance is stronger in English than in German, since it affects a greater part of the lexicon. In terms of a prediction according to markedness, these semantically unmarked common gender forms should be learned before the corresponding marked forms. In English, the rule for animate impersonal referents is affected by what has been in the grammars frequently called personification. This will be discussed in the next section.

Personification Rule

In English, it is possible to use the personal pronoun forms for referents which are inanimate or animate impersonal and which would according to the previous rules be pronominalized by the it form. This use is called personification. since the personal pronouns are used. In German, this is not possible. since the masculine and feminine genders are not reserved exclusively for male and female referents. Personification enables the English speaker to avoid the connotations of inanimacy which follow when it is used as the common gender pronoun in reference to an animate being (sentences 13a and 13b) and actually to suspend the feature of inanimacy in reference to an inanimate object (sentence 14). (13a) The bear looks ferocious, but he does not eat meat. (13b) How winsome is the swallow. How tender and pleasing all her notes. (14)

Look at that car; he's waiting for the driver. (mother to child)

Several explanations have been offered for the choice of personal pronoun, that is, he or she, once the speaker has decided not to use the pronoun it. From a historical perspective, the rules determining the choice of 8

At the turn of the century, it could also be used as the pronoun in reference to a collective everyone or each one, where the group referred to consisted of both sexes, e.g. "Everyone fell on its knees" (Nesbit, 1904). This is no longer common.

24

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Semantic Rules

25

he or she can be linked to the change in the status of gender from Old to Middle English. In Old English, each noun had a grammatical gender as in German. Through phonological and morphological changes, this system decayed and was gradually replaced by a system close to Modern English (Baron, 1971). Personification was common in Middle English texts; for example, in The Owl and the Nightingale (ca. 1195 -1216), both the birds are referred to with feminine pronoun forms. The choice of pronoun was affected by a considerable number of factors discussed at length in the corresponding literature (see for example Ausbiittel, 1904; Morsbach, 1913; Karpf 1930, pp. 4 - 28). Amongst the factors mentioned are the influence of the language of

referred to as she, but dogs he. Secondly, since both are pets, power would not seem to explain the difference between the animals.

the original text, rhyme associations, gender of words in the same semantic

and some machines, but it is to be disputed that this use is predominant among all inanimates. In many examples', it is not clear that the concept of minor power is appropriate, such as with a ship or a country. The concept of power does not seem to be adequate to explain the facts. Vachek (1964) refers to the use of he and she in this context as 'emotionally marked' compared with the use of it. If this can be interpreted in the general framework of marking, it would imply that these marked uses would be learned later than the unmarked use of 'it'. Vachek explains the choice of masculine or feminine according to the properties of the referent. He writes:

field and what is called a general tendency to 'masculinize'. Patterns of personification were established which continued through New Modern English (see Abbott, 1966) and which are close to those found in Modern English (see Langenfelt, 1951). The latter can therefore be explained on the basis of traditional usage. Other explanations exclude the idea of traditional usage and emphasize the influence of psychological factors determining the choice of pronoun at the moment of speaking. Joly (1975) wants to explain usage using the concept of power. 'Major power' is associated with he and 'minor power' with she. This is schematized in Figure 2.2. When an animal is referred to as it, this is because it is considered as inanimate and without power; the speaker is indifferent. Using he" the speaker is interested and considers the animal animate. Using he2 or she, the speaker is strongly interested and assigns major or minor power to the animal. J oly claims, without any justification from frequency of usage, that "she will be said of any animal, big or small, that is in some way subordinated to the speaker" (1975, p. 272). Pets, he argues, are the objects of affection and are to be given minor power. Joly's analysis is descriptively and explanatorily inadequate. Firstly, pets are not most commonly referred to as she; usage appears to be animal specific, cats, for example, frequently being HE,~.~-----------------------IT

animate power

inanimate no power

Jaly also claims that she is predominant with inanimates if it is not used

and attributes this to the fact that: .. . she is in fact the first position to be found in the field of animation and, as

such, it has gradually become the usual referring pronoun for inanimates that are momentarily (or permanently) endowed with power. (1975, p. 276)

The feminine pronoun is used to refer to countries and ships, as well as cars

The reason why the feminine set was chosen to refer to the positive kind of approach (signalling the thing referred to as amiable, intimately known, delicate, etc.), while the masculine set serves to denote the opposite, negative kind of approach (signalling, in its turn, the concerned thing as huge, strong, unwiedly or generally unpleasant) is too obvious to need detailed specification - it reflects the common conception of the feminine vs. masculine features regarded as typical of each of the two sexes (1964, pp. 190-191).

These features are definitely not universally associated with maleness and femaleness; some Australian languages, for example, make all nouns referring to poisonous creatures feminine gender. Vachek's analysis must therefore be restricted to English. For English speakers, Vachek assumes that males and females are associated with specific attributes and that the speakers agree on the attributes, although individual differences can occur in the perception of a particular referent. On the basis of these attributes, the sex-marked pronouns are chosen.

HE,

SHE

major

minor power

power

I

I:

Fig. 2.2. Use of he/she/it with non-human-animates and inanimates. (Adapted from Joly, 1975, pp. 273, 276)

Mathiot (1979) makes the same assumption that attributes of the referent determine usage, but she has conducted a more detailed analysis of the attributes involved as they relate to social and emotional factors. She makes a distinction in usage according to the sex of the speaker. So, for example, a woman will use she to refer to an inanimate object which she perceives as 'mature', but he for an object perceived as 'infantile'; a male speaker on the other hand will use she to refer to an object he perceives as 'incompetent' and he for an object perceived as 'competent'. The positive and negative poles, as

26

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

assumed by Vachek, do not match the uses of masculine and feminine prououns in this analysis. Both authors mention conventional uses, such as she for countries, ships etc., but suggest that these uses can be explained in terms of their general analysis. This detracts from the description of usage as conventional, however, since the convention will override and replace the sp,:0ntaneous choice. It is difficult to determine where a convention exists, except in a few clear instances such as she for countries, and how to distinguish between conventional and spontaneous usage. This distinction is important in accounting for acquisition since, according to the description given, the child would learn two different systems - either the use of a pronoun with a particular noun or a general rnle classifying referents on the basis of perceived attributes. To summarize: Conventional and spontaneous usage determine the choice of he and she in personification, that is, in animated contexts. Spontaneous usage is determined by varying factors which may be linked to the perception of the referent in terms of male and female attributes. The pronoun he can function as the animated common gender form of it.

Other Semantic Rules The rules set out in the previous section account for the major uses of gendermarked pronouns in English. In German, however, there are a considerable number of other semantic rules, as well as morphological and phonetic rules. The most recent work on semantic rules in German gender assignment has been carried out by Zubin and Kopcke (1982; 1983). This will be briefly summarized here to give an idea of the complexity of the semantic rule system. Zubin and Kopcke have discovered a far greater number of rules than were previously included in standard grammars (e.g. Schulz & Sundermeyer, 1974); the latter will be presented in Zubin and Kopcke's framework along with the other more recently discovered rules (see Table 2.6). Zubin and Kopcke distinguish between basic level nouns and superordinate terms. Superordinate terms are associated with neuter gender; some of these terms have neuter gender through the morphological rule that the prefix ge- (meaning 'collective') on an noun determines neuter gender (see pp. 30 - 31), for example, Geflugel 'all with wings = poultry'. However, the rule covers a much broader section of the lexicon than is affected by this morphological rule, for example, das Amt 'office' compared with die Post 'post office', die Polizei 'police station', or das Obst 'fruit' compared with der Apfel 'apple' and die Birne 'pear'. Zubin and Kopcke divide the basic level nouns into four group types according to the type of gender assignment. Firstly, there are semantic fields such as colour names which are directly associated with a particular gender, in this case neuter (rules 2 -14, Table 2.6). Secondly, there are semantic fields which have an 'inner structure' (rules 15 - 21, Table 2.6), that is, different

27

Semantic Rules

Table 2.6. Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment in German Associated gender

Example

1. Superordinates

Neuter

das Obst 'fruit'

2. Colours

Neuter

das Grlin 'green'

3. Power/strength 4. Speech acts

Feminine

5. Waste

Masculine Masculine Feminine Masculine Masculine Feminine Feminine Neuter

Semantic category

das Amt 'office'

6. Cloth 7. Hunting 8. Heavenly bodies 9. Stone/sand 10. Musical instruments

11. Knowledge/skill 12. Chemical elements 13. Abstract units of measure 14. Games

Feminine,

das Saffran 'saffron' die Gewalt 'force' die Rede 'speech' def Dreck 'muck' def Taft 'taffeta' die Jagd 'hunt' der Mond 'moon' def Quarz 'quartz' die Orgel 'organ' die Kunst 'art'

das Silber 'silver'

Neuter

das Watt 'watt'

Neuter

das Poker 'poker'

Masculine Feminine Feminine Feminine

der Stock 'stick' die Tafel 'board'

Masculine

der Fahrer 'driver'

Feminine Masculine Neuter

die Witwe 'widow' der Herr 'gentleman' das Mensch 'hussy'

Feminine Masculine Neuter Neuter Feminine Feminine Feminine

die Stute 'mare' der Hengst 'stallion' das Pferd 'horse' das Zeichen 'sign' die Gebarde 'gesture' die Boje 'buoy' die Nummer 'number'

Masculine Masculine Feminine

der Reif 'frost' der Passat 'tradewind' die Glut 'burning heat'

Feminine Masculine

die Sekunde 'second' der Tag 'day'


15. Gestalt a. Line

b. Surface c. Sharp d. Pincer 16. Man, woman and child a. Unisex b. Natural gender Female:

Male: c. Downgrading 17. Domesticated animals a. Natural gender Female:

Male: b. Common 18. Symbolic function a. Gesture b. Seafaring signs c. Numbers

die Gabel 'fork' die Zange 'pliers'

19. Weather a. Precipitation

b. Wind c. Temperature

20. Time a. Shortest

b. Shorter

28

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Table 2.6 (continued) Semantic category

Associated gender

Example

c. Longer d. Time spans 21. Beverages a, Carbonated b. Beer

Neuter Feminine

das lahrzehnt 'decade' die Brut 'hatching time'

Masculine Feminine

def Schnaps 'spirits' die Brause 'lemonade' das Pilsener 'pils beer'

Neuter

'Complex groups' (rules only apply when morphological/phonetic marking missing) 22. Birds 23. Plants a. Trees b. Fruit c. Spices/herbs d. Grass 24. Ships and boats a. Sailing craft b. Hand or motor craft

Masculine Masculine Feminine Feminine Masculine Neuter

def Habicht 'hawk' def Pilz 'mushroom' die Birke 'birch' die Bime 'pear' def KOmmel 'caraway' das Heu 'hay'

Feminine Masculine

die Jacht 'yacht' der Kajak 'kayak'

Masculine --+ neuter

der Bestandteil 'ingredient' das Einzelteil 'spare parts'

Masculine --+ feminine Neuter Feminine

der See 'lake' die See 'sea' das Fleet 'tidal canal' die Pfiitze 'puddle'

Masculine --+ feminine

der Affe 'ape' die Fliege 'fly'

Masculine --+ feminine

der A.rger 'annoyance' die Angst 'anxiety'

'Continua' 25. Parts a. Integrated --+ separable 26. Bodies of water a. Enclosed --+ open b. Tidewater c. Wet areas 27. Animal kingdom a. most man like --+ insects, lower animals

28. Affect a. Extroversion --+ introversion

Note. The semantic rules of gender assignment are summarized from the detailed analysis of Zubin and K6pcke (1983). The ordering and subcategorization of the rules is taken from their discussion.

sub-fields are associated with different genders, for example in the semantic field of weather terms. precipitation and wind terms are generally masculine, words for temperature are feminine. Thirdly, some semantic fields are viewed as 'complex' in that an association with a gender applies, unless a phonetic or morphological rule will determine gender (rules 22 - 24, Table 2.6); for

Semantic Rules

29

example, bird names are masculine, unless they have an -e ending which determines feminine gender (see pp. 32 - 34). Fourthly, a 'continuum' is formed in some semantic fields from one pole to another; the poles are then associated with different genders (rules 25 - 28, Table 2.6); for example, terms for open stretches of water are at the one extreme feminine, moving to closed stretches of water which are associated with masculine gender at the other. Particularly in the second and last continua groups, a contrast is established between groups of words through their association with different genders in the same way that coherence is established between words having the same gender. These rules (Table 2.6) vary according to the number of words they apply to in proportion to the size of the lexicon and the number of exceptions to the rule. In terms of a discovery procedure in acquisition, the rules must vary in their transparency within the system and be learned with more or less difficulty. It is a truism that children must possess the cognitive prerequisites for the learning of the common features which unite a semantic field; for example, the concept of a temperature scale must be present before the child can group the linguistic terms referring to temperature as members of the same set. The group of terms is then perceived as being in association with a particular gender. Such cognitive pace-setting implies that some of the semantic rules will be learned very late. It is, however, equally possible that the common feature of gender leads to a grouping of items in terms of their common semantic property rather than vice versa. The rule can only be said to be learned when the association is present, whichever way around it is acquired. Zubin and Kopcke wish to make distinctions in the status of items in the lexicon; they classify words as being in the core, system or periphery, which they define according to the criteria of frequency of use and variety of con-" texts in which the items can occur. Most of the exceptions to the rules, they argue, are to be found in the core or periphery. This classification runs the risk of becoming circular, and therefore meaningless, since an item can be described as belonging to the core precisely because it constitutes an exception to the rule. Criteria have to be found for determining the status of an item independently of its behaviour with respect to the rules. This differentiation is nevertheless pertinent when considering acquisition, since the items in the core would appear to be closely related to those items which children first learn. If this is correct, then the acquisition of a semantic rule may be delayed until enough of the 'system' items are learned for the rule to become transparent. Zubin and Kopcke's analysis would certainly appear to have some validity from the evidence which comes from language change (1983, p. 62). They show that gender has frequently changed in the direction of the rules which they set forward, suggesting that the rules are productive. Assuming they are correct, the natural gender, animacy and common gender rules discussed in the previous sections must be seen in the context of the large number of other semantic rules which exist in German. Contrary to popular belief, the ani-

30

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

macy, common gender and natural gender rules are then a few among many and in terms of the number of items to which they apply would not seem to be more frequent in application than some of the other semantic rules.

Morphological Rules Derivational Suffixes In English, the suffix -ess can be added to certain nouns denoting a male referent, human or animal, to form a noun denoting the female. Author, for example, becomes authoress 'female author' and lion becomes lioness 'female lion'. These forms also have feminine gender through the semantic rule of natural gender. In German, the suffix -in has the same function as -ess in English, being added to masculine nouns to denote the female referent, for example Freund 'male friend' and Freundin 'female friend'. 9 There are, however, a number of other affixes not related to the natural gender rule which are nevertheless associated with a particular gender. For example, the suffixes -ung, -heit, -erei, -schajt, and -keit forming abstract nouns determine that the whole be feminine gender. Such derivatives are extremely common. Diminutive suffixes -lein and -chen take neuter gender. The prefix ge- added to another noun meaning 'collective' determines neuter gender, for example das Gewasser 'collective water = body of water'. This last rule is related to the semantic rule which associates all superordinate terms with neuter gender (see Table 2.6, rule 1). Nouns derived from another part of speech with no affix are neuter gender, for example das Schwimmen 'swimming' from the verb schwimmen 'to swim' or das Ich 'ego' from the personal pronoun ich 'I'. Nouns borrowed from Latin which have suffixes associated with a particular gender usually have the same gender in German: -ment, for example, is neuter, -ittit and -lion are feminine.

Noun Compounds

Morphological Rules

31

the common gender term, for example, lady doctor or manservant. 10 In the animal kingdom, birds can be specified for natural gender with the words hen or cock, some animals with cow or bull or in general he or she, for example, he-bear, she-bear. In German, there is no directly equivalent rule in compounds, derivational suffixes beiug most frequently used. With animals, however, it is common to form a compound with the diminutive terms -miinnchen 'male' and -weibchen 'female', but, since these are diminutive, the gender is neuter. In German, noun compounds, for which the language is renowned (see Mark Twain), are frequently created by speakers. The gender of such compounds is determined by the gender of the final compounding element. Zubin and Kopcke refer to this as the Last-Member Principle: "A morphologically complex noun is assigned the gender associated with the final segment" (1983, p.9).

Since German has predominantly gender-determining suffixes, this rule predicts gender correctly in the majority of cases. For example, das Mausmiinnchen 'male mouse' consists of Maus(fem.) 'mouse' Mann (masc.) 'man' and -chen (neut.) 'diminutive', and since -chen is the final element, the whole compound has neuter gender. The term 'final segment' has to be defined more precisely than in the rule formulated by Kopcke and Zubin, since it is not clear what kind of morphological analysis is being referred to. In a word such as das Muttergestein 'parent rock', for example, which consists of the noun Mutter (fern.) 'mother', the prefix ge- (neut.) 'collective' and the noun Stein (masc.), 'stone', the gender of the compound is determined by the gender of the last complex noun, that is Gestein (neut.). In English, the morphological rules are linked with the natural gender rule and acquisition of the gender of these forms could occur through this rule alone. In German, some rules are also linked to the natural gender rule, in which case the same may apply. Other rules are not linked to a semantic rule and must be learned independently. Since the nominalizing suffixes occurring in abstract nouns are likely to appear late in the vocabulary of the child, this gender rule is also likely to appear late. The most likely candidate for early acquisition is the diminutive rule, since diminutives are common in speech to children as well as in the speech of children themselves.

In English, the natural gender of a human or animal can be specified by forming a compound with the common gender terms as its head. For human beings, the common gender term is combined with the words lady, girl or woman for females or man or boy for males. These nouns are prefixed before The suffixes -ess for English and -in for German, although they designate the female

See Jespersen (1914, pp. 183 - 219) for a fuller discussion of human terms (pp. 183 -188) and animal terms (pp. 199 - 202). It should also be noted here that not all

counterpart of the male, sometimes produce a change in meaning. The term priestess, for example, is a female priest, but one primarly associated with pagan rites. Some terms for professions ending in -in in German are perceived by some speakers as slightly derogatory, for example, Projessorin 'female professor'.

compounds including lady or man as the first element are of this type, for example lady killer refers a man who 'kills (with his seductive charm)' ladies, not to a lady who kills. The structural opacity of noun compounds is a well-known characteristic of English (see Lees, 1960).

10

9

32

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

33

Phonetic Rules

Phonetic Rules

aJ

" ~

been recognized as existing for a considerable period of time (see, for exampIe, Curme, 1960, pp. 123-124); other rules have been recently investigated in a computer analysis of monosyllabic nouns by Kopcke (1982).

_

~

00

N

~

N

N

0-

~

N

~

~

:i

~

.§" :§" ]

8 00

::E'"

'6

-- - -

~ ~

~

" 'S" '" 'S'S'S ~

There are in general more masculine gender nouns than the other two gen-

ders; Bauch (1971) estimated 50"70 masculine as opposed to 30% feminine and 20% neuter. In case of doubt as to the gender of a word, taking no other information into account, masculine gender would be the best choice on the basis of frequency alone. There is also a relationship between syllabicity and gender in German. Arndt (1970) showed there to be a correlation between monosyllabicity and non-feminine gender and between polysyllabicity and non-neuter gender. Kopc.ke's analysis of monosyllabic nouns (Kopcke, 1982, p. 45) shows quite different proportions in each gender category compared with the whole lexicon. Of monosyllabic nouns, 64% are masculine, 14% feminine and 22% neuter, which confirms Arndt's finding of a disassociation between monosyllabic nouns and feminine gender. These associations and disassociations derive from other morphological and phonetic rules of gender, but they exist and can therefore be learned by children independently of the rules which generate them. Altmann and Raettig (1973) investigated the correlation of a selection of endings with gender primarily in order to demonstrate the possibilities of the procedure they adopted. In particular, they record not only a positive association between an ending and a gender, but also a disassociation. Such disassociations may clearly have relevance for the acquisition process, since the child may learn to eliminate the possibility of one gender before he learns to make a positive association with another. Kopcke's analysis of monosyllabic nouns revealed a considerable number of associations with gender based not only on endings, but also on the initial sound. Kopcke describes the status of the rules in quantitative terms, in that he states how many words have the phonetic property and how the nouns are distributed across the three genders. The frequency of an ending and the strength of the association could be crucial factors in acquisition, since a strong association which affects only a small number of words may fail to be salient to a child because of his narrower range of vocabulary. The phonetic rules are summarized in Table 2.7 from the various sources already mentioned and from my own analysis using Mater (1967). In order to be able to relativize the scope of the rule, the data on the number of words to which the rule can apply and the distribution across the three genders are included in the table wherever possible. From Table 2.7 it can be seen that there is massive variation in the scope of the individual rule; rule 1 can be compared with rule 8 for this purpose. Rule 8 may only become visible for the child at a late stage in development

00

Z

Phonetic rules exist for German. but not for English. Some such rules have

~

N

00 N

~

~~

s.'!!00 ~

-

"''''ci

u

00

0-

N

u

~

-- ..,.

~

0-

..,.

-

::t

0-

~~

~

"

'0

""

bI)

'0

~

"

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

"~

" "" ~

1j " "-"-

" 1ii 'ua

"-

" ~ :E:E

~u ~ ::E'" z

"~ "~

00 00

u

'" Cl

.:!l

~

~

u

~

00

::E::E

~

'0

"a'" ""

bI)

~

"

".S 1'i

"S

"

.~ 00

'"" ~

'0

""

"a

'0

" 1ii 'u a00

00

'"

00

"

<>:

.~

"a "'

~

:§ .S '8 a" a ;.l!",

(Il

...:

u

'3u

'" '" ::E::E

::E

::E

.~

~

'"

'"

00

00

" " '""" ~~

~

~

.S

88 '""" ~

~

::E'"

~

~

~

~

"" "~

u

u 00

zz

::E

00

~

a

~

~

a

0

Z

-aS '" ~


~

-- - - -

td

u

u

00 00 0""

..,.

~

~

~

'5" "

00

N " ~'O

'"

:§' .0 ,g

.0

~ >.

~

<8

... .~ a ...~ "'" ~

+-'

'-~o.

::

u:

""";N

,.;

c;' '7

U

til

~g

I-<

~

~..,.

'"

~

~

'iii

'iii

N

~

Cl

~

(-;(Il

~

S

-

00

0-

~

S

~

(-;

~

bI)

""d

." "0."'"

" " ~~

..,.00

0-0-

..,.0

'",s.

:g

~

"Sa

" .S" .S" ·s"

'0

~

..!l

q" ~

>.

" :§'

.0

.0

r.

~u

~

:§' ~

s

'"'">.C5

mesU C5 "'I=1UI=l,1=1

r,Jo'o'o

>.

0

'"

~

~

"'''' 0

C'~

I-<

0 ' 0 .......

~ s-;' ~: :1st; S ~ S~ S 0 '-" : '-' _..:.:: ,-,,"0 ..... _ ) V l ,..: 0 ..,..;-.0 00 .,f I

~

~'>.

I I

" .-

~

(Il

s f 'r

- -'-'

"

"

_N

34

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

The Interaction of the Rule Types

35

when the respective items enter his vocabulary. Another question which Zubin and Kopcke raise (1982) in connection with these phonetic rules is the status of the lexical items involved, as was discussed above with respect to semantic rules (pp. 26 - 30). Exceptions to rules are accepted more easily, theyargne, when such an exception belongs to the lexical core, and it is here that the most exceptions are to be found. As was mentioned in the discussion of the seman-

Ponsada and Sankoff (1982) have argued for a variable process in gender assignment. An interesting but difficult problem for the establishment of a rule hierarchy is the number of nouns which allow two, or in rare cases, three different genders. Where the nouns have different semantic content, the gender assignment can be related to semantic rules (Spiewok, 1975), as for example, the

tic rules, the child may however perceive the core items as representing the rule

contrast between der See 'lake' and die See 'sea'. Where the gender differen-

rather than as exceptions, since these would most frequently be the first to be acquired. Generalizing from exceptions would clearly lead to error. Some evidence will be presented in a later chapter to throw light on the question of how

tiation makes no change in meaning, for example, der Pier oder das Pier 'pier', the noun clearly falls under the scope of different rules. Sometimes this can be accounted for by stylistic or dialect differences, but not in every case. A formal observation about all such nouns is that nouns rarely vary in having feminine or neuter gender; the other two combinations of masculine or feminine and neuter or masculine are far more common. Clearly, such a hierarchy of rules needs to be researched in far more detail before claims can be made for it. As has been touched on in the above discussion, there is a distinction to be made between rules of gender assignment on the basis of their absoluteness. Kopcke and Zubin (1984, p. 44) distinguish between different levels of gender

easily such phonetic rules are acquired and their consequences.

The Interaction of the Rule Types In English, the semantic and pragmatic rules described above cover the use of gender. The morphological rules which exist for English can be seen as secondary, since the semantic rule also applies in every case. For example, wait-

ress has feminine gender, since it refers to a female person; once the natural gender rule has applied, there are no cases left for the morphological rule (-ess->fem.) to specify. In German, the interaction is far more complex, since the rules have dif-

ferent scope and the areas of application overlap. Kopcke, who worked on the rules of gender attribution in monosyllables, proposed the following hierarchy (1982, p. 111): 1.

Semantic rules

2.

Morphological rules

3.

Phonetic rules a. Related to final sounds b. Related to initial sounds

This hierarchy was used as the basis of a computer programme which assigned gender to the monosyllabic nouns in German. The programme achieved 75"70 success compared with the actual gender of the nouns. The rules considered, however, were only a selection of those already presented, since clearly some

rules cannot apply to monosyllabic nouns. Thus, the hierarchy would have to include, for example, the final element rule, which necessarily orders some morphological rules before semantic rules. In the word Herrchen 'master (of an animal)" the gender is neuter because of the diminutive suffix -chen, although the whole refers to a male person. In the description of the semantic rules, one group of rules was described as complex because the semantic rules applied only in the cases where morphological and phonetic rules did not. This implies a more detailed structuring and reordering of the hierarchy. Poplack,

assignment: Firstly, categorial rules of gender assignment, such as the Last-

Member Principle; secondly, clusters of nouns which share a common semantic or formal feature and where, in most cases, there are exceptions; and thirdly, the set of exceptions to the above principles. Very few of the gender assignment principles discussed in the proceeding sections have 100"70 applicability. The relative strengths of these principles is clearly relevant in establishing a hierarchy. It is a frequent but often only implicit goal of liuguistic description that the grammar should approximate psycholinguistic processing in adults and the acquisition process in children. Such a hierarchy of rules could imply that children will learn the different types of rule in that hierarchical order. This was argued by Keeuan and Comrie (1977) in connection with the hierarchy of noun phrase accessibility in relative clauses; the psychological testing of the hierarchy showed only partial matching, however (Keenan, Comrie & Hawkins, 1974). It seems plausible to argue, however, that rules which are high on a hierarchy and which therefore have a greater scope than others will be learned earlier. On the other hand, factors such as input which cannot so easily be related to a hierarchical ordering cau be relevant in acquisition. The dominance of one rule over another has to be learned and may not be simultaneous with the learning of the rules themselves. Thus, a child may learn the morphological rule assigning nouns with the suffix -chen to neuter gender and the rule assigning nouns having female referents to feminine gender, but the child may not know which rule dominates in the case of a conflict such as in Miidchen. Some evidence will be presented from empirical and observational findings related to this question of the hierarchy of rules in adults and in acquisition.

36

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

Function In Chapter 1, the functionalist perspective was discussed in connection with

the origin of the gender and noun classification systems in general. The general conclusion was that no essential functions for gender could be found which would explain its existence, but that once the system existed, it would take on certain functions, A follow-up question is whether the functions which the gender system then assumes are essential functions in themselves, so that in a language with a more limited or no gender system, these functions would be fulfilled by other systems, In comparing English and German, it will be seen that some functions are pertinent to gender marking on the articles and therefore only pertain to German; others are pertinent to gender marking on the pronouns and thus pertain to both languages. Where functions are fulfilled by the gender systems of both English and German, they will be compared to indicate the varying importance of the systems in this respect. Anticipation of Content Since nouns in German are distributed across three genders, the selection of a gender-marked modifier (article, adjective etc.) reduces the number of possible nouns being referred to. The mention of a gender-marked form in relation to a following noun allows the listener, on hearing the gender-marked form to anticipate the noun that will be referred to by using additional informatio~ from the semantic and pragmatic context. Clark and Clark (1977, pp. 61, 75) talk of such anticipation in relation to the comprehension process. Zubin and Kopcke (1983) give, as an illustration of this function, the context of two friends looking at a landscape whereby one says: Guck mal. Das groBe, im Garten stehende Haus.

'Look. The large in the garden standing house.'

In the context of having the same mutual gaze, after the mention of the neuter gender article das, the listener can anticipate all possible references having that gender. Using the following linguistic information, the possibilities can be further reduced, until the house is the obvious referent.

Function

37

relative clauses into a noun phrase, as for example in sentence 15, which can mean that another noun phrase intervenes between the gender-marked form, in this case, the article and the head noun.

(15) Der die Landschaft beschreibende Brief ist mir abhanden gekommen. 'the (masc.) the (fern.) landscape (fern.) describing letter (masc.) is for me lost.

=

I

have lost the letter describing the landscape' .

The listener, upon hearing der marking masculine gender will wait for a masculine gender noun in the correct case as the cue that the noun phrase can be closed. Clearly, the intonation patterns on such clauses and the presence of other markers in the clause assist the listener in determining which noun should be the head. The gender marking nevertheless could allow the whole to be processed more easily. On similar lines, the gender-marked form helps the listener identify the head noun in a nominal compound where the compound is made up of nouns of different genders, since, as discussed earlier (pp. 30- 31), the last noun in a compound determines the gender of the whole. Gender marking in these instances increases the syntagmatic cohesion of German, which apparently has a facilitating effect on processing. This cannot be achieved by stress alone, which may explain why such complex constructions are limited in English compared with German.

Distinction of Singular and Plural The plural form in German does not distinguish gender in articles and adjectives. In all cases except the dative, the plural marking is similar to feminine gender forms. Most nouns have clear plural marking, so that singular and plural can be distinguished by the marking of the noun aione, as in Lampe (fem. sing.) and Lampen (pl.). Those nouns which have zero plural marking, however, can only be distinguished in number by the preceding gender-marked form in the singular or the plural form. Such nouns are always of neuter or masculine gender, so that this distinction is always clear, for example, der

Loffel (masc. sing.) 'spoon' and die Loffel (pl.) or das Kiitzchen (neut. sing.) 'kitten' and die Kiitzchen (pl.).

Marking of the Onset of a Noun Phrase

Lexical Structuring

Articles and declined adjectives in German mark the beginning of a noun phrase and, assuming some form of chronological processing takes place, can be used as a cue to the listener in comprehension to search in the following informatIOn for the noun. This function is not restricted to those languages which have gender. In German, however, it is possible to iusert left-branching

Zubin and Kopcke (1983), in their article describing the large number of semantic rules related to gender in German, argue that the organization of the lexicon into areas associated with a particular gender or the contrast of areas through a contrast in gender assists the speaker in lexical access. Other authors have also discussed the function which can be assumed by gender of al-

38

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

lowing contrasts and similarities to be established in the lexicon throngh membership in different or similar classes (e.g. Hjelmslev, 1959; Wienold, 1967). The additional psycholinguistic functiou which Zubin and Kopcke wish to ascribe to gender is the greater ease of lexical access which the speaker gains thereby. There is no experimental evidence on this point available at the present time.

Function

39

using the gender-marked pronouns. Thus, in contexts in which several entities could be referred to, the gender-marked pronouns will specify reference to one of the entities as long as they are of different genders. In sentences 20 and 21, the linguistic reference to a couple (the Smiths) introduces the possibility of referring to either the man or the woman using a pronoun only; the use of the masculine pronoun here makes specific reference to the man. (20) The Smiths were over to dinner last week. He has gone very grey.

Anaphoric Reference Important in both English and German is the function of anaphoric indexing. Througb the three different gender-marked forms in both languages, reference can be made non-ambiguous to a preceding noun phrase, where otherwise more precise information from the context or use of a different construction would be required to specify identity. Sentences 16a-16c and 17a-17c illustrate this possibility. (16a) Maria fotografierte Tobias vor dem Haus, als sie 10 Jahre alt war. (16b) Maria fotografierte Tobias vcr dem Haus, als er 10 Jahre alt war.

(16c) Maria fotografierte Tobias vor dem Haus, als es 10 Jahre alt war. (17a) Mary photographed Toby in front of the house, when she was 10 years old.

(17b) Mary photographed Toby in front of the house, when he was 10 years old. (17c) Mary photographed Toby in front of the house, when it was 10 years old. Clearly, this is only possible under certain circumstances. In German, the possibilities of disambiguation using gender are greater than in English, since the distribution of nouns across the three genders is more evenly spread. Thus, reference to inanimate nouns can be made non-ambiguous, which is not possible in English, as a comparison of sentence 18 with sentence 19 shows:

(21) Die Schrnidts waren ietzte Woche bei uns zum Abendessen. Er sieht schon sehr grau aus.

The introduction of the possibility of referring to one of a couple can also be established by gesture or by mutual gaze, as in sentences 22 and 23. (22) (looking at a,man and woman) He's badly dressed but she's not. (23) (looking at a man and woman) Er ist schlampig angezogen, sie aber nicht.

It must be noted that, in German, this use is not possible with all nouns, for example, der Computer (masc.) 'computer' or die Schreibmaschine (fern.) 'typewriter', since the use relies on the semantic opposition which exists between the masculine and feminine genders when referring to natural gender. A computer and a typewriter do not form a pair in which such an opposition is present. This point will be elaborated in the next section. In the limited context of contact advertisements in German, the pronouns er und sie have been nominalized and have the meaning of 'male person' or 'female person' respectively, as for example in sentence 24. (24) HausIicher Er sucht gutverdienende Sie zwecks Heirat. 'domestic he (man) seeks she (woman) with a good income for marriage.'

Again, the use relies on the semantic opposition of natural gender.

(18) Das Bild liegt auf meinem Schreibtisch. Er (der Schreibtisch) ist sehr alt. (19) The picture is lying on my desk. It is very old.

Functional Importauce of the MalelFemale Opposition

Formally, sentence 19 is ambiguous in the reference of it. However, English speakers will take the reference of it to be to picture on the basis of the topic being associated with the subject of the first sentence and preserved in discourse unless a change is signalled.

As was seen in the previous section, disambiguating use of gender-marked pronouns in German relies in some instances on the presence of a semantic opposition, the opposition being between male and female natural gender. We have discovered new evidence for the importance of both the presence of the semantic opposition and the opposition in formal gender marking in the area of linguistic contrast. In English, the semantic opposition is necessarily present when the pronouns he and she are used, and these can be contrasted as sentence 25 illustrates.

Deictic Reference It is possible in both English and German to make unambiguous reference to

an entity which has not occurred explicitly in the previous linguistic context

(25) The professor and her husband visited us yesterday. She is much older than him.

40

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

In German, contrast is only possible when both the semantic and the grammatical oppositions are present (see sentence 26 as the German version of 25). Where the grammatical opposition alone is present, as in sentence 27, it becomes unacceptable for German speakers, although the grammatical reference is formally unambiguous.

Summary

41

is present only when these grammatical forms are associated with natural gender. The strength of the semantic coherence between the forms marking animacy and inanimacy can therefore also be tested using the context of linguistic contrast. Sentences with such a contrast, for example 33 and 34, are problematic, however, for the majority of English and German speakers.

(26) Die Profess orin und ihr Mann besuchten uns gestern. Er ist viel alter als sie. (27) Ein Computer und eine Schreibmaschine stehen im BUre. Er ist viel alter als sie. 'A computer and a typewriter are in the. office. It (rnase. = computer) is much

older than it (fern.

=

(33) The man fetched the parcel from the station. ?It was heavy and he was tired.

(34) Der Mann holte das Paket vom Bahnhof abo

typewriter).'

?Es war schwer und er war mude.

This observation holds for other contrastive contexts as the following sentences illustrate. (28) Tom und Maria sind in def Kuche. ?Er ist schon reif, sie nieht. 'Tom and Mary are in the kitchen. He is mature, she isn't.'

(29) Der Apfel und die Bime sind in der Kliche. ?Er ist schon reif, sie niehL 'The apple and the pear are in the kitchen. It (mase. = apple) is already ripe, it (fern. = pear) isn't.' (30) Die Lewin liegt neben dem Lowen. Sie ist dunn und er ist dick. 'The lioness is lying next to the lion. She is thin and he is fat.'

(31) Die Jacke liegt neben dem Pullover. ?Sie ist dunn und er ist dick. 'The jacket is lying next to the jumper. If (fern. (masc. = jumper) is thick.'

= jacket)

is thin and it

It is clear that the problem lies with the linguistic contrast, since the sentences become acceptable as soon as this contrast is taken out. Sentence 31 is acceptable if only one of the conjoined elements is produced, as in sentences 32a and 32b.

In English, the lack of acceptability of such sentences may be due to the problem of using it in association with any stress (Kuroda, 1968, pp. 250 - 251), which is necessary in a contrastive context. However, the pronoun it functions not only to indicate inanimate, but also common gender (see pp. 20 - 23), which suggests that the association of it with inanimacy will be weakened by this double function. This may be the reason that it cannot carry stress; that is, the semantic opposition is not clear enough for the contrast to be made. In German, there are also problems in using the neuter pronoun, es, in association with any stress. The semantic opposition inanimate/animate is also even less clear in the gender system than in English, since neuter is only to be identified with inanimacy in a few forms (see pp. 17 - 20). In conclusion, the male and female semantic features play an important part in the function of carrying contrast, in German as well as in English. Grammatical gender alone cannot carry this function. This implies a strong connection between grammatical gender and the related sex feature from the point of view of function.

Summary

(32a) Die Jacke iiegt neben dem Pullover. Sie ist dunn.

(32b) Die Jacke liegt neben dem Pullover. Er ist dick. It is only when a contrast is made that the masculine and feminine gramma-

tical gender pronouns cannot take on this function. 11 Contrast is dependent on a semantic coherence of the contrasted items (Werth, 1984, p. 158), which 11

It must be noted that sentences 27 and 29 are unacceptable, even when the contrast is not explicit in the second part of the clause. This is because the contrastive context is already established in the first clause through the conjunction of the two noun phrases. When the one noun phrase is mentioned in the second clause, the contrast

with the other noun phrase is made implicitly (Werth, 1984, pp. 131-165). This property of conjunction was noted also by E. Lang (1977, pp. 42-43).

From the description of the rules pertaining to gender in German, it can be seen that rules of gender assignment exist in three different areas; phonetics, morphology and semantics. There are also a considerable number of such rules. Gender is quite clearly not an arbitrary classification, as has been argued elsewhere (e.g. Maratsos & Chalkely, 1980). The implications of this description for acquisition is that children have the possibility of learning such rules and do not have to rely on rote. The large number of rules suggests that learning will take place over a longer period. A small number of nouns, however, appear not to fall under the scope of any rule; the gender of these must be learned by rote. There are a limited number of rules in English, which cover all nouns and which are related to semantic and pragmatic features of the referent. Here, the

42

A Comparison of the Gender Systems in English and German

child also has the possibility of learning the rules rather than learning the use of a pronoun in reference to a particular noun by rote. The reduced number of rules suggest that English children have less to learn than German children and that therefore their acquisition will be faster in this area. In German, there are not only a large number of rules but also different rules of different types. There appears to be a hierarchy among these rules in terms of economy of gender assignment (Kopcke, 1982). Acquisition data will show what principles determine the order of acquisition and how these are related to the formal criteria. The natural gender rule in German was shown to be just one of many semantic rules, unlike its status in English. From the discussion of functions of gender, however, it was demonstrated that the natural gender feature has more functional importance in German than has hitherto been claimed. The functional load associated with this feature would suggest that the natural gender rule would be more salient and acquired therefore more quickly by German children than other semantic rules.

CHAPTER 3

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

When considering the acquisition of an area in a language, the formal properties of the system are clearly of relevance in making predicitions about the order and speed of learning. Part of the linguistic background for the child is however not only the formal properties of the area, but how other speakers behave with respect to those properties. The psycholinguistic evidence on the productivity of a rule, for example, shows that the rule has a different status in the input for the child, which must be considered in describing acquisition. This chapter presents what is known about adults' behaviour with respect to gender; this information is then related to questions of acquisition.

The Psychological Status of Morphological and Phonetic Rules of Gender Assignment of German Nouns Evidence from Loan Words When nouns are borrowed into German from other languages, they have to be assigned to a grammatical gender. Since this is an ongoing process, the current status of the gender-assigning rules can be investigated by looking at data from this area. 12 Weinreich (1968, p. 45) collected data from several languages which clearly showed the importance of such structural rules. English is the most important source language of loan words in German at the present time (Galinsky, 1980; Viereck, 1980), and its importance is increasing (see Engels, 1976). The discussion therefore concentrates mainly on loan words from English. Clearly, the source language, if it has gender marking itself, can influence the gender given to the loan word in the recipient language, as was the case in Middle English with French and Latin nouns. With English loan words bor12

The word 'current' should be emphasized here, since Surridge (1984) has shown for French that the inter-relationship of gender-assigning rules can change with time, that is, one rule can be dominant at one point in time but not at another. Compare the description of rules for German in Polzin (1903).

44

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

rowed into German, the structural rules of the recipient language, that is German, seem to have a considerable influence on gender assignment. Although it might be argued that the use of the neuter pronoun it would lead to a dominance of neuter assignment, the English gender system does not in fact appear to influence German. Arndt (1970) described the rules of gender assignment related to syllabacity not only from his analysis of German (see pp. 32 - 34), but also from a corpus of loan words in German. In a considerable number of cases, the lexical equivalent in German has a different gender from that of the loan word so that semantic similarity must be seen as one of several factors (see pp. 50-51). The syllabacity rules appear to apply equally to loan words. This is substantiated by Carstensen (1980a, 1980b), who particularly emphasizes the association of monosyllabic words with masculine gender, for example, der Stress or der Song. 13 Carstensen also discusses morphological factors which can be seen to influence gender assignment to English loan words in German (see also Simmons, 1971). The phonetic rules of gender assignment have not been investigated so closely in connection with loan words, since the description of these rules is comparatively recent. 14 Of the morphological rules, several are clearly influential. English loan words which have the -er suffix-denoting agent are masculine; this morphological rule overlaps with the semantic rules of natural and common gender, as was noted earlier (pp. 16 -17). Other nouns with the -er suffix are also masculine, such as der Pullover or der Slipper. Nouns ending with -ster are also masculine probably because of the -er ending. English nouns derived from Latin which are then borrowed into German take the gender of those words with the same suffixes which were borrowed directly from Latin into German, for example, nouns with the -ment ending are neuter, while nouns in -tion are feminine. Another group of nouns have gender assigned to them not on the basis of the form of the suffix directly, but on the similar semantics of the suffix. Thus, gerundive nouns having the nominalizing ending -ing are neuter in German parallel to the nominalized infinitives ending in -en; nouns ending in -ness, the nominalizing morpheme suffixed to adjectives, such as fitness, are feminine in German, parallel to the gender associated with the equivalent morphemes -keit and -heit (not the phonetically more similar -nis). Nouns ending in the abstract nominalizer -ship are feminine parallel to German -schaft, and those ending in the nominalizer -ity are feminine parallel to the German -Wit.

13

14

Syllabacity has also been shown to be important in gender assignment in other languages, including gender assignment to loan words borrowed into those languages, for example, English loan words into French (Surridge, 1982). Such factors are again relevant for loan words into other languages, for example,

loan words into Canadian French (Barbaud, Ducharme & Valois, 1981) or Dutch words into French (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1971).

The Psychological Status of Morphological and Phonetic Rules

45

These data are evidence that certain morphological and structural rules of gender are productive. Some rules may be productive but not appear in such data because the language from which the words are borrowed does not have the particular structure. For example, English loan words provide no evidence ofthe productivity of the rule (-e .... fem.), since English nouns do not have this phonetic structure. This must be considered when searching for evidence of the non-productivity of morphological and phonetic rules. An experimental approach can avoid this problem by testing the gender assignment to invented words. It is possible to include in the test list words of all the phonetic structures of interest.

The Experimental Testing of the Use of Phonetic Rules iu Gender Assignment in Adult German Speakers The data frolll loan words as collected to date mainly provides evidence on the productivity of morphological rules; phonetic rules have been neglected in this area. But, as was mentioned above, the psychological reality of phonetic rules can be more thoroughly investigated using experimentation. 15 Some of the rules for monosyllabic nouns described by Kopcke (1982) were tested using nonsense words in an extended version of the study by Kopcke and Zubin (1981).

Method. A list of 44 nonsense words which were examples of the nine rules under test was presented to the subjects. The words were constructed so that some words illustrated individual rules only and other words combinations of rules (see Table 3.1 for a list of the rules and Appendix A for a list of the words tested). For example, Knaffhas the structure necessary for the applica-'tion of rule 1, while Knump has the structure appropriate for the application of rules 1, 4 and 5. The subjects were 30 adult native speakers of Southern Germany, 15 men and 15 women aged between 20 and 25 years; aU were students of the University of TUbingen and were voluntary participants in the experiment. The subjects were tested in one session in a lecture room of the university. They were presented with a typed list of the nonsense words distributed face down; on the list, two versions of each word were given with two of the possible three definite articles (see Appendix A). Half the subjects received a list in the order 1 - 44 (see Appendix A), half received a list with the reverse order. The experi15

Gender appears to be a psychologically salient element as judged from experimental results with English-Spanish bilinguals (Goggin, 1974). When a change in gender of Spanish nouns was included in the last trial, a release in proactive interference was observed. Such experiments have not been carried out with German speakers, so that the conclusion cannot be generalized. The result may dep~nd on the phonetic structure of the words.

46

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

~~ O'$-

b~

~

'$-

~

~~

"V>

§~

~5 ~

~

NOONOOo-.r-<"""INrOOI.OI.Ot-oooor-OOOO>ri

The Psychological Status of Morphological and Phonetic Rules

47

menter (the author) explained to the subjects that they would see two versions of words which do not exist in German and that they should indicate on the paper which version, i.e. which definite article, they felt was appropriate. An example was written on the board to illustrate the procedure. The subjects were then asked to turn over the sheet and begin. When all subjects had completed the task, they were then asked to note if they had related the nonsense word to any existing word when marking the gender assignment. It was emphasized that this should be recorded only in those instances where the association was clear. The associations were considered of interest in order to investigate the principles by which subjects made an association. It is then possible to distinguish an association made on the basis of the rule under test from an association made on the basis of other principles. Although the results of Kopcke and Zubin clearly seem to show use of all nine rules, they refer to the possibility that subjects assign gender by analogy with a particular lexical item rather than by general rule, as Clyne (1969, p. 224) has also claimed. 16 The analysis of associations should make it possible to explore this suggestion further.

;;:; ~

~

II

" ::E5 -0 t;

00

'""

-0

"" ~

'" S ~

0"

,...

,0 00

-0 ~

° ~ " "0

00

~

00

~

Z

8

" "

~~

o

0

z

00

-0 ~

0 ~

-0 ~

0 ~ ~

00

II ~

0

~ '" ~

Oll

E "

.1

< ~

Results and Discussion. The proportion of 'correct' gender assignment is given in Table 3.1. The results from the study conducted by Zubin and Kopcke are given in the table for the purposes of comparison. They tested ten adult native speakers from Northern Germany (sex distribution not given). Seven of the nine rules showed a significantly high proportion of gender assignment according to the rule. The scores were tested for their significant deviance from the null hypothesis, which was based on an equal distribution across all three genders in proportion to the number of possible responses. Rules 2 and 3 showed no greater choice of masculine gender. Kopcke and Zubin did not present the results of these rules separately, but pooled the responses from rules 1, 2 and 3. If this is done, a similar figure emerges (62"70 compared with 64%), but this blurs the finding that, of the three, only rule 1 is clearly salient. Rule 9 was not significantly present in the female subjects but was significantly demonstrated in the male subjects. 17 The results of Kopcke and Zubin for this rule were also lower. In general, there is considerable conformity between the results of Kopcke and Zubin and those of this experiment. The analysis of the associations with real words is presented in Table 3.2. The number of associations varied considerably, depending on the rule in16

Clyne postulated that "Genuszuordnung sehr stark von Ana/ogie insbesondere Reimana/ogie her bestimmt [ist]" (1969, p. 224). (Translation: 'Gender allocation is determined to a great extent by analogy, in particular analogy on the basis of

17

It is possible that this difference is to be attributed to dialect. Rule 9 appears to be strong in the local Swabian dialect, and it has been maintained that male speakers in general orient themselves more to dialect than female speakers (Trudgill, 1975).

"

-0 ~

0" ...i

,,;

..;

'"

b

rhyme') .

•

a

-----------------

48

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour ~

~

S 130 f-;

~ c

SSSS NNN\O ......

"'"'''''''

~~~

-

'-'"

(--"
.".

~

f'1')"""_

8SS

~

~~::e

~

tM M

~ ~

_-:::tMMN

~

000

00_00

~

.~

'50

S 0

'" ~

~

'd


~

Ii ~

~ ~

00

000

O O O M ......

.".

~

~

~ r>: ~

~

6

-

iil

("1')"""OM

-

0000 N

0

MOO

00.....,00

M

0

o~_o-..:t

00

M

ONOO

00_

0

00000

.".

~

" ~ ~

~

~

~

0

~

~

0

Z

~ ~

~

0

:~ 0

'd ~ 0 ~ 'd

.~0 ~ ~

-(

~ ~

-(

~ ~

'~"

OJ

....

M

~ ~

........

'N" N ~

~

N'

~

..2 b

~

~

0

0

e

.~

5 g? 8

~u

0

~

'"

S t

;:3

~

:a

U

;::I

i

i.2 "0 1-0 S ro Ol) 0 ."O~B~ S '0 ro S

'-(

0"0 Ol) OO~...c:J

.:.;

ro . . . . ~ ~ 'i<'§ :'9 ~ u ;:. 0 Ol) ..... o "0 ~ ~

r>:

~M

-'" ~

00

C

.......

'2

N

~~

~

22

~

-.".

" ~

~ ~

"S

b

~~

-

~

b ~

M MM N

.§" .§"

'"

ro

"'.".

+ _+

M

.".

+

N

.".

+

M

0'-

00

Ol)

'"

1-0

I:: ...t:1 ro~

'"0

~

S ...

;:....c:: 0 ~

~

'"

~

0 0. 0

'"

E 0

-ci S

... ro

'"""

·0'" ~ 0

~

0 .... ~

~

'"+

'0

ro

~ ~ 0

'd

Ol)

Ol)

"ro

-

~

~

~

o~o..c

~

'"+

I::

u

N

~r-:oO~

~

0. ....... I::..c::

:::;I

~ 0

ro E

'" ~

00 I-<

::sUo·~o~

2li)-E]uS

~

'T

........0 1::;>

o

~

................. co

.......

o~~o.o MOU.S,O

~

t t t t '-( ::Ii"" ~

00

~

~

'"+

.......

00 U

Ol)

~.~

N

.!i ~v 'sa ~~

~

'" '"

M

~ 1-0 0 o bJJ 0 ~ ~ ....... "O.00"0 Ol) "0

~

~

M

BB ~

'i'

1-0

~

Ol)

:.:::1:.:::1

6 ,

r>:

~

~

:§

1-0

~

U IC;>~~ uu++ '00 U _ N

~"OI-<...

00000

~

S S t t

..2

0

~~~O~~OO...-1~~~_OM~...-1

S S t t

~

~

~

b

..2

~ ~

•

.".00

-"

~

~

0

5.3",..0

M~...-1r--O

8B

~

M

~ ~

~;§

~

0000...-1

"S

~

~

'd ~ 0 ~

05

;::~..c:..o !=l ......

Q

0'-"0

~

'"'"

0

~

'6

" r>:

Vl

[)

Ol)

~

!l,

S

000

M

'd

'd ~ 0

~ "iil

NO

bJJ


...... ..0

I


~

OJ)

.-

~

~

~

~

::: "0

«J~'I::~ ~]5toiJ

~

~

mines the associations. If gender selection is examined in the case of rules 2 and 3 for each of the

'"


Oro=: 0 = .s:::: .9 A ro ...... v ......

g

.~ 'd ~ 0

~ ...... 0 ;::I

l:3 ~ OIj:O ~ o.S 'til

';::J "0 ...... !=I

bJJ

'd ~ 0 ~

~ ~.s ~

"'~ .~ ,~

0_0

.§ ~

~ ~ s·~ o ro ~ <1)'0 I-< '1j IJ) 0


bJJ


bJJ

"0 ...... ~ ......

'" ~ bJJ ..c ro ~ .~ ..cS='Vl U (l) I-< q

"d ......

~

~

~ ' ;::: ~ c~ ~]2~

;El..c°o

~

~

~

'"

bJJ

~


,.g4-;~f;! o"'~

~

0

gorized according to whether the associated word has the gender predicted by the rule or a different gender, that is, whether it is an exception. These two categories are divided into four types: (a) where the associated word conforms to the rule, (b) where the ending of the word is identical to the ending of the nonsense test word, (c) where the beginning is identical or (d) where the word has similarity in other respects. It can be seen quite clearly that the majority of associated words conformed to the rule. It might be suggested that this is due to a general principle of looking for a rhyme association, that is, an identical ending. Rules 1, 2, 3 and 5, however, involve the beginning of the words, and there is a considerable proportion of associations which conformed to the rule here, too. This goes against the argument that only the end of the word deter-

~

>. il.l I::' ::: '"g S .....

~

~

sidered when interpreting the entry in each column. The associations are cate-

ep. ''8 g "d)en (1)

130 f-;

<0.0 -0o~ ......0 ~

I-<

0.0 0

49

volved. The overall number of associations given for each rule has to be con-

..cil.l

\O_lrl\Ot-


IJ)

_t-N

___ 0

0

<1.l

-

~

-s0

(l),.s:::1

........... !=l ...... ~ Oil ~ 0 ~ !=l c· . . .

M

~

'd ~ 0

"d ill

@'~~~~

-~ccc

--

S N

The Psychological Status of Morphological and Phonetic Rules

....... t!, ;::::l ... 0 >=l 0 S 0 -0 .....

cro-g8~~

~.S ~ ~'I::

Ol

four nonsense words tested, it becomes clear that, in each group of four, one of the nonsense words had considerably fewer masculine choices than the other three. For rule 2 this was the word Troch and for rule 3 the word Schlafl. If the data from associations are considered here, the dominant associations with Troch were words with a similar ending but different gender, namely Joch and Loch (neuter). The analogy of the ending would appear in this case to be stronger than the rule based on the initial consonants. The word associated with Schlafl was Schlofl (neuter), which is the one exception to rule 3. The analogy is strong enough in this case to override the rule. If these two words are excluded from the analysis, the percentage of rule-conforming responses (masculine) rises to 69"10 in each case which is at a significant level. For rule 6, the nonsense word Goch! was also associated with Doch! (masc.), which reduced the percentage of feminine choices in this rule, although it was still otherwise significant. The rules would therefore appear to influence choice of gender significandy, but can be in conflict with a direct association with a specific word. The evidence presented above suggests that associations are important in the selection of the gender given to the nonsense word, but that these associations also usually reflect the rule. This raises the question of the frequency and status of the exceptions. In Chapter 2, the frequency of each rule was given in Table 2.7 together with the number of exceptions. When the rules tested in the experimental task are ranked according to their scope and number of exceptions, the number of rule-governed responses in the task appears to be affected by both these factors, although the number of exceptions is clearly the stronger influence. On a Spearman's Rank Correlation test, the coefficient between the number of exceptions and the number of rule-governed responses in the test is significant (r,= -0.77, p<0.05). Thus, for example, the rules 7 (-~r->fem.) and 8 ( - et->neut.) have a low number of exceptions and have the highest response strength. They also are high on the ranking of scope. Rule 9 (- ii:lr->neut.),

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

50

on the other hand, has the highest number of exceptions, a low scope and the lowest response strength. Rule 6 (- £t-+fem.) has a fairly large scope, but a high number of exceptions which produces a moderate response strength. As was mentioned earlier (pp. 26 - 50), Zubin and Kopcke (1982) relate the division of the lexicon into core, system and periphery with the notion of the tolerance of exceptions: Exceptions will cluster in the core and periphery, not in the system. It is not clear what the lexical status of words such as SchlojJ and Docht may be, but it is obvious from these results that, as exceptions to the rule, they influence gender assignment to words with similar endings. It may be the case that these terms belong to the system and not to the core and are therefore more salient as exceptions. In acquisition, the questions of the frequency of a rule and the status of a lexical item become far more complex since a child's lexicon is fluctuating and continually growing. Exceptions to the rule can be crucial to gender assignment and may be perceived as constituting the rule at a certain point. For adult native speakers, then, several of the phonetic rules have been shown to be relevant to the assignment of gender to unknown words, even though individual word associations cannot be eliminated entirely. In their progress towards becoming adult speakers, children will acquire this behaviour at some point in their acquisition of gender assignment. With data from German children, we will explore the question of how this behaviour is learned.

The Psychological Status of Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment Evidence from Loan Words

A principle discussed frequently in the literature on loan words is that of gender assignment according to the closest lexical equivalent in the borrower language. Clyne (1967, p. 42) and Oehmann (1969) see this principle as the most important in determining the gender of loan words in German; other authors, such as Ibrahim (1973, pp. 61- 62), Arndt (1970, p. 245) and Gregor (1983, pp. 58 - 59) list this merely as one of the factors. Carstensen (1980a, pp. 15 -17) lists many counter-examples to this principle and concludes: We have to realize that the principle of the closest lexical equivalent can be applied in a number of cases, but certainly not in all. It is obvious that we face linguistic factors in this loan-process for which there are no linguistic explanations and which even seem to be arbitrary (p. 17).

It is possible, however, that this principle may not exist as such at all, but merely appear to do so. If the detailed semantic rules set out by Zubin and Kopcke (1983) are characteristic of the network of semantic rules existing in

The Psychological Status of Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment

51

German, then it is feasible that loan words are assigned gender on the basis of these rules rather than according to the gender of the closest equivalent. Clearly, the closest lexical equivalent is likely to have the same gender, since it also falls under the scope of the rule, hence the evidence in support of this principle. The English loan word der Brandy, for example, can be explained, according to the closest lexical equivalent principle, as having masculine gender from der Branntwein (Aron, 1930, p. 21). However, according to Zubin and Kopcke's rules (see Table 2.6, rule 21) Brandy would be masculine because beverages are generally masculine. The assignment of gender to loan words needs to be investigated under this aspect to establish .whether more general semantic principles are relevant. Whatever the outcome of such an investigation, the semantic content of a lexical item in German is relevant to the gender assignment to the item. Of all the semantic rules, the natural gender rule would appear to be of the greatest importance in connection with loan words. According to the evidence, it has the status of a 'knock-out factor' in terms of a hierarchy of gender assignment rules.

Conflict of Semantic and Grammatical Gender in German

The interaction of gender assignment rules has been described in a previous section (see pp. 34- 35), and in that connection, Kopcke's proposed hierarchy of rules has been discussed. According to this hierarchy, semantic rules of gender assignment dominate other types of rule, semantic rules necessarily including the natural gender rule. 18 In those instances where the referent has natural gender but the grammatical gender of the noun has not been assigned according to the natural gender rule, there arises a conflict between the natural gender of the referent and the grammatical gender of the noun. It is possible in such conflict situations to observe speakers' tendencies to orient themselves according to the natural gender or the grammatical gender and so to establish the strength of the natural gender rule in relation to grammatical gender. Corbett (1979a, 1979b) has investigated instances of such mismatches in various languages (French, German, Russian, Spanish, Latin) principally to establish the notion of an agreement hierarchy, that is, the structural position in which it is most likely for a switch to be made from grammatical gender to natural gender. In German, this switch is generally possible in the personal pronouns only, not in the relative pronoun or attributive as in some other languages. It is now usual in German for the personal pronoun to agree with the natural gender of the head noun, not with the grammatical gender; thus, for 18

A. Lang (1976) carried out a test to show the importance of semantic rules in German. The rules were mixed with different morphological rules so that the results cannot be interpreted.

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

52

The Psychological Status of Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment

53

example, in reference to das Miidchen 'the girl', the pronoun will have feminine gender, not neuter (compare sentences 35a and 35b). This use has become more common over time. 19

other rules. Further evidence of the status of the natural gender rule will be presented in the following section.

(35a) Das Madchen hat ihre Tasche dagelassen.

A Study of Metaphorical Extension in German

'The girl has left her bag behind' . (35b) Das Miidchen hat seine Tasche dageiassen.

'The girl has left its (pass. neuter) bag behind'. It is comparatively rare for the switch to natural gender to be made in other

positions, although Curme (1960, pp. 546 - 548) does cite some instances, for example, the relative pronoun, article and attributive adjective. A diminutive can also take natural gender and not neuter (see sentences 36 - 38 taken from Curme). (36) Bitte, griiBen Sie das gnadige Fraulein, die so gut is!. 'Please greet the noble young lady (neu!.), who (fern.) is so good'. (37) Der Herrchen darf nicht schelten.

'The (masc.) master (neu!.) must not scold'. (38) Du, schonste der Weiber! 'You, most beautiful (fern.) of women' (neut.).

Elsa Lattey (personal communication, 1984) also found a switch to natural gender to be common in such cases of a mismatch. In addition, she discovered in her sample that female subjects made the switch more frequently than male subjects, which suggests that for female speakers the natural gender rule has more salience than for male speakers. Age may be a significant factor here. In an investigation of children's literature to be reported later (pp. 120 - 122), it was observed that authors went to great lengths to avoid mismatches between grammatical gender and natural gender. Proper names or sex-specific roles are added to the animal name to establish the sex, for example, Hasenliese 'rabbit Liese' for a female rabbit since Hase has masculine gender, or Miiusekonig 'king mouse' for a male mouse since Maus has female gender. This avoidance of conflict has been commented on in several grammars. For example, v.d. Gabelentz (1891, p. 234) wrote that speakers will avoid using the term Mensch (masc.) 'person' to refer to a woman and in the same way avoid Person (fem.) to refer to a man. Reference in conformity with natural gender appears to be preferred by adult speakers, which implies that the natural gender rule has an elevated status with respect to other rules. In acquisition, this elevated status can clearly affect children, in that they might acquire this rule more quickly than the 19

Mark Twain's ridiculing of the "confusion of sex" in German is not as appropriate today as it was in 1879.

In German as in English, it is possible to refer to male and female human beings using nouns which refer under normal circumstances to a non-human referent. A term of endearment for a female in both languages is for example Tiiubchen or dove; a term of abuse is alte Schachtel 'old box' or old bag. Whereas the English terms will be pronominalized according to the natural gender of the referent, not with the pronoun it according to the inanimacy of the term in its non-metaphorical use, the German nouns used in such expressions have a grammatical gender which does not change according to the sex of the referent. The distribution of such terms in German was investigated to establish whether there exists a correlation between the natural gender of the human referent and the grammatical gender of the selected metaphorical expression. Such a correlation would suggest that adult speakers are aware at some level of the natural gender connotations of grammatical gender and therefore select preferably those terms to use as metaphors which have the same gender as the human referent. The data for this investigation was abstracted from Bornemann's (1971) dictionary Sex im Volksmund, in which terms used to refer to women and men are listed under various headings. The material for the dictionary was collected by Bornemann from the prostitute milieu of several cities, so that the collection contains both standard metaphorical terms and more unusual, if not exotic expressions. This was not seen as affecting the investigation adversely. 20 If no correlation is to be expected, all terms will be distributed across the three genders in the porportion in which the three genders occur in the language. These proportions are, as calculated by Bauch (1971), 500/0 masculine, 30% feminine and 200/0 neuter. Excluded from the analysis were those terms which had reference to a human being as central to their meaning, such as proper names, but terms which conflicted with the natural gender were included. The results of the investigation are presented in Table 3.3. The terms for men and women are listed separately. Each list is divided into six sections: (1) those words referring, in their literal meaning, to a sex-marked animal, (2) those referring to a generic animal term, (3) diminutives, (4) inanimates and abstracts and (5) human terms where the grammatical gender is in conflict with natural gender.

20

Reviewers of Bornemann's dictionary, including Kutter (1972), Lutzmann (1975),

Mohn (1972) and Petzold (1971), comment on the thorough nature of the data collection, so that it can be assumed that the samples the analysis is based on are as complete as can be expected.

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

54

Table 3.3. Metaphorical Expressions for Men and Women in German Terms for women denoting:

Grammatical gender

Masculine Feminine Neuter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

o

12

12

28

10

198

37 38

Sex-marked animal, e.g. Gemse 'nanny-goat' Generic animal term, e.g. Wespe 'wasp' Diminutives, e.g. Tiiubchen 'little dove' Inanimates and abstracts, e.g. Scheibe 'disc'

62

Human, grammatical gender in conflict with

12

1

natural gender, e.g. Weib 'woman'

Total

86

238

86

Terms for men denoting: 6 11

o o

o

4. Inanimates and abstracts, e.g. Kleiderschrank 'cupboard'

61

26

20

3

S. Human, grammatical gender in conflict with

Total

2

78

28

55

masculine gender where they denoted men. Comparing the distribution of the metaphorical expressions with the expected distribution of nouns across the grammatical categories using a chi-Square test, the results were significant in each case (men, X 2 = 6.09, p<0.05; women, X2 = 43, p
Frequency of English Pronoun Forms and a Stndy of the Use of Generic 'he' in English Children's Literature

1. Sex-marked animal, e.g. Hengst 'stallion' 2. Generic animal term, e.g. Bar 'bear' 3. Diminutives, e.g. Wurstchen 'little sausage'

natural gender, e.g. Memme 'coward'

The Psychological Status of Semantic Rules of Gender Assignment

23

Note. Dictionaries (predominantly Bornemann 1971) were analyzed for the number of different terms which could be used to describe men or women metaphorically. These terms were categorized according to their semantic properties and their gender to dem~ onstrate the relationship between feminine terms and gender for women and between masculine terms and gender for men.

As can be seen from Table 3.3, there are far more terms for women than for men. This was found also by Kleinke (1974) for English speakers, so that it would appear to be a feature at least of West European society that metaphorical expressions are used for women more commonly than for men. A far greater number of diminutive expressions are used for women than for men, this number in both cases increasing the instance of neuter gender terms. The number of terms which denote humans and are in conflict with the natural gender is small in both cases; the number is greater for women than for men through the use of terms ending in the morpheme -er. Despite the inclusion of these categories, which go against the hypothesis that the natural and grammatical gender of such expressions will coincide, a significantly high proportion of terms were of feminine gender where they denoted women and of

As has already been discussed, the frequency of forms in input is important in considering acquisition, since it could be influential in the perception and learning of a distinction. From a study of pronoun forms in written and spoken texts of English, Thavenius (1983) shows that it is the most common third person pronoun in anaphoric use; altogether, it is twice as frequent as he. The pronoun he is much more frequent than she, which has a low frequency, especially in spontaneous conversation (1983, p. 101). Female speakers use she more often than male speakers, but there is no difference between the sexes in their use of he. If a close relationship is assumed between frequency and acquisition, then these statistics imply that it will be learned before the other personal pronouns, and of these, he will be learned before she. Since the generic use of he accounted for less than 1"70 of the uses of he, the sex-related use would appear to be clearest. However, since language addressed to children can differ from adult-to-adult language, the use of he in adults' speech in this context was investigated using children's literature as the source material. It was mentioned in the discussion of the common gender rule (pp. 20 - 23) that in English both the pronoun it and he can be used to refer to animals where no sex specification has been made, that is, as the common gender form. It has been observed in adults' speech to young children that their use of he in this common gender function is high in proportion to their use of it. This also extends to the personifying use of he for inanimate objects (see pp. 23 - 26). The occurrence of the generic he in input to children was therefore investigated as a possible factor influencing their acquisition. For this investigation, it was decided to analyze the form of the pronoun chosen in English children's animal reference books used in primary schools. Miller and Swift (1972) have already established that generic he is common in

56

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

Table 3.4. Pronoun Use in Children's Reference Books Age group of children

No. of books

Pronoun used

He

She

It

5-6 7-8 9-10

24 12 14

60 24 6

7 0 0

56 45 73

Total

50

90

7

174

The Psychological Status of Unmarked Terms

57

higher frequency of the he pronoun than the older children. This can affect acquisition of these pronouns, possibly leading to delay in the acquisition of it in its common gender function and a confusion as to whether he is a generic or sex-marked pronoun. This will be examined in the light of the acquisition data.

The Psychological Status of Unmarked Terms The third person singular masculine pronoun is used in this Bulletin only for grammatical and semantic convenience; it does not indicate a preference for either of the sexes. Bulletin of the State University of New York at Binghamton

Note. A total of 50 English children's reference books dealing with animals were analyzed for their use of pronouns in a generic sense. The books were categorized accord-

ing to the age group they were aimed at. For each book, the animals were listed with the

(quoted in the New Yorker, June 1983)

pronoun used; this use was totalled for all the books.

"Grammar, the ultimate arena of sexist brainwashing, conceals the very existence of women - except in special situations."

this context. It was decided to examine the usage for variation according to age. Teachers in three primary schools (one in Southern, two in Northern England) were asked to select from the reference books available in their school library those books which were used for their age group of children (5 -10 years). The books were then grouped into those used for 5- to 6-year-olds, 7- to 8year-olds and 9- to 10-year-olds. For each book, a list was made of the different animals referred to with a pronoun and the form of the pronoun used. Sex-specific references such as to a mother bear or a stallion were excluded. The results of the analysis are set out in Table 3.4. By inspection, it can be seen that for 5- and 6-year-olds, the use of generic he is as common in this context as it. This use steadily decreases until, for the 9- to 10-year-olds, the frequency is minimal. It could be objected that the use is not determined by the age group the book is directed at but by the animals referred to; that is, the reference books for the older children were about different animals, hence the different usage. An examination of the types of animals referred to showed that this was not the case. Domestic animals, for example, featured as often in the books for younger as for older children. This point will be illustrated taking the references to cats. In the books for the youngest children, there were 11 pronominal references to cats, seven of which were made with the pronoun he, two with she and two with it. In the books for the oldest children, there were 21 references to cats, 20 of which were made with the pronoun it and only one with the pronoun he. It can be concluded that there is a clear stylistic variance in the pronoun used to express common gender in animals according to the age of the child addressed. The use of the pronoun he appears to be perceived as a token of a lively style and hence more appropriate for younger children. This stylistic variation obviously affects the input for younger children who thus receive a

Susan Sontag, "The Third World of Women" (1973) The feminist movement has concerned itself to a considerable degree with the reflection of women's role in language. 21 In particular, it has challenged the claim from linguists that lexical items having a sex feature can be unmarked. This challenge has been based on the psychological investigation of such lexical items, and it is primarily these results which will be discussed here. As was discussed in an earlier section (pp. 9 -11), many languages, including English and German (see pp. 20 - 23), contain lexical items which can designate both the male of a sex-marked pair and the generic. For example, doctor and the German equivalent Arzt can refer to a male member of the medical profession or to any member of the medical profession regardless of sex. The pronoun he and er are unmarked in both languages in the same way. This dominating frequency of masculine forms, it has been claimed since the beginnings of the feminist movement (see Lakoff, 1973), is a reflection of male dominance in society and affects the perception of the speakers. 22 The dominating frequency of masculine forms, even where female equivalents exist in the language, has been shown in many languages (German: Pusch, 1980a; Italian: Tamburello, 1980; French: Yaguello, 1978; Polish: Nalibow, 1973; Spanish: Nash, 1982; Hindi: Valentine, 1983; English: Lakoff, 1975; and Tr6mel-Pltitz, 1980). The effect of this dominance, however, has been tested only in relatively few studies, but the results seem clear 21

See Froitzheim (1981) for a bibliography of work on language and gender. The amount of published material in this area has increased rapidly in the last decade; good reviews are to be found in Key (1975), Orasanu, Slater & Loeb-Adler (1979),

McConneil-Ginet (1979, 1980, 1983), Spender (1980) and Vetterling-Braggin (1981). 22

Linguists are not exempt from this bias either (Skutnabb-Kangas & Heinamaki,

1979).

58

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

enough. Schneider and Hacker (1973) investigated subjects' choice of pictures as illustrations for a text in which the generic term man was used. There was a clear preference for pictures of male humans by both men and women, which

the authors interpret as showing a dominance of the male concept influenced through the form of the generic term. Nilsen (1973; quoted in Spender, 1980, p. 152) reports that young children interpret the generic term man only as referring to male people. Moulton, Robinson and Elias (1978) obtained similar resnlts in an investigation of the generic nse of the pronouns. Even in a gender-neutral context, subjects interpreted the reference as being to a male. The snbjects' sex also inflnenced selection, however, in that female subjects were more likely to choose a female referent than the male subjects. Martyna (1980) also studied the pronouns, but in a production task. The subjects were asked to produce pronouns in a cloze test related to pictures. The subjects chose the masculine pronoun predominantly, although again female subjects chose he less often than the male subjects. It was also found that the subjects avoided matching generic he to a picture of a woman. These results showed clearly that the generic terms man and he, his etc. are not unbiased in their reference. There is a clear preference to identify them as referring to a male human. It could be argued that the results of such studies are to be attributed to an interpretation strategy which is implemented at the point of having to make a choice about the sex of the referent, that is, when there is a possibility of interpreting a term in its more general or more specific sense, the more specific sense should be chosen, in this context male sex. It is not possible to disprove such an interpretation of these results. In so far as it is only possible to make inferences about meaning from behaviour, then the conflation of the generic and the specific in this instance influences behaviour at least in this context. Other evidence for such a bias comes from the diffculty English speakers have in solving the famous 'doctor puzzle', 23 where the choice is not imposed by experimental conditions, but by their own bias in meaning.

In the context of acquisition, it could well be expected that children interpret the use of the generic terms as being direct references to male beings and that this decreases to a greater or lesser degree only with more language experience.

If it can be assumed that these results can be extended to German (see Hellinger, 1980; Pusch, 1980b), this would imply that in both languages the masculine and feminine gender forms are most strongly associated with their sex-marking function. The generic linguistic function of the masculine forms

Summary and Conclusions

does not correlate with a lack of psychological bias. 24 The consequence of these findings for acquisition is that, since apparently true common gender

terms with no psychological bias do not exist, the natural gender rule will be more prominent in input and therefore more quickly learned.

Summary and Conclusions The evidence from loan words and experimentation with adult speakers of German has shown that a considerable number of the morphological and phonetic rules set up in linguistic description are used to assign gender to a noun which is new to the speaker. From the evidence derived from loan words, however, speakers do not orient themselves solely according to structural properties of the word, but also according to the meaning. It is not clear how exactly these two aspects interact. It is to be expected, however, that those rules which have been shown to be psychologically real for adult speakers will be learned in acquisition. The evidence from German speakers' behaviour with the semantic rules shows that they tend to switch to using pronouns based on natural gender as soon as this is structurally possible. In an empirical study of the metaphorical terms used for men and women, it has been shown that adult speakers make a close connection between male and female terms and the respective grammatical genders in their choice of metaphors. This new finding indicates that the natural gender rule has greater salience for German adults than would be expected from a consideration of the scope of the rule in the lexicon. It should therefore be learned by children more quickly than its scope would predict. A empirical study of the use of generic he to refer to animals in English children's books revealed a variation in the amount he was used according to the age of the child the text was directed at. In the books for younger children he was used far more frequently than in the books for older children; in the latter, he was replaced by it. This finding ties in with the observation for spoken English that he is used frequently in speech to younger children. It is hypothesized that this double function of he could influence the acquisition of it in the common gender function and confuse the acquisition of he in the sexmarked function. Through the psychological testing of generic terms, which are identical to masculine gender forms, a clear bias has been shown to exist in speakers in

24

23

The doctor puzzle: A father and son are out driving in their car when they have a bad accident; the father is killed, and the son is rushed to hospital.He is about to be operated on when the doctor refuses, saying "That is my son". Explain the situation. Solution: The doctor is the patient's mother.

59

The consequence of these findings has been the development of guidelines for the avoidance of sexist language. In English, these were first developed by the American Psychological Association in 1975, including the use of they as the generic pronoun

(Mackay, 1980; Pateman, 1982), and in German, by Guentherodt, Hellinger, Pusch & TrOmel-Platz (1980). A commission has even been set up for the investigation of these problems by UNESCO (Avery, 1984).

60

Rules and Speakers' Behaviour

that they identify male referents in association with such terms rather than female referents. The masculine forms appear to be most strongly associated with the sex-marking function, which in turn indicates that the natural gender rule has considerable salience for adult speakers. It is suggested that this

CHAPTER 4

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

salience may be even greater for children in the period of acquisition and facilitate their acquisition of the rule.

Introduction A comparison of the acquisition of gender in German and English is of fundamental theoretical interest, since these two languages are examples of two quite different gender systems. As was discussed in detail above, the systems are distinct in the extent to which they are present in the language and as to the kind of rules which exist for assigning gender. Gender in both languages is also a subsystem which interacts with other systems, such as congruence in German or case in both languages. Clearly, a complete description of the acquisition of such a subsystem cannot be provided unless the acquisition of the other interacting systems is also described. This would fall way beyond the scope of the present study which focusses on providing a description of the acquisition of gender. Hopefully, the challenge of providing an integrated picture of the acquisition of gender with other systems can be taken up in future research. The comparison of the gender systems of English and German made in the preceding chapters has shown the considerable differences existing between the gender systems of the two languages. To summarize: German has an extensive system of gender in that articles, adjectives and pronouns are af-

fected in their form by the gender of the noun. In English, only third person singular pronouns are affected. Gender is determined basically according to two semantic rules. In German, the natural gender rule is one of several semantic rules which interact with a complex of formal, morphological and phonetic rules. As has been seen, these rules have varying status in terms of the size of the correlation, the proportion of the lexicon they apply to etc. The investigation of adult speakers' behaviour has shown that the formal rules of gender assignment in German are used by speakers with loan words and invented words in an experimental context. Semantic rules also affect speakers' behaviour; in particular, the natural gender rule appears to have considerable salience for the German speakers. The information from linguistic description and linguistic behaviour of adults provides the background for making predictions about children's behaviour in their acquisition of this area. This chapter will present the data which has been obtained from English and German children in observational

62

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

and experimental studies. In the first section, the acquisition of formal gender rules in German will be investigated. In the following sections, the acquisition, in both English and German, of the animacy and natural gender rules will be reported. Lastly, the implications for explanatory theories in child language acquisition will be discussed in the light of the data presented.

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German Hypotheses Most previous research on the acquisition of gender has concentrated either on the role of semantic rules or on the interrelationship of formal and semantic rules in acquisition. Maratsos and Chalkley (1980) argue against the primacy of semantic rules. They maintain that children have the ability to perceive distributional patterns quickly and do not have to rely on semantics. They define gender in the same perspective, as "not a characteristic of the noun, but a characteristic of how it fits into related semantic-distributional patterns" (1980, p. 137). Maratsos and Chalkley base their arguments on data from several languages, including German, which they quite wrongly assume to be a language with arbitrary gender assignment. Maratsos (1979) is in fact quite adamant in this claim about German: The classification is arbitrary. No underlying rationale can be guessed at. The presence of such systems in a human cognitive system constitutes by itself excellent testimony to the occasional nonsensibleness of the species. Not only was this system devised by humans but generation after generation of chil-

dren peaceably relearn it (p. 235). Nevertheless, Maratsos and Chalkley's claims can be used as the basis for the hypothesis that German children will quickly learn to generalize the gender patterns once they have been established for one set of gender-marked forms. So, for example, it could be hypothesized that once German children have learned the definite article in conjunction with a noun that they can induce the other related forms such as indefinite article, relative pronoun etc. In terms of linguistic description, the articles are less attenuated in their functions than the personal pronouns (see pp. 13 -15). Gender marking occurs with all these forms in German, but only with the personal pronouns in English. It can therefore be hypothesized that gender marking in association with articles will be acquired by German children before gender marking in association with pronouns and therefore before English children acquire gender marking at all. Part of the linguistic description given earlier (pp. 32 - 34) for the phonetic rules of gender assignment in German was the scope of the rule and the proportion of words governed by the rule. It can be hypothesized that the greater

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

63

the scope of the rule and the fewer the number of exceptions, the more quickly the rule will be learned by the child. This presumes that the child is able to keep track of frequencies and register similarities and dissimilarities, an ability which is a prerequisite for every kind of pattern learning (Slobin, 1986a, p. 8). These hypotheses will be examined in the light of the longitudinal acquisition data and experimental results presented in the following sections. Observational Acqnisition Data The bulk of the data for early spontaneous use of gender marking is taken from recordings made with three children aged 1;8 - 2;6: Gisela, Hanna and Georg. 25 These data will be compared with the information from diary studies (Preyer, 1882; Scupin & Scupin, 1907, 1910; Stern & Stern 1909) and from the published data of Clahsen (1982b). In the early speech of German children, recognizing the use of a gendermarked form can be problematic. As was discussed earlier, the gender paradigms are extensive and complex; the forms of articles, adjective endings and pronouns interact with case, number, preceding form etc. The child has to learn that these varying forms can be grouped in terms of gender paradigms. Thus, at some point, a child may know that the forms grojJer and Ball 'big ball' belong together but not der and Ball. Even if he knows these two combinations, he may not necessarily relate the two; that is, he might not know that they are part of the same paradigm based on the classification of Ball. When the wrong from is produced, one cannot talk simply of an incorrect gender assignment until the child shows evidence of being consistent with the forms in a gender paradigm. Despite this paradox, it must be recognized that, until that point, the child is in the process of learning the paradigm. The early data therefore reflect as much the learning of the paradigms as the acquisition of gender assignment rules. Forms which can carry gender marking appear in general around the age of 2 years. The first to be produced are adjectives and articles. The earliest forms of the articles are reduced and appear to be an amalgam with the noun. This reduced form is also common in fast speech in adults and in some dialects, and so children may be influenced here by input. The definite article is produced as [d, 1; this was found in Georg at 1; 10, Gisela at 2;2 and Hanna at 2;2. Preyer (1882, p. 330) reports this form in his child at 2;6; Stern and Stern record it in both their son and daughter at age 1; 10 and 1;2 respectively (Stern & Stern, 1928, pp. 44, 86). The indefinite article is commonly reduced 25

I am extremely grateful to Barbara Ornellas for making the data from Georg available to me. From these tape recordings and those of Hanna and Gisela, all utterances have been phonetically transcribed, and this transcription will be referred to whereever relevant. This information is, however, rarely available from the other sources of data used.

._-----------------

64

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

to [(o)n] or [0] by Georg, Gisela and Hanna. Stern and Stern also report the use of this from on a large scale; in addition, Hilde (1 ;10) and Giinther (2;4) inserted it in inappropriate contexts, such as before adverbs, so that for them

its status as a determiner is unclear. This use was not found in the other children. Gender marking is not evident in these reduced forms: They are used equally with nouns of all three genders. Gender can only be investigated when the full forms are produced by the child. Gender cannot be separated from case. An error in case may not necessarily imply an error in gender, but it is often impossible to distinguish one from the other. Since the three gender paradigms are distinct in the nominative case of the definite article (see above), the use of the nominative definite article provides the clearest evidence as to the correct selection of gender. Nominative case is frequently used instead of the accusative case in the masculine paradigm; when dative case starts to appear, there appears to be no difficulty in choosing the form from the correct gender paradigm (Mills, 1986). If the definite article der is used instead of den, it is clear that the error lies with case. With the indefinite article, this is not so clear, since ein might also indicate the choice of neuter gender. Bearing these difficulties of analysis in mind, the early acquisition of the gender-marked forms in German will be documented in the following sections.

Indefinite Article Indefinite articles are used more frequently than the definite articles when they first appear in child speech, but the difference rapidly disappears. In Gisela, the use of the articles was sporadic until 2;4. Hanna had only infrequent use of articles until 2;2; the use of the indefinite articles was initially greater, but by 2;6 there was no clear difference in the frequency of the two article forms. Georg used articles rarely until 1;11; the indefinite article and diese as a demonstrative became more frequent, but by 2;2 there was no clear difference between these and the definite articles. Clahsen's children, Mathias and Daniel, frequently omitted articles until 2;9; from then on there was a rapid increase in use.

The most common early form of the indefinite article observed is eine with the related forms meine 'my' and diese 'this'. There are many inappropriate uses of these forms with nouns of masculine or neuter gender. Park (1974, 1981) also reports this early use of the feminine forms. Scupin and Scupin note *eine Strumpf(masc.) 'a sock' at age 2;0. Stern and Stern record *meine Appe/e (masc./Neut.) 'my apple' at age 1;10, and meine referring to Mtintelchen (neut.) 'little coat' at 2;6. There is no clear evidence that these nouns have been wrongly classified in terms of the whole gender paradigm, since the use of the definite article is rare, and, when used, often correct. The difficulty seems to be limited to the indefinite article.

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

65

When the use of the indefinite article became more frequent, it was possible to observe a fluctuation in use between ein and eine in combination with the same noun. Thus, at 2;4, Gisela produced in adjoining utterances ein Pud-

ding 'a pudding' and *eine Pudding; Georg (2;3) commented about a picture book da *ein Schnecke, noch eine Schnecke 'there a snail, another snail'. From the latter example, it might be argued that this should be seen as a selfcorrection, but it is by no means the case that the incorrect form is always produced first. It is possible that this does not represent a development in the child from so-called completely 'incorrect' use to alternating use, but rather that, because of the amount of data available, this fluctuation was not observable earlier in acquisition.

The indefinite article seems to cause more problems than the definite article. When the frequency of use of both articles is approximately equal, Gisela, Hanna and Georg all make more 'errors' with the indefinite article, approximately three times as many as with the definite article. This may be because of the inclarity in input resulting from the reduced forms and the multiplicity of form and function (see pp. 13 -15). The definite article is, at least in the nominative and accusative cases, clear as to gender marking, whereas the indefinite article barely distinguishes masculine and neuter genders. Another possible influence on the incorrect use of the indefinite article may be the high frequency of the ending -e in the article and adjective paradigms (see Tables 2.2, 2.4, Chapter 2), leading to an overgeneralization of the -e ending on all prenominal units. Evidence in support of this argument comes from the adjective forms which are produced at this stage in acquisition (Mills, 1986). Adjectives are used in attributive position before articles appear in the noun phrase, and when articles first appear, they are rarely placed before an adjective. A common finding is that the ending -e is overgeneralized in this position (Miller, 1976; Park, 1974, 1981; Scupin & Scupin, 1907, Stern & Stern, 1928). Data from Gisela, Hanna and Georg support this: For example, Georg produced at 2;2 *gute Auto (neut.) 'good car'. The ending -e might be perceived by the child as a common ending appropriate for forms occurring prenominally, with no relation to a categorization of the noun according to gender. Evidence taken from slightly older children indicates that the indefinite article is produced correctly in the majority of cases around age 3. The transcripts of experimental situations, 26 in which children (45 boys, 40 girls) aged 3;2 - 6;3 were asked to describe a set of familiar items, provided information about the spontaneous use of the indefinite article. The children produced the article in two distinct contexts, so that two examples of the 26

These transcripts come from the experiments on reference and deixis conducted by Thomas Pechmann and Werner Deutsch, Max Planck Institutfilr Psycholinguistik. Nijmegen, The Netherlands (Pechmann & Deutsch, 1982). I am extremely grateful

to the authors for making them available to me so that this.analysis could be carried out.

66

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

67

Table 4.1. Production of indefinite articles in German children

Definite Article

Gender of noun

As mentioned above, the definite article appears later than the indefinite article. When it does appear, however, it is most frequently correct with regard to gender. No mistakes are to be found in Preyer's material, but. he does not explicitly comment on gender at alL Examples of the definite article in all three genders, used correctly, appear by age 2;9. Stern and Stern claim the correct distinction between masculine forms and feminine forms by age 2;6 in Hilde, but do not report whether the wrong article was used with neuter nouns or whether the article was omitted. The Scupins report that their son made frequent errors when he first started to produce articles, but no further information is given about what these errors were or in which type of article. In the majority of utterances recorded in the diary, the use of the definite article is correct. The errors which do occur with the definite article suggest an overgeneralization of the form die, at least in younger children. This could be interpreted as a plural refereuce, but only those cases are considered where the child referred to a singular object. The Scupins' data include three errors in the period between 2;3 and 2;8: 'die Hochstein (masc.) 'the summit', *die Mann (masc.) 'the man', 'die Truthahn (masc.) 'the turkey'. Only oue other mistake is noted: *das Kopj (masc.) 'the head', in which the neuter article is used incorrectly with a masculine noun. Stern and Stern report five gender errors up to the age 2;8, all of which indicate an overgeneralization of die. In spontaneous data from Down's syndrome children (Schaner-Walles, personal communication, 1983), die is also the overgeneralized form, and this continues over a long period. In the speech of Gisela, Hanna and Georg, die was used most often where errors did occur, but errors were surprisingly rare. Nine errors were found altogether, compared with 73 correct uses. Only one of these involved the incorrect use of the neuter form: 'das Schuh (masc.) 'the shoe'. The other eight show incorrect use of die with six masculine nouns Bagger 'digger', Hund 'dog', Opa 'Grandpa', Schuh 'shoe', Traktor 'tractor' and Zug 'train' and with two neuter nouns Kind 'child' and Segelboot 'sailing boat'. The small number of errors must be seen in relation to the fact that the definite article started to be used consistently only towards the end of the observation period. The fact that the definite article is used less frequently initially can be iuterpreted as an avoidance of a form which presents difficulty. The indefinite article did not lead to the use of this avoidance strategy, possibly because the forms were perceived as being in free variation or related to the high frequency of -e endings before the noun. As discussed above, the definite article, in the nominative and accusative cases at least, makes a categorization of nouns clear. Where the children are aware of the differentiation but unsure of the form to choose, they possibly avoid it. When they become more confident of selecting the correct form, they produce it. Schueuwly (1978) discusses this behaviour in an experimental context in which

Noun

Gender of article used

Masculine/ Neuter Neuter

Auto

Buch Portemonnaie Masculine

Total Ball Kamm

LOffel SchlUssel Stift Total Feminine

28 4

16 48 31 67 22 68 5 193

Kanne Kerze

Schaufel

Feminine

Schere

1 5

SchOppe Uhr Total

6

4 1 3 1 9 10 6 14 52 3 69 154

Note. A group of 55 German children (33 boys. 22 girls; aged 3; 2 - 6; 3) produced the indefinite article in making reference to one of several objects in an experimental situation in which referential ability was under examination. 26 These spontaneous productions for the limited set of nouns are evaluated here for the correctness of gender in the article.

child's use are available for comparison and analysis. A set of five or six items was used with each child, hence the varying number of productions for each noun.

Table 4.1 shows that, with this set of items, the number of incorrect uses is very small. There was no difference in the production of girls and boys. The majority of these errors were also mixed; that is, the same child produced both a correct and an incorrect form. The errors were not principally among the younger children, but distributed across the age range. This would indicate that the child does not consistently assign the noun to the wrong gender, but rather is unsure of or inattentive to the form to be used. Data from the same children prodncing the same nouns with the definite article (see Table 4.3) show that there is rarely a consistent gender problem, which supports this conclnsion.

68

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

Table 4.2. Production and omission of the definite article by German children

Child

Form produced

Gender of noun

Neuter Hanna

Gisela

1

4

18

0

5

11

article

4 4

20 2

article

0 Total

Feminine

article

0 Georg

Masculine

article

0

0 2 5 11

3 7

15 9 20 8

9

53

38

28

11

Note. The number of correct productions of the definite article by three children aged 2; 2 - 2; 6 was compared with the number of omissions of the definite article from an analysis of the recordings of samples of their spontaneous utterances (0. omission).

Swiss German children between 3;5 and 5;10 were asked to assign gender to nonsense words. He found a high proportion of omission of the article, particularly in the younger children (65"70 of all responses). He concludes that, where the children are unsure of the form to be used, they will omit it. To check this claim, an analysis was made based on the data collected from Georg, Gisela and Hanna of the instances in which the correct article was produced and in which it was omitted. The reduced form of the article was eliminated, since it is not distinct for gender. It was found that all three children produced far more feminine nouns with the definite article than nouns of the other two genders (see Table 4.2). Articles for the nouns of masculine and neuter gender were more frequently omitted than for those of feminine gender, although the generally smaller proportion of neuter nouns in the language as a whole and in the vocabulary of children must be considered. The figures here are not large, but they suggest that children are more confident with the gender of feminine nouns, at least with respect to the form of the definite article required, so that they produce this form more frequently and omit the forms they are less sure of. This will discussed further below. An explanation for the greater frequency of errors in which die is inappropriately used as the article could be the greater frequency of this form across all paradigms (see pp. 13 -15). This form is used in the nominative and accusative cases as the plural for all three genders, so that it is a frequent form in use as well as in distribution acroSS the paradigms. Until plural marking is recognized by the child, the occurrence of the same noun with two different articles in the nominative case, particularly where the noun has no explicit plural marking, as in der L6ffel (masc.) 'the spoon' and die L6ffel 'the spoons', may lead to confusion as to the gender classification of the noun in

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

69

question. This relationship between gender marking and plural morphology will be discussed below in more detail. The above findings can be explained in terms of a production strategy. Such a strategy has been formulated by Slobin (1986b): OP (PRODUCTION): UNINTERPRETED FORMS. If a speech element is frequent, and perceptually salient, but has no obvious semantic or pragmatic

function, lise it in its salient form and position until you discover its function; otherwise do not use it. It would seem extremely difficult to predict the use of such a strategy in

advance, however, since it relies on a definition of what is perceptually salient to the child etc. The production of the definite article was also examined in older children from the data abstracted from the experimental situations described earlier (see pp. 65 - 66), in which older children (3;2 - 6;3) made reference to a specific set of objects. The children were asked to specify individual objects from a set of four known objects, a situation requiring the definite article. This reference was made twice. The objects were used in varying degrees for the task, hence the different number of responses for each noun. The productions were classified according to the gender of the article produced. The situation often required accusative case; the instances in which a child produced the nominative der instead of den were categorized as correct use of masculine gender. As can be seen from Table 4.3, there are relatively few incorrect productions of the article, altogether 5% of the total. None of the five 6-year-olds made an error; otherwise, the errors were distributed across the age range.

There is significant variation in the number of errors made according to the gender of the noun (%2= 15.81; df= 6; p
This finding also fits with the observation that younger children produce the article more frequently with feminine gender nouns. In general, it is rare for feminine gender, article or noun, to be paired with neuter gender, article or noun. When an error is made with a feminine noun, a

masculine article is commonly used. When an error is made with a neuter noun, a masculine article is used. For masculine nouns, there is a slightly greater use of the feminine than of the neuter article. These observations of children's speech fit the findings relating to words of varying gender reported on earlier (p. 35) that, in adult speech, feminine and neuter are rarely found as alternative genders for the same noun. The evidence from the self-corrections produced in these contexts supports the above finding that feminine and neuter gender are rarely confused with one another. In 11 cases, the child first produced the incorrect form die (ten of these with masculine gender nouns) before changing to the correct form of the article; in three cases, der was produced first with a feminine gender noun, and in two instances, das was produced with a masculine noun.

70

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

Table 4.3. The production of definite articles in German children Gender of noun

Noun

Gender of article used

Neuter Neuter

Auto

Buch Portemonnaie Masculine

Total Ball Kamm

Feminine

Wffel Schltissel Stift Total Kanne Kerze Schaufel Schere

Schuppe Uhr Total

Masculine

42 16 12 70

2

2 4

57 113

7

49 47 31 297

Total

Feminine 1

4 2 8

1 1 1 2 1

6

1 8

2 1 1 13

65 34 28 112 35 42 316

45 20 14 79 60 125 51 49 32 317 66 35 29 114

36 42 322

Note. A group of 55 German children (33 boys, 22 girls; aged 3;2-6;3) produced the definite article in making reference to one of several objects in an experimental situation in which referential ability was under examination. 26 These spontaneous productions for the elimited set of nouns are evaluated there for the correctness of gender in the article.

The finding that the children make associations and distinctions between genders which are similar to the adnlt pattern would suggest that some analysis of the phonetic structure is taking place and that this structure is nsed at least to determine which form of the definite article is appropriate. If the words in Table 4.3 are considered in terms of their phonetic shape, five of the six feminine gender nouns are phonetically marked as feminine: Four have an -e ending, one has the ending -ur. 27 The noun Schaufe! (fem.), which could be made masculine or neuter according to a weak disassociation of -e! with feminine gender 28 does not seem to attract more errors, however. Stift (masc.) should be feminine according to rule 3 in Table 2.7, but a higher number of er27

28

The word Uhf 'clock' is a monosyllable, and monosyllabacity is associated with masculine and neuter, not with feminine. The high performance level here might

also have to do with the notion of core system (see pp. 29 - 30). Of 643 words ending in -e/ (Mater, 1967), 196 have masculine gender, 210 neuter and 137 feminine.

71

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

rors is not produced in connection with this word. It is possible that this set of words belongs to the 'core' vocabulary of the children, so that the form of the definite article has been learned by rote in association with these nouns rather than by a phonetic rule. The higher number of correct articles used with the feminine nouns, the majority of which are phonetically marked as feminine, would suggest, however, that these rules, particularly the rule associating -e with feminine, are in the process of being acquired.

Vocabulary Analysis When considering the phonetic form of the nouns with which correct gender is produced at this age or the form of those nouns with which an error is made, the small number of instances of each phonetic rule type makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. As supporting evidence, an analysis can be made of early vocabnlary to see what forms are present and in what frequency. From this, the rules for which it would be possible for the child to perceive a regularity can be established. An analysis of the Scupins' child's vocabulary up to the age of 3 years gives a picture of the distribution of the endings 29 occurring with some regularity in the 574 nouns (see Table 4.4). The feminine ending -e is strongly represented. The diminutives are also numerous. Other rules are more weakly evident. The -e/ ending shows a stronger association with masculine gender here than it does in the whole vocabulary, 28 making it likely that this 'incorrect' association will be learned. Table 4.4. The frequency of phonetic forms in child vocabulary Phonetic form

Associated gender

No. of nouns

No. of exceptions

-e -er -en -el -el -Ie

feminine masculine masculine masculine neuter neuter neuter masculine

80 25 16 20 24 9

6 8 0 5 0 0 0 0

(if diminutive)

-chen

,C-

(in monosyllables)

8 14

Note. Scupin and Scupin (1907) recorded each new item produced by their son. From this vocabulary list up to the age of 2; 11, an analysis was made of those nouns having certain phorietic forms in order to demonstrate the frequency of such forms related to the possibility of learning their association with gender. 29

Schneuwly (1978) conducted a similar analysis of the Scupins' data. Since we arrive at slightly different figures, I quote only mine here, although the differences do not affect the conclusions to be drawn.

72

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

The rule for monosyllables beginning with sC- is weakly evident; it is probably also affected in its status by the child's own pronunciations of these words, since he frequently omits the initial [S], thus making the rule less clear in his own production. The findings raise two important questions in considering regularities for the child, that is, whether phonetic regularities can be learned by the child when they are not within his productive capacity aud, secondly, whether regularities in the child's vocabulary can lead to the learning of 'false' rules. These aspects should be borne in mind in future research. The vocabulary of the Scupins' child showed a clear frequency of the -e ending and a clear association of this ending with feminine gender. This finding is supported by the results of a similar analysis of the vocabulary recorded from Gisela, Hanna, and Georg. For Gisela, the -e ending was found on 14 words of the recorded vocabulary of 86 nouns; for Hanna, there were 18 cases in 73 nouns and for Gerog, ten out of 65. From this evidence, is would seem to be the rule most likely to be learned first. This is confirmed when the use of the definite article is considered, since all cases of nouns with an -e ending were used with the correct gender. Some errors suggest that particular phonetic rules are not present. For example, one child produced Odie Bagger, although the ending -er is associated with masculine gender. One child produced die Hund, although the ending -Cn.,alC is associated with masculine gender, but since these endings are not well represented in the child's vocabulary, it would seem likely that the association with gender is learned later.

Gender with Suffixes and Compounds As was discussed in an earlier section (pp. 30-31) German children have to learn certain categorial rules of gender assignment in connection with deriva-

tional morphology and noun compounds, for example, the Last-Member Principle. In order for children to be able to learn such rules, they must segment the words into the relevant morphemes. Otherwise, they would be treat the noun as a whole and produce the gender-related forms on the basis of phonetic rules, semantic rules or rote learning. It would be possible, for example, to assign feminine gender to Butterschnitte "slice of bread butter" on the basis of the [-, 1 ending without the word having been analyzed into Butter 'butter' + Schnitte (fern.) 'slice'. It is not possible to give any clear answer to the question of when German children begin to learn such categorial rules. From the spontaneous utterances of Gisela, Hanna, and Georg, the complex words (compounds and nouns + derivational suffixes) did not seem to be associated with more errors than the simplex words, but this must be qualified by stating that the number of complex words up to age 2;6 was not large in our sample. An analysis of the vocabulary list compiled by Scupin and Scupin up to age 2;11 shows that the child's lexicon develops to include a far greater num-

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

73

ber of complex words between the ages of 2;0 and 2;11. As mentioned above, Scupin and Scupin do not list articles or gender errors, so that no error analysis can be made, but it is possible to examine whether the necessary conditions for acquisition are present by examining the child's lexicon. Up to age 2;0, Bubi's lexicon included 179 nouns altogether, of which 21 were complex (120J0). From 2;0 to 2;11, his lexicon increased steadily in size; he acquired 392 nouns, of which 160 were complex (41 "10). A probable necessary condition for the learning of the gender assignment rules mentioned above, that is, a sufficient number of examples, would therefore be given only in the last part of the 3rd year. A further analysis of the structure of these words indicates other limiting conditions on acquisition. The diminutive endings -Ie and -chen are well represented among the complex words, in Bubi's lexicon, as well as in that of Gisela, Georg and Hanna; approximately one-fifth of the complex words have such suffixes. From Bubi's lexicon, which claims to be a complete listing, it can be seen that the diminutive forms appear in most cases earlier than, or at least at the same time as, the form without the diminutive. For example, Puppchen 'little doll' is produced at 1;0, but Puppe 'doll' later. Knappel 'little button' is noted at 1;6, Knopf at the same time in the form mop. This would suggest that the child initially learns to attribute the gender of such diminutive forms to the whole word and that the abstraction of the rules

+ -Ie

+-chen

.... (+ neuter)

is only possible when the forms without and with the diminutive suffix are both present in the vocabulary. There are enough instances of the diminutive ending, however, to suppose that the rule assigning such derivatives to neuter gender will be learned relatively quickly. However, as mentioned above, an identical assignment could be achieved on the basis of the phonetic ending until the morphological structure of the word is clear to the child. An analysis of the compound nouns in Bubi's lexicon (a little less than four-fifths of the complex words) highlights the problems children are faced with in learning the Last-Member Principle. In order to acquire this principle, they must first be able to analyze the words into its compound morphemes. In the case of compounds consisting of another part of speech and a noun, e.g. verb + noun, Wohnzirnmer 'live + room = living room' or adjective + noun, Schangeist, 'beautiful + mind = aesthete', the child can only take the gender of the single noun as determining the gender of the whole (unless other rules are used). This would not lead to the acquisition of the Last-Member Principle. The principle only becomes clear in those compounds which consist of noun + noun, such as TeelOffel (masc.) 'tea + spoon'. Absolute indication of the principle only occurs in those compounds which are made up of nouns of different gender, for example, Bierwagen (masc.) 'beer lorry' = Bier (neut.) 'beer' + Wagen (masc.) 'lorry'. It would not be clear in the previous example,

74

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

since both Tee and Laffet have masculine gender. In Bubi's vocabulary, such conflict cases make up over 50"70 of all compound nouns, so that there is ample basis for the perception of the rule. Of course, the child must also know the individual nouns and their genders for it to be clear that such a conflict exists. From the Scupins' vocabulary list, about half the noun + noun compounds are produced by Bubi at a later date than the single nouns making up the compound, so that it is possible for the rule to be learned. For example, the noun Kuchen 'cake' is produced at 1;7, Eier 'eggs' at 1;9 and Eierkuchen 'egg cake' at 1;11. There is some evidence at the age of 2;4 that the child analyzed words into parts, although not necessarily into known segments; for example, he produced *Marmeschokolade instead of Marmelade 'jam' indicating an analysis of the word into Marme '?' and Schokolade 'chocolate', probably as Scupins suggest, because of the sweet taste. There is one instance where Gisela (2;3) produced an incorrect indefinite article with a compound of which she had earlier produced both parts with a correct article: *eine SojJepudding 'pudding with sauce' from SojJe (fern.) 'sauce' and Pudding (masc.) 'pudding'. This error could be interpreted as arising from ignorance of the Last-Member Principle, but, on the other hand, as this age indefinite articles were not 100"70 correct even with simplex nouns. Little more can be said from these data than that some of the necessary conditions for the acquisition of the diminutive rule and the Last-Member Principle are present by the age of 3 years. This area would be worth analyzing further making use of spontaneous data. For such an analysis, detailed vocabulary lists like those of Scupin and Scupin are essential; experimentation with compounds is also possible, although this would be limited to the investigation of children over the age of 3 years.

Gender and Plural

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

75

ral errors are made by German children until they are 7 or 8 years old (see Mills, 1986). Mugdan (1977) in examining plural morphology did not find any evidence of gender being used by children .aged 3 to 7 years in their selection of the plural form in nonsense words. One would expect to find such evidence if gender and the plural were closely related to one another from an early age. The relationship of gender and plural was examined from the data extracted from the experimental context (see pp. 65 - 66). In these situations, the children were asked to describe a set of items; where there were two of the same item, distinguished only by colour, the child could produce the plural form. It was found that, where the feminine gender nouns were produced in the plural, the plural form was 100"70 correct. This ties in with Mugdan's finding (1977, p. 153) that the plural form of [-0] ending nouns was quickly acquired. Errors with the neuter nouns were rare, but there were also fewer occasions ou which the plural could have been produced than with the other nouns. The one error of using die with Auto ignores the restriction that the plural -s form can only be for masculine or neuter gender nounS. The masculine gender nouns had the most errors in the plural. Overall, more children made errors with the plural form than with the gender forms, and there was no clear relation between the two; certainly, children who made plural errors did not necessarily make gender errors. The most common error here was to add no plural marking, which is a frequent error in general (Mugdan, 1977; Schaner-Wolles, 1978). The omission of marking was frequent in connection with the item Kamm, which would also appear to be the least familiar item to the children. Of those children who made gender errors with this item, three formed the plural correctly, two wrongly and seven added no plural marking. They appeared rather to avoid the plural by a circumlocution such as ein Kamm, noch 'n Kamm 'a comb, and another comb' . The plural is clearly not in advance of gender-marked forms. They appear to be acquired concurrently. If there is any relation between the two, uncertainty about gender is related to plural error rather than vice versa.

It was suggested above that the inappropriate use of the feminine definite arti-

cle may be due to confusion with the plural form, especially in those cases where the plural is zero marked. In the rules which Kopcke (1982) describes for gender assignment, he includes rules which are based on the knowledge of the plural form, that is, where a particular form determines a gender. In establishing a hierarchy of rules which leads to the most frequent correct assignment of gender, these morphological rules are ordered after the semantic rules and before the phonetic rules (see pp. 34- 35). If this hierarchy is related to acquisition, it would imply that the child would learn the rules based on plural forms before the phonetic rules. In adult speech, however, the relationship appears to be the reverse. Wurzel (1984, pp. 77f) argues that plural formation rules are gender dependent in that plural forms change in the direction of predictability according to gender rather than vice versa. This dependence of plural formation on gender seems to be reflected in the order of acquisition. Plu-

Relative Pronouns and Question Words The first relative clauses usually appear in the last half of the child's 3rd year (Mills, 1986). No examples were found in the recordings of Gisela, Hanna and Georg. In the diary studies, the first relative clauses reported are from the Sterns' children at the age of 2;6. As these relative clauses do not contain a relative pronoun, their classification as relative clauses could be in doubt. The verb is in final position, however, as is correct for a subordinate clause, and

semantically, the interpretation as a relative clause is acceptable. Stern and Stern also claim that the intonation was appropriate for a relative clause. For example:

------------------------

76

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

Hilde (2;6): Papa sieh mal *hi/de mach-t hat Daddy look just Hilde do aux. past

'Daddy, look (what) Hilde has done' Hilde (2;6): siehe *auf-(g)e-hangen hat see

up

past hang

aux.

past

'look, (what) (I) have hung up' Their son Giinther inserted an otherwise meaningless syllable instead of the relative pronoun until around the age of 3 years. For example: Gunther (2;10): meine Blume eigenllich ist, my

flower

really

Hans (g)e- gib-

I

*e

ruber

about he talk +

spricht

*wo

Heinzelmann

rel.pn.

rel.pn. thus

rnase.

rnasc.sg.

so

In these forms, gender errors do not appear to occur. Until the age of 4 years, it is therefore difficult to observe gender marking in the relative pronoun. This does not necessarily imply, however, that gender marking is the reason for the standard forms of the pronoun not being produced. A more likely factor would seem to be the case marking problems in the relative pronoun, to which gender is inextricably linked in the paradigm. From these data, it can only be said that, when relative pronouns in their standard form are first produced, gender marking is well established. The same appears to be true when the question word welch- 'which' first is used. This form starts to be produced around the age of 4 years, and gender appears to present no problem. The acquisition of the pronouns wer 'who' and was 'what' will be dealt with under the section covering the animacy rule.

present

Experimental Investigation

In some dialects, however, wo is also used as the relative pronoun in subject and object function. It is this use which predominates in the children's relative clauses according to Grimm's data, for example: Child (ca. 3;0): das

der

a

'I have a Heinzelmann who can go like this'

ist is

Obviously, no information is available about gender marking from these undifferentiated forms or instances where the relative pronoun is omitted. Gender marking is not observable either on the relative pronoun form reported by Grimm (1973) in 3-year-old children. She reports that the children in her sample (3 - 4 years old) predominantly used wo as the relative pronoun in the clauses they produced. In Standard German, wo is the form of the locative interrogative pronoun 'where' and is also a possible form of the relative pronoun used with a preposition. For example: wo-

ein Heinze/mann,

mach-ern) kann do can infin. modal

isl ein Pilz *mm in Walde that is a mushroom in wood 'that is a mushroom which is in the wood'

prep. 'the topic he is talking about'

have

nom.

hat

Gunther (3;2): das

er

Child (ca. 4;0): ich hab

is

rel.pn.

77

Grimm took her sample of children from the Heidelberg area, where wo is used in this way in the local dialect. The same usage is reported in children from Gottingen, but it has not been possible to establish whether the local dialect has this form. It is obviously relevant to establish what the influence of the local dialect is. It could be the case that all children use this form, independent of dialect usage, since it is uninfluenced by case inflections and gender. Around the age of 4 years, Grimm reports that the children produce an intermediate form combining wo and the standard relative pronoun der, die, das etc. For example: I

Hans past give past aux. 'that's really my flower that Hans gave'

das Thema, the topic

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

isl ein Miidchen,

wo

that is a girl rel.pn. 'that is a girl who goes to school'

in die Schule geht in

the

school

Child (ca. 3;0): aber die Puppa, wo die Uschi hat but the doll rel.pn. the Uschi has 'but the doll which Uschi has'

goes

Observations made of children's spontaneous productions are essential in giving an account of acquisition. Nevertheless, through experimental testing, the researcher can have access to behaviour which might only rarely be observed under natural conditions and so give a more complete account of acquisition processes. In particular, the acquisition of formal rules could be examined using a controlled set of nouns, which makes it possible to compare the status of rules at a particular stage.

78

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

Experimental Testing of the Selection of the Definite Article for Real Words by 5- to 6-Year-Old German Children

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

79

0

0

Method. The use of the definite article was compared across the three genders in an experimental task with 5- and 6-year-old children. The children (24 boys, 24 girls) were asked to tell the experimenter which form of the article was correct with each of ten nouns. The nouns were illustrated by presenting the corresponding toy or object. The instructions were as following: "lch vergesse das immer. HeiBt es def Pferd, die prerd oder das prerd?"

0

0

0

'I always forget. Is it der Pferd, die prerd or das Pierd?'

Four neuter, three masculine and three feminine nouns were included; the nouns could all be classed as frequent in terms of a child's vocabulary (see Appendix B). The order of presentation of the three gender forms was varied across all ten nouns, and the order of presentation of the ten nouns was also randomized across subjects. The children all attended a Southern German kindergarten. They were selected in order to achieve an even spread of age and an equal division of sex. The author as experimenter was familiar to the children from previous visits to the group. The testing was presented as a play situation. The children were tested individually in a separate room of the kindergarten. The responses were tape-recorded. Results and Discussion. As can be seen from Figure 4.1, more errors were produced in this task and with these nouns than in the spontaneous utterances previously discussed. The number of errors is still comparatively small, 14"7. of the total. There is a significant difference in the number of errors made in the choice of the article, according to the gender of the noun ()(2 = 13.07; d/= 6; p
0

mase.

fem. Gender of the noun

neutr.

Fig. 4.1. Selection of the German definite article. A total of ten nouns were presented

to each of 48 German children (24 boys and 24 girls, 5 - 6 years old) with the three possible forms of the definite article. The children were asked to select the correct form. Their responses are analyzed according to the gender of the noun

other nouns, Schwein (neut.) should be assigned masculine gender on the basis of rule 10 (see Table 2.7), but the masculine selections did not clearly predominate over feminine ones in the erroneous choices. The other nouns are associated with either masculine or neuter gender on the basis of various rules, but here, too, when an error is made, feminine gender is not obviously avoided. All that can be said is that it seems plausible that phonetic principles are applied in the case of some feminine gender nouns in this age group. Experimental Testing of the Use of Phonetic Rules in 7- to 8-Year-Old German Children The evidence collected so far suggests that German children start to use some phonetic rules early on, but only those rules which have a wide application in the vocabulary, as in the association of the ending -e with feminine gender. Using the experimental design described above with adults (see pp. 45 - 50), knowledge of nine phonetic rules was tested in slightly older primary school children. Method. A group of 16 children (eight boys, eight girls) aged between 7;6 and 9;0, all attending the same Southern German primary school, were tested on the 44 nonsense words in Appendix A illustrating the nine phonetic rules. The children were all pupils in one class and were tested as a group by me as experimenter in the presence of the class teacher. The subjects were presented with a typed list of the nonsense words distributed face down; on the list, two ver-

80

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

sions of each word were given with two of the possible three definite articles (see Appendix A). Half the subjects received the list in the order 1-44; half received a list in the reverse order. It was explained to the children that they would see two versions of words which they did not know and that they should indicate on the paper which version, i.e. which definite article they felt was appropriate. An example was written on the board to illustrate the procedure. The subjects were then asked to turn over the sheet and begin. When all children had completed the task, they were asked, as a group (because of time constraints), to say if they had thought of a real word when completing the task. All children in the class were tested (21 pupils), but five response sheets were eliminated because the pupils had a bilingual background. Results and Discussion. The results of the gender assignment task are set out in Table 4.5. The assignments conforming to the rule are given as percentages. The results from the same test carried out with adults (pp. 45 - 50) are repeated alongside for the purpose of comparison. There was a significant number of rule-conforming gender assignments for all rules except 6, 7 and 8. Because the percentage of assignments conTable 4.5. Percentage of rule-conforming gender assignments to nonsense words by 7-

and 8-year-old German children

Rule 1. kn-

Example of test word

-..-)0

masculine

2. ~}r--!o masculine 3. SC--+ masculine 5. ec - cc --+ masculine 1+5,3+5,2+5 1+4+5,3+4+5,2+4+5 6. _ ,ft --!o feminine 7. - ~r --+ feminine 8. - et --+ neuter 9. -i::n

--!o

neuter

Knich Draff Still Gro1ch Knirf, Sperf, Trilch Knink, Spank, Trant

Kaft Luhr Flett Sier

(n =

Children 16)

(n =

77***

72***

80***

58.5 56.5

64* 70***

69*** 74***

45 53 61 67*

Adults 30)

66*** 79*** 85*** 69.5***

80*** 82.5*** 64.5***

Note. A group of 16 German children were asked to select a gender from two possibilities presented for each of 44 nonsense words. The nonsense words were constructed so as to be examples of different phonetic regularities associated with a particular gender. The responses were analyzed according to the different rules and the assignment of gender according to the rule. The total scores for each ruJe were tested for their

deviation from the null hypothesis (*p<0.05, **p
The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

81

forming to rules 1, 2 and 5 was generally high, the additive effect of combining rules was not so clearly observable as with the adults. The children produced a significantly higher number rule-conforming assignments based on rules 2 and 3 than did the adults. If the problem item of SchlojJ is discounted from the results, as discussed earlier (see pp. 49 - 50), the percentage of gender choices based on rule 3 increases to 75"10. These will be discussed in more detail below. The two rules associating an ending in monosyllabic words with feminine gender, as formulated in rules 6 and 7, achieved a result at the chance level. Because these rules are not clearly distinct from the others in the number of words they apply to or in the number of exceptions to the rule that exist, these factors would not seem to explain the low degree of conformity to the rule. Monosyllabic nouns in German are significantly disassociated with feminine gender, however, as was discussed above (see pp. 32-33), so that children at this age may be using a rule that monosyllabic nouns must be either masculine or neuter, but not feminine. This explanation is supported by an analysis of the erroneous gender choices. Since there was a binary choice for each item and the 'incorrect' gender alternative was split equally between the two other genders, the choice of feminine gender should be around 50%. The erroneous choice of feminine constituted 42%, however, which indicates a mildly significant tendency to avoid the feminine in this context (p<0.05). Rule 8 for neuter nouns was also not significantly used by the children. The children may not only disassociate monosyllabic nouns with the feminine, but may generally associate them with masculine gender. This association would account for the fact that their performance resulted in a higher proportion of choices conforming to rules 2 and 3 than did the adults' performance. If this is the case, the individual rules tested here could be collapsed to one general rule for children at this age, with the exception of rule 9. The real word associations could unfortunately not be quantified for the children because of a methodological problem in obtaining the information. Since the children required a considerable amount of time to take the test, the word associations were collected from the whole group of children once they had all completed the test. For most items, only one possibility was obtainable from the group. The responses are analyzed in Table 4.6. Although it is not possible to know how many children made the real word associations, the different words noted indicate that the rules were followed, since the majority of the words conformed to the rule under test. Endings were not so important for the children as for the adults; real word associations related to the beginning of the word were made as often. The associations made for test words embodying rules 6 and 7, which showed a low percentage of rule-governed selections, also conformed to the rules. Here, it would be important to know how many and which children made these associations and also whether these real words are produced with the correct gender forms. The ending is apparently the basis for the association but the gender is not necessarily transferred. For the test words predicted by rule 2, which

82

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

o

00_

o

.,...;

........

_000

000000

o

00"","

o

00'"

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0

o

o

o

0

o

0

o

o

j i

'"+

"+

'"

o

0

'"

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

83

revealed a high proportion of rule-conforming selections compared with the adults' performance, no associated word conformed to the rule, which indicates that the choice of masculine gender was not based on the phonetic rule, bnt possibly on the association of masculine gender and monosyllabicity, as suggested above. It is difficult to assess from these results the effect of the scope and number of exceptions on the strength of response, since the children's performance appears to be dominated by the more general rule of assigning nouns to masculine gender on the basis of their monosyllabicity. Rule 1, which has the lowest number of exceptions, produces a high proportion of responses in the children, which suggests that they are beginning to use this more differentiated rule. The performance relating to rules 6, 7, 8 and 9, which require the selection of feminine or neuter gende" did not result in a dominant tendency to select the masculine gender, which suggests that the rule of assigning masculine gender to monosyllabic nouns is weakening in favour of the more differentiated rule, although the response strength is still relatively weak for feminine. Altogether, this indicates that the general rule of assigning masculine gender to monosyllabic nouns may be predominant overall, but that the children in this age group are beginning to learn the differentiated rules. These results confirm and expand the findings of previous work in various languages on the acquisition of phonetic rules that properties of the rules affect the speed of acquisition. For example, Smoczyilska (1986) has compared the acquisition of gender in Russian and Polish. In Polish, gender-marked forms appear with correct use before the age of 2 years; in the early stages, Polish children regularize the irregular instances that they are exposed to. In Russian, which has a system superficially similar to that of Polish, children tend to use one ending for all genders, in what Slobin (1973) called 'inflectional imperialism'. There are some crucial variations between the two systems which explain the differences in acquisition. Whereas the Polish system has some irregularities, Russian children have a considerable number of inconsistencies to contend with in connection with the feminine gender. The Russian unstressed 0, a neuter ending, is pronounced a, which is identical to the feminine form. Masculine diminutive forms that end in -a exist, along with boys' names such as Sasha, which then have feminine declension but masculine agreement. In the age range of 1;10- 3;6, Russian children appear to vary in the rules they adopt (Popova, 1958). This range of irregularities makes the learning of these formal principles far more difficult, hence the lag compared with Polish children. MacWhinney (1978) tested gender assignment of real and nonce words in German children aged 3 -12 years in order to examine among other factors the effect of phonetic endings. As part of the test design, MacWhinney included a situation in which the gender was cued by use of the pronoun or indefinite article. He found that, while children improved significantly with age in their ability to use this cue from an article or pronoun, it was present even in 3-yearaIds. This suggests that at age 3, at least some aspects of the gender paradigm are beginning to be related to one another.

84

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

MacWhinney did not analyze the gender assignment rules carefully enough, however, in his selection of material. Since MacWhinney's work is quoted extensively in other work and false conclusions are made on this basis

the criticism will be presented here in some detail. Endings which were sup: posed to be clearly associated with a particular gender do not have that association in all cases. For example, MacWhinney chose -sal as an ending indicating neuter gender; of the ten nouns with the ending (Mater, 1967), two do not involve the morpheme -sal, one of these has both feminine and neuter gender, and the other, masculine gender. Of the remaining eight nouns which do have the morpheme -sal, four are neuter, and four are feminine. One of MacWhinney's conclusions is that "phonological cues for nonce gender were most effective for feminine nouns" (1978, p. 68). The two endings chosen did have an actual association with feminine gender, one being a morphological ending -erei and the other the phonetic form -e. In terms of the experiment, it can be accepted that the children were following the rule. It cannot be claimed, however, that the performance with feminine endings was better than it was with other genders, since the choice of material in the other cases was faulty. In terms of the data from spontaneous utterances presented above, MacWhinney's conclusion that the rule associating the ending -e with feminine gender is one of the first to be learned would nevertheless seem to be valid. For only three of the 12 endings which MacWhinney maintained were not related to a gender could that be said to be the case. The other nine endings are all clearly associated with a particular gender, for example, -ot with neuter, as tested in the experiment reported earlier (pp. 45 - 50). The findings are not reported in enough detail in MacWhinney's monograph to allow a full re-evaluation. It is therefore impossible to make use of his findings from the point of view of relativizing the strength of these phonetic rules. Schneuwly (1978) tested the assignment of gender in Swiss German children between the ages of 3;4 and 5;10. He used nonce words which had endings clearly associated with one of the three genders in Swiss German; -er and -u were masculine, -e and -ie feminine and -Ii neuter. In the first part of the test, the child had to produce the article; in the second part, the word was presented by the experimenter with an 'incorrect' gender, and the child was required to repeat the item. Firstly, Schneuwly found that the children frequently refused to produce an article, a strategy which was discussed earlier in connection with the definite article (pp. 67 - 69) in Standard German. Secondly, he found clear evidence that, when they did produce an article, the children across the age range used phonetic endings to select gender. In the test using a mismatch of gender and ending, the children frequently corrected the article to that predictable by the phonetic rule. It is possible to explain the hierarchy of endings as determined by the number of correct productions by the frequency of the rule in question in adult language. The -e ending was strongly associated with feminine gender, as was shown for the Standard Germanspeaking children.

The Acquisition of Formal Rules in German

85

To summarize: By the age of 8 years, children are clearly using phonetic rules. The rules which are in use also appear to be influenced by the scope of the rules and the proportion of exceptions. Some of the rules still have to be learned after the age of 8 years, presumably as the child's lexicon expands.

Summary and Conclusions When German children first start to produce forms which can carry gender marking, their separate treatment of the definite and indefinite articles, as apparent in the longitudinal data, suggests that they build up the connections between two forms, that is, the article and noun, before arriving at the notion of a gender paradigm. An awareness that gender-marked forms such as articles, pronouns etc. are related in that they are determined by the noun and form a paradigm starts to develop from around the age of 3. It is common for children to omit the articles for those nouns the gender of which they are unsure. Children clearly show the ability to build up distributional patterns in the sense of Maratsos and Chalkley (1980), but they seem to take longer to do so, at least in German, than Maratsos and Chalkley claim to be the case. A relevant factor for the speed of pattern acquisition could be the formal similarity between members of the same paradigm. This needs to be investigated in further cross-linguistic research. It has been demonstrated that German children in general make few errors in gender when they produce a gender-marked form. The fewest errors are made with feminine gender nouns. When an error in gender assignment is made with masculine or neuter nouns, the feminine gender form of the article die is the one most commonly used erroneously; this may be due to the association with the plural article. It was shown, however, that a knowledge of plural morphology does not precede the acquisition of gender, which implies that gender is not deduced from a knowledge of the plural form. The first phonetic rule to be learned, the association of the -e ending with feminine gender, appears to be the one which also affects the largest part of the vocabulary, has the fewest exceptions and is clearly represented in the child's vocabulary. Other rules are acquired as the child's lexicon expands. Experimental testing has shown that some of these rules are still being learned at the age of 8 years. The order of acquisition is related to the scope of the rule and the number of exceptions.

86

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German The Acquisition of the Animacy and Common Gender Rule

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

87

ship of natural gender and masculine and feminine grammatical genders is strongly perceived, however, it is possible that non-sex-specified entities will be associated with the neuter form. If this principle is generalized, it will lead to error.

Hypotheses Animacy is a feature which is morphologically marked in many languages and forms part of the noun classification system in both English and German (see pp. 17 - 20), but there is debate as to whether this feature is easily acquired. Siobin (1986b) discusses evidence for the salience of animacy as a grammaticizable notion; he considers the role of animacy in contexts which he defines in pragmatic terms. So, for example, in the Figure-Ground Scene, children treat location and possession similarly, not differentiating between constructions which are restricted to animate or inanimate nouns. Possession is seen as a "locative state in which the Ground is an animate being". German children mark possession on inanimate objects as well as animates, for example, *eisenbahns wohnung 'train's house', or use locative prepositions to express the possessive relation with animates, as in *grojJmamma zu den aile' grandma to the monkey' (Mills, 1986). In the Manipulative Scene, the patient is most typically inanimate; English children produce it primarily in object function (Brown, 1973, p. 249). It has been observed that in languages which mark accusative case, the first accusatives appear on inanimate nouns. This also applies to German (Clahsen, 1984, p. 22), but it cannot be proved that this marking relies on a grammatical distinction of animate and inanimate nouns. It seems more likely that an animacy distinction is involved indirectly; that is, the accusative case is related to a non-focus function in the sentence (Zubin, 1979), and in turn, inanimate nouns are associated with this function. In languages which have distinct accusative forms for animate and inanimate objects, children appear to have problems in learning the inflections, for example, in Polish (Smoczynska, 1986) and in Russian (Gvozdev, 1949). Siobin concludes: "It remains to be determined whether animacy is, overall, simply not a highly accessible notion for grammaticization, or whether it is just not relevant to these particular scenes" (Slobin, 1986b). The animacy aspect in the gender system is then of interest in ascertaining how quickly this aspect is acquired in terms of linguistic marking and what effect the form of marking may have on acquisition. The description of the animacy rule and common gender in English and German was presented earlier (see pp. 17 - 23). Therefore, only the points relevant to acquisition will be repeated here. In German, the relationship between nenter gender and inanimacy is minimal. It does not affect the assignment of gender to a particular noun, but exists rather in contrast to the association of the other two genders with animacy. It is common in speech to children to add diminutives to nouns, including nouns for animate referents, which attenuates the correlation between masculine and feminine gender and animacy. At a point where the relation-

Neuter gender is related to common gender in a limited semantic field involving animals. The neuter term is used for the superordinate term. Unless the three members of the set, the male, the female and the common gender, are known to the child, it would be more difficult to perceive the principle of common gender in relation to the neuter gender term. When these terms are considered in respect of a child's vocabulary, some would seem unlikely to be learned early. For example, it is more probably that a child knows das Schal 'the sheep', but not die Zippe 'ewe' or der Bock 'ram'. In contrast, die Kuh 'cow' and der Stier 'bull' are more frequent, for children at least, than das Rind 'head of cattle'. It would seem plausible that such a rule is learned late, when the child's vocabulary has extended to include all three members of the relevant sets. In English, the one pronoun form, it, is used for both inanimate referents and for common gender, which would appear to make it difficult for the child to distinguish the two rules. It was noted from the analysis of children's books, however (see pp. 55 - 57), that in books for young children, it is more rarely used for common gender, being replaced by he; the use of it increased according to the age of the child the book was intended for. By the age of 10 years, it was the standard form. This input could influence acquisition such that it is learned in its common gender function comparatively late, but is more easily identified in its marking of inanimates. Observational Acquisition Data A distinction is to be observed in the use of das (neu!.) as the demonstrative pronoun. This pronoun can be used in reference to inanimates regardless of the gender of the corresponding noun, as was discussed earlier (pp. 19 - 20). This use was observed very early in all the children studied. In Gisela, Georg and Hanna and in the diary studies, there were no instances of this pronoun form being used in reference to an animate being. In Clahsen's data (1982b), there was one example only; there, the pronoun was used in reference to a dog: Daniel (2;5): das machl leek (Dreck) 'that makes a mess'

Since the pronoun is frequently used by children; it can be concluded that this rule is learned quickly. Its acquisition may follow in stages: The first restriction would be to exclude human reference, followed by animal reference. It might be assumed that the early learning of this rule would carryover to the marking of gender with articles. From the spontaneous utterances of Ger-

88

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

man children reported earlier (pp. 64 -71), there was no evidence from gender assignment to animate and inanimate nouns that gender marking here was affected by this distinction in any way. The children showed no tendency to assign predominantly neuter gender to inanimate nouns; in fact, the erroneous

use of neuter gender was rare. Georg produced die Kind (neut.) 'child' in one instance in which he knew the child to be a girl. This error could be interpreted as an avoidance of neuter gender with an animate referent where the sex was

known. The results of the experiment (see pp. 78 -79) in which 5- and 6-year-old children were required to select a definite article for ten existing nouns were examined for any possible effects of the animacy/inanimacy distinction. The performance related to inanimate nouns was compared with that for animate nouns (see Appendix B). The animate nouns all referred to animals. Of these, the two neuter gender terms were superordinate terms; the masculine and feminine gender terms could be used in both the generic and the sex-specific sense. A significant difference was found between the two groups (X 2 = 9.83; df= 2; p
error or whether it is a post hoc rationalization. The metalinguistic association between gender and sex, and by implication neuter and no sex, is, however, clearly present. In a sex assignment task which will be reported in a later section (pp. 122-130), children aged between 3 and 10 years were asked to assign a sex to a set of toys. The toys represented six animate nouns and four inanimate nouns. The German children asked to perform this task found no problem in

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

89

doing so. The youngest English children (3 -4 years) found the task difficult to complete, particularly with inanimate nouns. A frequent comment was it's not a girl or a boy; it's a book. This observation can be interpreted as showing that the English children have a stronger association of inanimacy with no sex which makes the task more difficult, whereas the German children find it easier to overlook inanimacy in the task through the marking of the gender system. This interpretation is tentative and will be explored further in the discussion of psychological gender in a later section. Brener (personal communication, 1984) has investigated the comprehension of it in an experimental task in which children aged between 3 and 6 years and adults had to identify the referent of the pronoun. In four different scenes, a baby; a baby and book; a dog; or a dog, baby and book were the possible choices. The adults chose an inanimate referent wherever possible, but were happy to select a dog or baby if that was the only option. The youngest children also chose an inanimate referent wherever possible. In those pictures where only an animate referent was possible, they showed that they were experiencing difficulty by hesitating for a long time or by selecting an arbitrary inanimate item such as a piece of clothing one of the people in the dialogue was wearing. The older the children, the more they behaved like the adults in being prepared to select an animate referent if necessary and showing preference for the dog as opposed to the baby. For the younger children, then, it is first associated with inanimacy and only later acquires the common gender function. In his investigation of interrogative pronouns in several languages, Wade (1971) found that the identification interrogative pronouns were acquired after the locative in both English and German. Of the identification pronouns, the impersonal what and German was were learned before the personal who and wer. The impersonal form was overgeneralized to contexts requiring the personal form. This occurs somewhat later than the acquisition of the pronouns das and it, for which such errors are rare. This finding was confirmed for German by the longitudinal study of Greenhalgh (1976). The fact that in both languages the impersonal interrogative pronoun can be used under certain circumstances as the unmarked form (see pp. 17 - 20) may be the source of this overgeneralization. These data suggest that the animate/inanimate distinction is established early on in the pronoun systems of both languages, which would go against Siobin's claim that animacy is not a highly accessible notion for grammaticization. The comparison of English and German with respect to the influence of structural factors will be pursued in more detail in experimental tasks reported in the following sections.

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

90

The Use of Pronouns Referring to Animates and Inanimates in a Production Task by 5- to 10-Year-Old English and German Children

Method. The use of gender-marked pronouns was tested with German and English children using a sentence completion task. The child was presented with a picture in which the referent of the nouns was depicted in a situation: For example, the child was shown a picture of a horse standing in a stable eating hay. The experimenter (the author) then read the child a sentence in which the noun was mentioned once. In the second sentence, the pronoun was omitted and indicated by an exaggerated pause. For the example situation, the sentences were:

English: The horse is standing in the stable. . .. is eating hay. German: Das Pferd steht im Stall.

... friBt Heu. The child was then asked to complete the second sentence. It was expected that the child would produce a pronoun. The instructions were: (English) "Here you have a picture. I will read two sentences, and I will leave something out. Can you fill in the gap?" (German) "Hier siehst Du ein Bild. Ich lese Dir zwei Stitze vor und dabei lasse ich etwas aus. Kannst Du mir sagen, was fehlt?" The sentences with the missing pronoun were constructed so that for the animate nouns, half contained an argument only possible with an animate noun, half contained an argument possible with either an animate or an inanimate noun. The sentences with the inanimate nouns were constructed in the same way; that is, half contained an argument only possible with inanimate nouns, and half an argument possible with both. This made it possible to check the influence of the sentential context as opposed to the reference to the preceding noun. The child was given two trial items before the test began. If the child failed to produce a pronoun, the instructions were repeated and the . sentence presented again. Twelve nouns were tested, six animate and six inanimate. In German, these were equally distributed across the three genders (see Appendix C). The

animate nouns all referred to animals and were the generic terms. The two neuter animates were superordinate terms for German das Pferd 'horse', das Schwein 'pig'. Of the masculine and feminine sets, one term in each had only the generic function der Ele/ant 'elefant' and die Maus 'mouse'. The children tested were between the ages of 5 and 10 years. They were divided into three age groups (5;0 - 6;11, 7;0 - 8;11, 9;0 - 10;11) of 24 children each (12 boys, 12 girls). The English children were all attending junior schools in the South of England. The German children in the first age group were attending a kindergarten in Southern Germany; the older children were attending a Grundschule. The children were selected, from those for whom parental consent for testing had been obtained, on the basis of their age and sex so as to

91

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

achieve equal distribution across the groups. The children were tested individually in the school or kindergarten in a separate room. They were familiar with the experimenter from her previous visits to the class, and the test situation could be introduced in a relaxed atmosphere. The children's responses were recorded on tape.

Results and Discussion. The full results of the test are set out in Appendix D and presented graphically in Figure 4.2 for English and in Figure 4.3 for German. For neither group was there a significant effect from the structure of the argument of the second sentence. The results are therefore pooled. Figure 4.2 shows the res].llts for the English children contrasting the proportion of the use of it with animate and inanimate nouns across the three age groups, boys and girls taken separately. These results were analyzed statistically using a four-way chi-square analysis (Lienert, 1978). The four factors were the age of the children, the sex of.the children, the animacy of the referent and the pronoun used (inanimate or animate). The children in the youngest age group (5 - 6 years) and the 7- to 8-year-old girls made significantly fewer it references to the animate nouns and significantly more non-it references. The most common non-it pronoun used was he. The 9- to 10-year-old 100 Dlnonimate

c

~Animate

80

0

'" U J

-0 0

0. 60

." '0 0

'" 0

40

C 0

~

0

CL

20

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-L-

Boys Girls 5-6-year-olds

Boys Girls 7-8-year-olds

Boys Girls 9-10-year-olds

Fig. 4.2. Use of pronoun it by English children. A group of 72 children in three age

groups were tested for their use of pronoun forms with animate and inanimate referents. The production of it is indicated as a percentage in order to compare the influence of animacy of the referent across age. The other responses were uses of he and she

92

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

100 Dlnanimate

• " 0

~Animate

80

c 0 0

c 0

"-

60

U

• c c 0

u

'0 40

•rn 0

C

•u •

20

CL

0~~~~~7---~-L~~~--~~~~~-

Mosc.

Neut.

Mosc.

Neut.

Mosc.

Neut.

Fem.

Fem.

Fem.

5-6-year-olds

7-8-year-olds

9-10-year-olds

Fig. 4.3. Animacy and use of pronoun by German children. A group of 72 children in three age groups were tested for their use of pronouns with animate and inanimate referents. The production of the form matching the grammatical gender of the noun is indicated as a percentage in order compare the influence of animacy across age

boys and girls make significantly more it responses to inanimate nouns and fewer non-it references. The boys in this group made significantly fewer non-it responses to animates.

Figure 4.3 shows the results for the German children according to the gender of the noun and contrasting correct pronoun use between animate and in-

animate nouns across the age groups. Since there was no significant difference between boys and girls, the results were pooled. Use of the pronouns er, sie, es and the form derived from the article der, die, das were accepted as correct responses.

The German children in the age range tested are already performing at too high a level for any effect to be significant across the whole group. Only the results for 5- to 6-year-old children were analyzed on a one-way chi-square test. For this group, significantly more errors were made in the choice of the pronoun with the animate nouns than with the inanimate nouns (X 2 = 10.13; df = 2; p
The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

93

use of it is he. It is not clear whether this is being used in the generic sense. There is a systematic difference across all age groups between animate and inanimate nouns; the use of he for animate nouns is more frequent than the use of it in the 5- to 6-year-olds, but the use of he steadily decreases with the older children. The pronoun it would seem to be strongly associated with inanimacy by the younger children and gradually takes over the function of common gender pronoun for animates from the pronoun he. This would seem to reflect the one form-one function principle found in many other cases of acquisition (Karmiloff-Smith, 1979) .. The use of he with inanimate nouns reflects adults' use of this pronoun in a lively style (see pp. 23 - 26), which is relatively common in speech to children. The systematic increase in the use of it with age mirrors the use found in children's books reported earlier(pp. 55 - 57), in which the use of it increased with the age at which the text was directe4.,.,There is almost certainly a twoway interaction here between the speech of children and the input. The later acquisition of it in its common gender function goes against the hypothesis that this form in this function will be the first acquired since it is unmarked. The early use of he as the common gender and personification pronoun in reference to inanimates goes against Vachek's hypothesis that this form is 'emotionally marked' (see pp. 25 - 26) and so will be learned later. The choice of the sex-marked pronouns was affected by the noun in the animate group (see Appendix D). The nouns cat and mouse had the majority of the she references. The noun car, which is traditionally pronominalized with she if the inanimate pronoun is not used, did not have more she references than the other nouns. The use of he here may be linked to sex stereotypes associated with the referent. The association of particular referents with a sex will be explored in the following chapter. The German results have to be interpreted in terms of the role of grammatical gender. The finding in the experiment with gender assignment reported earlier became clearer here. More gender errors are made in the use of the pronouns with animate nouns than with inanimate nouns. The majority of errors were made with the neuter animate nouns Pferd 'horse' and Schwein 'pig', in that masculine or feminine, pronouns were used in reference to these

nouns. There was a consistent difference in the performance relating to the animate and inanimate nouns for the two younger age groups, although the number of errors decreased with age. There were no errors in the eldest group. The use of a pronoun which did not match the grammatical gender was classified as an error. This is not strictly correct in this case, however, since it

is possible in German to switch from grammatical gender to semantic gender in pronominal reference (see pp. 51 - 53). It is possibly that this behaviour should be interpreted in this light, rather than as an error of grammatical gender assignment. The fact that pronouns were under test here is significant, since this switch is permissible in pronoun use.

This interpretation ties in with Karmiloff-Smith's results (1979) with French children. She found that, in reference to nonce words referring to dolls

94

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

with natural gender, children commonly made the pronoun fit the semantic gender, whereas the article was selected according to formal properties of the noun. The saliency of natural gender in animate nouns appears to be high and competes with the grammatical gender in the younger children. This is also parallel to the finding with English children, since they also made more choices of a sex-specific pronoun with animate nouns. The English children are allowed more freedom of choice in terms of the rules of the system, however, since both it and a sex-specific pronoun are acceptable according to different grammatical rules. The choice of a sex-specific pronoun is, in adult grammar, appropriate in lively style, particularly when speaking to children. The children of 9 -10 years appear to have learned this stylistic differentiation and so avoid the use of he and she in the 'normal' context; they apply the it rule in conformity with adult usage. Support for the finding that English and German children avoid it or neuter gender with animate nouns comes from a second experiment which will be reported in detail in a later section. A group of 3- to 4-year-old children were asked to describe pictures in which people of different sex were depicted in order to elicit pronoun use. One of the items was a baby in which no sex could clearly be identified. This noun can be pronominalized with it in English; in German, the noun das Baby has neuter gender. Once the children had made one pronominal reference to the baby, they were then asked to identify the sex of the baby by giving it a name. Two further pronoun uses were elicited. It was found that, of the 32 English children tested, only one used the pronoun it to refer to the baby before sex specification; the other children all used a sexspecific pronoun, predominantly he. Of the 32 German children, seven used das to refer to the baby in accordance with the grammatical gender of the noun. The other children used a sex-marked pronoun immediately. Five 4year-olds and two 3-year-olds used the grammatically determined pronoun es, which, seen in the light of the experiment reported earlier, can be interpreted as a general increase with age towards grammatical gender. In general, natural

gender seems highly salient in these young children, since the majority make the sex-specific choice. To summarize: 5- to 6-year-old English and German children are influenced in their choice of pronouns by the animacy of the noun. The English children prefer a sex-marked pronoun to the impersonal it; the German children to some extent choose a sex-marked pronoun to refer to animate neuter nouns. Animacy is present as a notion for children learning both languages, although the possibility of its influencing linguistic behaviour in conformity with the grammatical rules is greater in English than in German. The German children conform to the rule of grammatical gender absolutely by age 9 and 10. The English children, too, adopt standard adult usage by this age, apparently having learned the stylistic differentiation between the use of it and sexmarked pronouns in this context. This assumption was explored further in the following experiment.

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

95

The Use of Pronouns Referring to Animates and Inanimates in an 'Animating' Context Compared in English Adults and in 9- to 10-Year-Old Children As was seen from the experimental results with pronoun use, the English children used the pronoun it for inanimate nouns over 90"70 of the time by the age of 9 and 10 years. As described earlier, (pp. 23 -26), in certain stylistic contexts, the personification rule applies; that is, the use of it is avoided in favour of the animate term he, which gives the possibility of associating animate qualities with the referent. In order to examine how sensitive children are to this 'animating' context, a te~t was designed to examine the use of pronouns in

such a context. AdUlts were also. tested for purposes of comparison. Method. The context was that of a children's story in which the nouns to be pronominalized referred to toys which ~pokeillld interacted with one another as if human. The nouns used comprised four inanimate and six animate, overlapping with the items tested in the previous experiment. Care was taken to avoid, as far as possible, personality characteristics or actions which might be associated with one sex and another and so prejudice the choice of pronoun. The task was to complete the blanks in a text constructed on the lines of a cloze test. A total of 55 blanks were included. Of these, 20 were inserted so that a pronominal reference to the nouns under test was appropriate, while the other 35 items were intended as distractors. Two references were included for each noun, since the cloze test procedure can never guarantee a response of the word class desired. The following excerpt illustrates the structure of the test (see Appendix E for the full text). 'How (13) a game of hide and seek?' suggested the pig, (14) _ _ _ _ the subject. 'I (15) know why you (16) to play that. You're much too fat to hide (17) " said the book and (18) looked at the pig disapprovingly. The pig hung (19) head in shame.

The adult subjects were 48 English native speakers: 24 male and 24 female aged between 15 and 71 years. The mean age of the men was 27 years and of the women, 23 years. All subjects were middle class, mainly with an academic background. The majority were resident or studying in the area of York. The subjects volunteered for the test and were seen individually in a room of the university by the author. The children tested were between 9 and 10 years of age, 24 boys and 24 girls. This age group was selected since the children in this group selected it for inanimate nouns in the majority of cases, meaning the deviation from this pattern could be more clearly observed. The children were all attending a junior school in the area of York and were selected from two parallel classes on the basis of parental consent and the age range under consideration.

96

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

The test was conducted as a group exercise by the experimenter in the presence of the class teacher. The experimenter was familiar to the children from previous visits to the school. The test was run in the two classes in subsequent teaching sessions to avoid possible discussion of the test content among the children. The tests were completed in an average time of 9 min for the adults and 15 min for the children. Results and Discussion. For scoring, the two responses for each noun were pooled. If one response was not a pronoun, the categorization was made according to the gender of the other response. If the responses included two different pronouns, they were allocated as 0.5 to the two categories. Figure 4.4 shows the responses in per cent for the adults and children, comparing the use of it with animate and inanimate nouns. The full results are given in Appendix

F. The results were analyzed using a four-way chi-square analysis. The effects of age, animacy of the noun and choice were shown to be significant. Sex of the subject was not significant. The children used it significantly less with the animate nouns than with the inanimate nouns. This applied also to the adults, who in general used significantly fewer it references than the children. 100

D'nanimate c

~Animate

80

.2

U 0

u

2

0.

60

'"a ill

en 40 0

C ill U

W

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

97

The adult subjects predominantly used a sex-marked pronoun with both animate and inanimate nouns, showing a clear effect of the stylistic context, although the animacy of the noun also affected their choice. The children did not yet conform to the adult norms, in that they used a sex-marked pronoun less than the adults. The frequent use of he in younger children would not therefore appear to be attributable to their using the personification rule in reaction to the context of their speech. Their use would seem to be rather a reflection of input. Whether he has the common gender sense or the sex-specific sense at this age remains an open question which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.

The 9- and 10-year-olds, showed a clear reaction to context, however. If these results are compared with those in Figure 4.2, the children make more use of a sex-marked pronoun and less use of it in the animated context. The children also reflect a difference between animate and inanimate nouns by using it more frequently for the inanima~es. As in the previous experiment, the choice of the sex-marked pronoun he or she was affected by the individual noun in the animate group. The pronoun he was predominant. The nouns cat and mouse had the majority of she references with both the children and the adults. The noun car did not have more she references than the other nouns with either adults or children. The fact that the adults do not show this use suggests that the use of the pronoun she with car, and possibly other vehicles and machines, is associated with a particular affective context, as Mathiot (1979) has suggested. This affective context is not present in the text. This question will be pursued in the next chapter. To summarize: the 9- to 10-year-old children do not react as strongly to the 'animated context' as the adults. They are still strongly attached to the grammatical rules which give the pronoun it the function of denoting inanimacy and common gender. It was seen from the previous study that these rules are well established by this age. It appears that the children have not learned to use the personification rule to as great an extent as adults. Both children and adults, however, use the personification rule to a greater extent with animates than with inanimates. Control of the personification rule is acquired after the age of 10.

Q.

20

Summary and Conclusions oL-~~~~~~~~~~

Boys

Girls

Men

Women

___

Fig. 4.4. Use of the pronoun it in an 'animated context', A group of 48 children (9-10 years) and 48 adults were tested for their use of pronouns with inanimate and animate

referents in an 'animated' context. Their responses, as part of a doze test, are presented as the percentage of it productions in order to compare the influence of animacy in children and adults on the production of this form; the other responses were he or she. This table can be compared with Table 4.2 for use in a non-'animated' context

A collation of the findings from the longitudinal data and the experimental results shows quite clearly that, in respect of the acquisition of the gender system, animacy is a significant factor in both English and German and is acquired early. In English, younger children make a strong association between the pronoun form it and inanimacy as distinct from the other pronoun forms he and she for animates. The common gender function is only gradually assigned to it. In German, the association of animacy with masculine and feminine genders, and then by implication inanimacy with neuter gender, affects

98

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

children in acquisition so that they avoid the neuter gender for animate nouns, particularly in the selection of pronouns. It has been found that, by the age of 9 or 10 years, German children conform to the rules of grammatical gender. At the same age, English children also show that the rules associating it with inanimacy and common gender function are well established. These rules appear to be so well established that the children cannot forsake them to use the personification rule. It appears as though this rule has to be built up around this age. It could not have been the conceptual basis for the behaviour of the younger children, when they predominantly used he instead of it. The use of sex-marked pronouns in younger children would appear to be in association with the natural gender rule and not related, for the children, to any particular style. An important influence here must be input, since language directed at younger children contains more uses of he than language directed at older children. The investigations have shown that animacy influences the behaviour of German children in their acquisition of gender, but its influence rarely leads the children to make mistakes. Their behaviour is dominated by the conventional formal rules. In English, there is more scope for animacy to influence behaviour, and its influence is correspondingly greater.

Acquisition of the Natural Gender Rule Hypotheses As was shown in the previous section, the animacy distinction is learned early

in both languages; the use of the demonstrative pronoun illustrated this clearly. In German, it is not clear that this is the basis for the acquisition of other gender-marked forms. The different rule structure related to animacy in the two languages had a strong influence on the areas in which animacy affected acquisition; German children were affected far less than English children by the animacy distinction. The natural gender rule, on the other hand, is the clearest semantic rule which occurs in both languages. A study of this rule will enable a clearer comparison of the two languages from the point of view of the relevance of structural factors on acquisition. The natural gender rule is based on the perception of sex distinctions in the real world. If it is assumed that this perception occurs independently of language (see Beit-Hallahmi et aI., 1974, for an alternative view), then the linguistic mapping of the gender concept is dependent on the acquisition of the concept. English and German speakers would seem to have a similar enough culture for it to be assumed that the cognitive notion would be acquired at a similar rate. A prerequisite for the learning of the natural gender rule is the same in both languages. Levy (1983) claims that cognitive notions of gender are not exploited by young children in the acquisition of the gender system. In a comparison of the

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

99

data on gender acquisition from several languages, she concludes that the coucept is not salient, and therefore, the natural gender rule is not learned early. Early acquisition of gender systems is possible where there are formal rules, whether phonetic or morphological. She writes: Thus there is evidence that generalizations regarding gender that are found in early grammars concern the formal non-semantic properties of linguistic gen-

der. On the other hand, children age 2 - 3 seem not to take advantage of

whatever understanding they possess regarding cognitive gender distinctions in working out the intricacies of the linguistic system. Their inability to see the linguistic applicability of gender notions is probably another aspect of the lack of cognitive clarity and cognitive salience of gender at this young age. (1983, p. 91)

The study presented here will allow this claim to be tested, that is, the claim of whether one can speak of a "lack of cognitive clarity and cognitive salience of gender" as a universal applying to the learners of all languages and whether the natural gender rule is learned late and independently of the structures with which the concept is linked. As was discussed earlier, the natural gender rule is embedded in German in a multitude of other rules and would appear to be less accessible to the learner than the natural gender rule in English around which the whole system of gender is based. One could therefore predict that English children will learn this rule more quickly than German children. On the other hand, the natural gender rule has been shown to be clearly significant for German adults in their use of language (see pp. 53 - 55), so that its saliency in German may be greater than it first appears. It will be seen what effect these factors have on the relative speed of acquisition of the natural gender rule in the two languages. Within the acquisition of the natural gender rule in both languages, the markedness theory of Greenberg (1966a) discussed in an earlier section (see pp. 9-11) makes the prediction that forms marking male gender will be learned earlier than those marking female gender, since the former are unmarked. Deutsch and Pechmann (1978) found a discrepancy between the production of dative pronouns in German; ihm 'to him' was produced more frequently than ihr 'to her'. They drew on Greenberg'S markedness distinction to

explain this difference. This claim can be examined for English and German in the light of the collected material. Observational Acquisition Data Data from spontaneous utterances in German show that very few errors are made, even by 2-year-old children, in the use of the articles with nouns of natural gender. Only one such error was recorded, from Hanna, who produced "die Opa (masc.) 'grandpa'. Georg produced "die Kind which was a grammatical gender error in the direction of natural gender, since he knew that the

100

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

child was female. The use of the article with proper names is very common in children's speech, and here, too, usage was error free. It could be argued that this use is learned by rote, but the very small number of errors suggests that the rnle is learned early. No errors in pronoun use were found. Experimental testing will help clarify this question. In English, data from spontaneous utterances collected by Chiat (1978) from 2- to 4-year-old children show a varying pattern of usage. In the crosssectional study made of 48 children between 1;11 and 4;5, only 15 showed use of gender-marked forms. One child (2;8) used only male forms for female referents; another child (4;0) used both indiscriminately. Among the other children, there was an "inconsistent overextension of the masculine form female

referents" (1978, p. 120). In the longitudinal study made of ten children between the ages of 2;1 and 4;1, a varying pattern of usage was again recorded. One child used only masculine forms until the end of observation at 4; 1, although he used the terms boy and girl correctly. The other children mainly extended the masculine form to female referents. Two children showed they had the distinction, but not the paradigm; of these, one used her for female referents and he and she for male referents, the other child used only the form her for female referents. The clear general pattern from this study of production is a partial acquisition only of the natural gender rule by the age of 4. Brener (1983) studied the comprehension of pronouns of 42 English children aged 3 - 5 years. She showed the children a cartoon picture containing four figures: the Speaker, the Addressee and two Others. The Speaker in the picture would produce an utterance which contained a pronominal reference to one of the four figures. The children, having heard the utterance, would be asked to identify the person referred to in the utterance. When the gendermarked forms were tested, the two Others would be of different sex so that differentiation on the basis of gender was essential. For example, a child hearing the utterance "I want to give it to him" would be expected to identify the male Other in the picture as the referent of him. Brener found very few errors in the comprehension of the gender-marked pronouns: 16"10 at the first time of testing, 9% 4 months later. Only one child (3;1) had consistent problems; the other children made inconsistent errors. There was no significant difference between masculine and feminine pronouns in the correctness of their interpretation. Brener also found that the younger children used gender as the basis of their selection of speaker and addressee, if they were having problems in this area. Thus, if the addressee in a situation was of the same gender as the person having the role of Other, the addressee was often mistakenly identified as the referent for the third person pronoun. Gender appeared to be a highly salient feature for the interpretation of the situation.

Baron and Kaiser (1975) also found that children between 3 and 5 years had little difficulty in understanding the gender-marked pronouns in English compared with the other pronouns, although their results differ from Brener's in other respects. They found, for example, no difference in the point of ac-

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

101

quisition of first, second and third person singular pronouns; Brener found early acquisition of first and second person compared with third person. She attributes the difference to errors in procedure on the part of Baron and Kaiser (see Brener, 1986). When an error was made with a third person pronoun in Baron and Kaiser's task, however, the most frequent mistake was to interpret the pronoun as being of the other gender; that is, he was most often confused with she and vice versa. Like Brener, they also found that gender was frequently the basis of the wrong interpretation of other pronouns. To summarize: In German, the natural gender rule appears to influence production of the articles from an early age. Comprehension and production appear to be affected by the part of speech under test. In English, comprehension is influenced by the natural gender rule from the age of 3, but production of the pronouns still appears to be full of errors at the age of 4. This was investigated further using an experimental task.

The Use of Pronouns Referring to Sex-Marked Persons in a Production Task by 3- to 4-Year-Old English and German Children Method. In each language group, sixteen 3-year-olds and sixteen 4-year-olds were tested (English: 3-year-olds, x = 3;8, 4-year-olds, x = 4;6; German: 3year-aIds, x = 3;6, 4-year-olds, x = 4;6). The age groups were equally divided between boys and girls. The English children were all attending a playschool in North England. The German children were all attending a state kindergarten in Southern Germany. Among those children for whom parental permission had been obtained for testing, a selection was made to achieve an even spread across the age range and an equal distribution between the sexes. All the children tested came from a predominantly middle-class background. The author as experimenter was familiar to the children from numerous visits to the playschool. The children were tested individually in a room near the group room; they were fetched by the experimenter and introduced to the task as part of a game. The test material consisted of six pictures of individual people in a situation. The people represented included three children,. one baby, one man and one woman. The children were shown a picture of the person and were asked what was in the picture. With the exception of the baby item, a sex-specific answer was required. Again, with the exception of the baby item, the child was asked to think of a name for the person. This was required, since, in testing the German children, it would be impossible to ask questions about the person without formally cueing the gender through the use of the definite article; with a proper name, this can be avoided. The child was then asked questions about the person until two pronoun uses were observed. The next picture was then presented. The questions were formulated so as to elicit predominantly pronouns in subject function, as in "what is the man doing?". The pictures were presented in random order for each child, with a warm-up item initially. With

102

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

the baby item, questioning began after the identification of the person as a baby until one pronoun reference was made. The child was then asked to specify the sex of the baby and questioning continued as for the other items. The first pronoun uses for this item were reported in the preceding section; only the sex-specific uses are analyzed here. An example is given of a test sequence in each language to make the procedure clear: English, Zoe (4:8): Experimenter shows a picture of a child wearing a dress who is in a field

col~

lecting flowers, grasses etc. E: What's this? (pointing to the person) Zoe: It's a girl cos be's wearing a dress. E: Can you think of a name for the girl?

Table 4.7. Production of gender-marked pronouns in English and German cbildren

Child Age

3

4

Pronoun used for

Sex

E: Where does Elizabeth put the flowers? Zoe: In the basket. E: What is Elizabeth wearing? (pointing to hat)

Zoe: a ... a hat, he got a hat on. Experimenter presents the next test picture.

Language

Boys

English

Girls

German English German

Boys

Zoe: Elizabeth. E: What is Elizabeth doing in the picture? Zoe: She's pulling up flowers.

103

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

English German

Girls

English German

Male referent

Female referent

M

F

M/F

M

F

M/F

22 23

0 0 1 0 0 0

3 2 10 3

2 0 3 0 4 0

14 22 16 21 16 23 22 20

7

8

21 23 24 22 24

0

0

2

0 1 0

1

0

1 10 3 3 1 2 4

Note. A group of 64 German and English children divided equally into age, sex and language groups were tested for their production of gender-marked pronouns for male and female referents. Two pronoun uses were obtained for each referent; these are categorized as one response: as M (masculine), F feminine) or M/F (mixed usage).

German, Andreas (3:7): Experimenter shows a picture of a man leading a horse across a field. E: Was ist das? (pointing to the person) Andreas: 'n Mann. E: Kannst Du Dir einen Namen fUr den Mann ausdenken? Andreas: mm ... Herr Pohl.

E: Was macht Herr Pohl in dem Bild? Andreas: Der lauft mit dem Pferd. E: Wo geht Herr Pohl hin, meinst Du? Andreas: Nach Hause geht er, zum Bauernhof. Experimenter shows next picture.

Results and Discussion. The results of the test are presented in Table 4.7. The responses of the children are categorized in respect of the referent. Since the children differed to some extent in their sex specification of the children and baby in the pictures, the sums of the responses under the heading male and female referent differ. Taken together, the total responses for each language/ age/sex group is always 48. The two pronouns produced are categorized as one response; as masculine (M) where both pronouns were of masculine gender, as feminine (F) where both pronouns were of feminine gender and as mixed (M/F) where one pronoun was masculine and the other feminine. In German, the use of the definite article in pronoun function was accepted as a response. The results are presented in sex groups, since this was observed to be

a relevant factor. The results were analyzed using a five-way chi-square analysis.

The 3-year-old English girls made significantly more errors on both male and female referents. The English boys in both age groups made significantly more errors with female referents. The German children showed no effects attributable to age, sex or gender of the referent. For the discussion of individual effects, the results are presented in graphic form in Figure 4.5. (The columns represent the percentage of correct pronoun usage.) The English subjects show no overall effect of the subject's sex. Both boys and girls made a similar number of errors but, as can be seen from Figure 4.5, the distribution of errors was different. Significantly more errors were made with female referents than with male referents (X 2 = 10.85; p <0.001). The English 3-year-olds made significantly more errors than the 4year-olds (X' = 11.38; p <0.001). The difference between the English and German children was highly significant, the English children making more errors than the German children (X'= 30.11; p
104

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

100

"w

"c

DGerman

80

0 0-

~Eng(ish

"~ U 60 w

"" u 0

a w

40

'"

0

cw 2w

£L

20

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Male Female Male Female referent referent referent referent 3-year-olds 4-year-olds

Fig. 4.5. Production of sex-marked pronouns by English and German children. A group of 64 German and English children divided equally into age, sex and language groups were tested for their production of gender-marked pronouns for male and female referents. The values in the graph 'indicate the percentage of correct pronoun usage. The two pronoun uses for each referent are evaluated here separately (compare Table 4.7)

4-year-olds, but the majority of these are in the mixed category. Of the consistent errors, there was only one instance of she being used for a male referent, but ten instances of he being used for a female referent. Fewer errors are made in general with the male referents, which indicates a generalized used of he, as Chiat (1978) observed in spontaneous utterances. There was a clear effect of the child's sex, however, in that the 3-year-olds overgeneralized the use of their own sex pronoun. In English, there appears to be a complex of factors which affects the acquisition of the gender-marked pronouns: the sex of the child, which is influential at the age of 3; a general tendency to overgeneralize he, possibly through the influence of the generic he; and the nature of the task, whereby production appears to be retarded compared with comprehension. In respect of the claim that unmarked forms (the masculine pronoun) will be acquired before the marked ones (the feminine pronoun), only the English children show evidence that this might be the case. The German children are performing at too high a level, even at the age of 3 years, for any significant difference to be observed. There are marginally more errors found when the

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

105

children are referring to a female referent, that is, when they should be using the feminine pronoun, than when they are referring to a male referent. With the English children, there is a clear difference, with fewer errors being made for the male referent. The masculine pronoun he is also overgeneralized to the female referent. If markedness affects production in this case, it can only be one factor among several, since the performance between German and English children is so different. Comparing the German children with the English children, German children are clearly in advance in their production of the masculine and feminine pronouns. The German children have already achieved a high performance level by the age of 3 years. Levy's claim (1983) that children of this age make little use of the cognitive concept of gender and therefore learn the natural gender rule late is therefore contradicted by these results. MacWhinney (1978) (see pp. 83 - 84), whose results Levy uses in her argument, tested German children's use of the semantic rule based on natural gender and concluded that the children made very little use of the rule. However, in the test battery of real and nonsense words, which contained items referring to male and female referents, he also included items referring to people and animals of indeterminate gender in order to test whether the children would assign the latter neuter gender. In so doing, the common gender rule is confounded with the natural gender rule. MacWhinney pooled the results for these items and for the natural gender items under the heading of 'semantic rules', so that it is therefore not possible to draw conclusions about the use of the natural gender rule as defined in this study. MacWhinney also chose nonsense words to test, which in some cases had an association with a particular gender on the basis of phonetic form. As a result, the semantic cue was in some cases in conflict with the phonetic cue. This makes it almost impossible to interpret his results in any sensible way. B5hme (B5hme & Levelt, 1979; B5hme, 1983) tested the comprehension of the possessive gender-marked pronouns in German with children from age 3 upwards. She compared comprehension with referents having natural gender and referents having syntactic gender. The children were presented with three dolls for the natural gender task: a male doll, a female doll and a pig (unspecified gender and neuter syntactic gender). Each doll had a coloured bow round its neck, and the children were asked to complete the sentence with the correct colour. Thus, Ihre Schleife is! ... ? 'her bow is .. .' should be completed by the colour of the bow on the female doll, whereas Seine Schleife ist ... 'his/its bow is .. .' should be completed with the colour of the male doll or pig. For the syntactic gender task, the three objects der Warfel 'the dice', die GiejJkanne 'the watering can', and das Boot 'the boat' were of different colours and the children were asked to complete the sentence Ihre/Seine Farbe ist ... 'her/his/its colour is .. .'.30 It will be noted that the possessive pronoun sein is appropriate for masculine and neuter genders. 30

Footnote 30 see page 106.

106

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

The children produced more correct responses in the syntactic gender task than in the natural gender task, against Bohme's own predictions. She proposes that the phonetic properties of the three inanimate nouns used in the test may have affected the results. The feminine nouns has the ending -e, which is associated with feminine gender as discussed earlier. The ending -e/ is associated with masculine or neuter gender, 28 and Boot could be either masculine or neuter according to formal properties, but not feminine. The sample is too small, however, to be sure of the claim. Other evidence from Bohme's study suggest that the children were aware of the natural gender rule, even though the results of the comprehension task do not show that clearly. The same children were tested on their awareness of relationships between forms and gender by being asked to explain why it is correct to say, for example, ihre Farbe 'its (fem.) colour' when talking about the watering can, but seine Farbe 'its (masc.) colour' when talking about the dice. Here, the children showed more awareness of the natural gender rule (Bohme, 1983, pp. 238 - 239) than of the syntactic gender rule. An individual child was more likely to produce an explanation for the natural gender items than for the syntactic gender items. Explanations for the syntactic gender items were often related to natural gender in various ways. One child constructed a family of dice to explain the male members of the family der Wiirfel. 31 It is not clear why the results on the comprehension task show this discrepancy with awareness, and Bohme offers the explanation that phonetic factors possibly swung the balance in the direction of the syntactic gender items, since these were not matched by similar factors in the natural gender items. The result may be related, however, to the particular part of speech under test. Mulford (1985) found a significant difference in a similar experiment with Icelandic according to the part of speech tested. The possessive pronouns did not produce such a high performance level as subject or object pronouns, for instance. The results of Deutsch and Pechmann (1978) also showed a later acquisition of the production of pronouns in dative case compared with pronouns in predominantly nominative case. One cannot conclude, therefore, that the natural gender rule has not been learned by examining only one part of speech. The correct use of the part of speech may be learned later owing to other factors, such as the case marking, and not reflect the late acquisition of the natural gender rule per se. This interaction of the part of speech and rule reflects the complexity of the acquisition process; children are not able to apply a rule in every instance across the board. 30

This task imposes a functional load (contrastive reference) on the gender~marked forms in connection with syntactic gender which they can usually only carry in con~ nection with natural gender, as reported earlier (see pp. 39-41). The task in GerM man is therefore pragmatically questionable. It is not known whether this restriction

31

applies to other languages. The metalinguistic insight appears to be established early in other languages with an extensive system of grammatical gender. Taeschner's book on bilingualism in children, The Sun is Feminine, (1983) takes its title from such an anecdote.

The Acquisition of Semantic Rules in English and German

107

Mulford also reports on longitudinal data from Icelandic (Pitlsdottir, 1982). Here, the natural gender rule was acquired early, as with the German children. Correct use of gender-marked forms with semantic gender nouns reached the 100"70 level between 2;11 and 3;0 with one particular child; with other nouns, the 100% level was reached between 3;1 and 3;2. It seems unlikely that gender should be cognitively clearer and more salient for Icelandic children than for the children Levy reviewed. Mulford argues that the different results which have been obtained for different languages can be explained by the varying regularities in the languages concerned. Some languages may have clearer phonetic rules than semantic rules, so that the semantic rules are

learned later, as Levy wanted to claim for all languages. Some languages have clearer semantic than phonetic rules, so that the phonetic rules would be learned later. The findings here for German support this conclusion, in that the German children learned the natural gender rule early, like the Icelandic children. It does not, however, explain w\)y English children should be behind German children in this respect, since they have no competing phonetic rules. This will now be explored. The German children'S advantage over English children can be attributed to two main factors: the extensive system of gender marking and the formal distinctiveness of the pronouns. The fact that the natural gender rule is embedded among other rules for the German children appears to have no negative effect on their learning of the rule. It would rather appear that the extensive system of grammatical gender marked on many different parts of speech gives the German child more opportunity to seek regularities in the system and to learn to produce these forms accurately. The fact that the natural rule applies only to third person pronouns in English, which are learned later than the articles etc., means that English children literally have less practice in producing the gender-marked forms. The form of gender marking is also relevant here. Firstly, German children commonly use the definite article in the pronoun function, as do many adults in spoken German: for example, der hat's gemacht 'he did it' as an alternative to er hat's gemacht. This formal identity between the pronoun in this case and the article will make it easier to find the pronoun form appropriate for a particular noun (Peters, 1986). Secondly, the actual pronouns are also phonetically similar to the articles, der and er(masc.) as opposed to die and sie (fern.); the two genders are thus phonetically distinct. The phonetic similarity of the gender-marked pronouns in English in subject case, he and she, and the similarity of he with the feminine her may cause difficulty in learning to produce these forms. Several children only used the her form for the feminine pronoun, as in her got a handbag; the similarity with he through the initial consonant may mean that they are perceived as being in free variation, which would account for the mixed usage. Phonetic problems can be seen as influencing acquisition in other areas (see Karmiloff-Smith, 1978). The use by adults of generic he may also be a source of confusion for the English children. Utterances from older children indicate that the generic use

108

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

of he is quite common. When the child has already made a female sex specification, he is sometimes used 'erroneously' apparently in this generic sense. For example, when talking about a ball to which he had given a female name, a lO-year-old child said I didn't think a boy's name would suit him much. A 7year-old child said of a toy elephant if it was a girl, I'd name him Alison. The double function of he could lead to an overgeneralization of the form in younger children, which might explain the better performance with this pronoun in general. Pronouns in German which refer to an entity with natural gender can take on more functions than those referring to items with grammatical gender only (see pp. 39 - 41). These additional functions may make the natural gender rule perceptually more salient and thus contribute towards the natural gender rule being acquired relatively quickly. As was mentioned above, there is in German a strong link in adult usage between grammatical gender and natural gender. Utterances from German children indicate that this link exists from an early age, as B6hme's (1983) metalinguistic data also showed. As was reported earlier, a boy (6;8) was corrected by his mother for saying *das Kran (masc.) 'crane' and replied ich sage das Kran, es is! doch kein Bub 'I say the (neut.) crane, it isn't a boy'. The boy is clearly making the link between the masculine definite article der and male sex. Another German boy (6;10) said of a toy [Maus (fern.)] das ist aber kein Mddchen. Man kann auch sagen der Maus. The child wanted the mouse to be a boy, but the article had to fit in terms of gender. The form der Maus does actually appear in the paradigm in dative case, which may make this jump easier. The rapid acquisition of the natural gender rule and the metalinguistic evidence of its existence can well be due to its importance in adult usage. The difference that was found between English and German children was in the area of production. From previous research, English children appear to comprehend the gender distinction in the third person pronouns quite reliably around the age of 3 years, and yet in the production experiment they made many errors, similar to those observed in spontaneous utterances. Here then, there is a clear difference between production and comprehension, which supports those who have established distinct models for the two processes (e.g. Schlesinger, 1977). Such models have supporting evidence from other sources: Deutsch and Jarvella (1983) in a series of experiments have indicated some significant differences between the two processes. The English children here are clearly aware of the concept of gender, and this concept is associated with the linguistic forms when these forms have to be interpreted. When the children have to use this information to make a choice as to the person referred to, they can abstract the information correctly. In the process of production, however, the pronoun rarely carries a functional load clarifying reference solely on the basis of gender; reference is usually clear from contextual or other linguistic information, so that the child is not pressured into making this distinction clear in production. In German, the child has, by the age of three, been producing gender-marked forms for a longer period, since marking occurs on ar-

Implications for Explanatory Theories in Child Language Acquisition

109

ticles, adjectives etc. so that at this age, production is not behind comprehension.

Summary and Conclusions In conclusion, it has been shown that German 3- and 4-year-old children are in advance of English children of the same age in their production of gendermarked pronouns, based on the natural gender rule. Some formal properties of the pronoun forms, the fact that German children are exposed to the whole gender system from an early age, and the importance of the rule in adult usage would appear to facilitate the perception of this regularity in the system and the production of the related forms. In English, only pronouns are marked for gender, and these are learned later than articles and adjectives, which in German are also marked for gender. Thus, El'glish children are confronted with a system for which they have to find a regularity later than. German children. This reduced contact with the system, together with some formal difficulties, can explain the later mastering of the forms. Considering acquisition within each language, there is only experimental evidence from the English children that the unmarked forms, that is the masculine, may be learned before the marked, that is feminine, forms. The German children are already performing at too high a level for this to be observable. In the English children of age 3, the sex of the child appears to facilitate acquisition of the corresponding form: Girls learn feminine forms first, and boys, masculine forms. Again, this was not observable for the German children. These results show that the structure of the system to be learned in terms of the extent of the system, the parts of speech involved and the activity the child is engaged in, comprehension or production, affects the acquisition of the marking of concept. The concept of gender is present early, but language cannot be so tightly bound to cognition that the presence of a concept will assure rapid acquisition of all the corresponding linguistic structures.

Implications for Explanatory Theories in Child Language Acquisition The Interaction of Formal and Semantic Rules in Acquisitiou There are two opposing theoretical standpoints in theories of language acquisition which place different emphasis on the role of semantics and that of formalar structural principles in acquisition. According to the principles of acquisition formulated by Siobin (1973; 1986b) or by the support of the 'semantic primacy' principle (e.g. van der Geest, 1978; Gleitman, 1981), a regularity

110

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

in the language which has its basis in meaning will be acquired before formal principles which are within the language system only. The importance of semantics in the first instance is formulated by Slobin in terms of an operating principle which deals with the analysis of function words or segments: OP-FUNCTORS: If a speech segment remains uninterpreted after the establishment of content words and routines, try to map it onto an accessible grammaticizable Notion that is relevant to the meaning of adjacent referential units in the situation in which the speech segments occur. If you succeed, store such a nonreferential relational unit "functor" with its meaning and

its placement in relation to associated linguistic units and their meanings.

(Slobin, 1986b) The grammaticizable notions to which Slobin refers are seen as the limited set of concepts which languages make use of in their closed class of grammatical forms. The implication is that these notions are more easily accessible for the child. It is not clear what the arguments for the privileged cognitive status of these notions might be, unless like Pinker, it is assumed they are innate: The child is assumed to encode a small number of semantically identifiable and linguistically relevant features of each utterance, such as its tense and aspect, and the number, person, gender, animacy, humanness, and the like, of each of its arguments. The child is assumed to know innately that this small set of features is the linguistically relevant subset of the many features that can be perceived to be true of the referents of an utterance, for instance, temperature, colour, size, etc. (1982, p. 687)

The argumeuts for their existence come mainly from comparative grammar (Talmy, 1978, 1983, 1986) and from cross-linguistic investigation. Natural gender would apparently be one of these notions which could be abstracted from the meaning of the nouu in order to analyze the articles or pronouns marked for gender. Slobin explicitly subordinates formal rules to semantic rules in the formulation of the following principle: OP: MORPHOLOGICAL PARADIGMS (b). If you cannot find semantic grounds for choice of functor, check the citation forms of the associated words or stems and try to differentiate them on systematic phonological grounds. If you succeed, set up a paradigm in which choice of functor is con~

ditioned by the phonological shape of the citation form. (1986b) In relation to geuder, such an approach makes the prediction that, for example, the natural gender rule, if present in a particular language, would be acquired before any phonetic rules. Kopcke's hierarchy of gender assignment

Implications for Explanatory Theories in Child Language Acquisition

111

To prove this hypothesis, it would have to be shown that the child always learns semantically based rules more quickly than formal rules independent of the structure of the language concerned. To disprove the semantic primacy hypothesis, on the other hand, it would suffice for the child to learn some formal rules prior to semautic rules where both exist in a particular language. Pinker (1982, p. 678) presents a weaker form of the semantic primacy hy, pothesis which he calls "semantic boot-strapping". According to this hypothesis, a classification is begun on semantic grounds and extended in the light of further evidence to formal principles. It appears impossible to describe the data which would be conclusive evidence that formal rules are learned before semautic rules are correctly applied. The possibility cannot be excluded that the semantic notions have helped the child start to look for regularities, but that the formal principles immediately dominate. In other words, the semantic boot-strapping need not be observable. Although the boot-strapping explanation is plausible, under close scrutiny it is so weak that it becomes uninteresting. As discussed above (p. 62), Maratsos and Chalkley (1980) argue against the notion of semantic primacy. They maintain that semantic rules together withdistributional patterns, their "semantic-distributional patterns", are used by children to build up the notion of geuder. They argue that children can quickly learn such patterns and by hearing one term of the pattern can induce the other related forms. They write:

a

We conclude that children find it natural to define the formal units for se~ mantic~distributional pattern according partly to the appearance of terms in other distributional-semantic patterns. Such abilities suit them well for for~ mulating the generalizations implicit in human languages. (1980, p. 151)

Maratsos and Chalkley appear to claim that it is as easy for a child to learn a gender.system which has arbitrary assignment of gender as it is to learn a system based on semantic rules. The evidence from acquisition presented in the preceding sections indicates that neither standpoint is absolutely correct. The natural gender rule, as marked in the personal pronouus in subject fuuction,"was seen to be well established in German-speaking children at the age of3 years. Furthermore, in this early stage of the acquisition of gender, German children appear to be using a phonetic rule (-e--+fem.) in the production of feminine gender nouns. It caunot be clearly shown that the acquisition of the semantic rule precedes the acquisition of the formal rule; rather, the acquisition of the two seems to run parallel. It is questionable whether one can talk of the acquisition of the natural

before other kinds of rules (see pp. 34 - 36) in accordance with the semantic

gender rule in absolute terms, since, as was seen from the experimental evidence, acquisition was well advanced for personal pronouns in subject function, but in the dative and possessive function, errors were still being made at

primacy viewpoint.

the age of 3.

rules, if seen as transferable to acquisition, would also order semantic rules

112

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

These findings also go against the claim of Maratsos and Chalkley that patterns are easily acquired. It was shown that the definite article was correct in its form more quickly than the indefinite article; as has just been described, the function of the pronouns appears to affect the speed of acquisition. In a gender system as complex as that of the German language, it apparently takes a considerable amount of time to establish the relationship between the forms occurring with different nouns, that is, the concept of gender paradigms. The order of acquisition of rules for gender assignment apparently depends on the status of the rule in the gender system. The first phonetic rule to be learned in German is the rule with the greatest scope and proportionally the fewest exceptions. The semantic rule of natural gender is also learned early for certain forms; it is also a rule which has a considerable salience for adult German speakers and comparatively few exceptions. Evidence from other languages which had previously been used to support one or the other theoretical standpoint can be interpreted in these terms. So, for example, Clark (1986) reports that Spanish-speaking children quickly learn to categorize nouns according to the endings of the noun, -0 (masculine) and -a (feminine), and to associate these with a particular form of the article. They will also regularize nouns which do not fit this pattern, so for example making una flor into una 'flora. Hebrew (Berman, 1986) also has a fairly clear system of formal gender marking in its two genders. Levy (1983) reports that these formal rules are learned before the natural gender rule. The phonetic regularities are also clear in Polish, discussed in an earlier section (p. 83), and are learned early. Tucker, Lambert, Rigault and Segalowitz (1968) and Tucker, Lambert and Rigault (1977) found a range of phonetic properties of French words which correlate with a particular gender. They reported that young French children used these rules in gender assignment. Clark (1986) also reports that French children use these properties to select the correct form of the article by age 3. No details are given, however, of any order of acquisition. It can be concluded, therefore, that where languages have phonetic rules· which have a large scope and a comparatively low number of exceptions, these rules will be learned early. This need not, however, be interpreted as being due to a greater salience of formal rules over semantic rules in general, but rather to the clarity of a particular rule over another. Karmiloff-Smith's work (1979, pp. 148 -169) has been interpreted as showing that phonetic rules dominate semantic rules (e.g. Pinker, 1985). She conducted detailed experiments with gender assignment in French nouns, using experimental situations in which there was a conflict between the natural gender of the referent (for example, an obviously female Martian figure) and the invented name for this figure in terms of its phonetic ending (in this case bicron, where the ending -on is associated with masculine gender). She found that 4-year-old children closely followed the phonetic cue in their selection of the article, but they used the semantic principle in selecting the pronoun. She also found that the children could make use of the semantic information in

Implications for Explanatory Theories in Child Language Acquisition

113

selecting the article if no phonetic cue was available. It seems as though, for the endings she tested, the phonetic rules are dominant over the semantic rule. This possibly indicates a difference in the basis of acquisition for articles and for pronouns. It is necessary to qualify Karmiloff-Smith's results with the phrase 'for the endings she tested', since it is not clear that the dominance of phonetic rules over semantic rules would always hold. On detailed examination of the actual test words, there emerges even here a considerable variation in the strength of the association between the endings and the gender, which is related to the number of words the rule can apply to in the adult lexicon. For example, the ending on [3] (excluding [j 3] is associated with masculine gender in 88"70 of the cases; the ending [€Il] is associated with feminine gender in only 52"70 of the cases (the figures here are based on the analysis of Tucker et aI., 1977). The first ending is present in 722 nouns, whereas the second occurs in only 272. Therefore, it would seem for th,e adult speaker that the first rule has greater clarity than the second. The point to be made here is that it cannot be claimed absolutely that phonetic rules dominate semantic rules, but it has been shown that they can dominate. The evidence from Icelandic (Mulford, 1985), which has been discussed above, showed an early acquisition of the natural gender rule, although phonetic rules exist in the language. Mulford accounts for this by the fact that the phonetic rules in Icelandic are made less clear through the plurifunctionality of the endings; for example, -a marks feminine nominative singular and weak masculine oblique singular. Mulford argues that the different results which have been obtained for different languages, that is, the dominance of formal rules over semantic rules or vice versa, can be explained by the varying regularities in the languages concerned, particularly by the varying correlations between noun endings and gender. She writes: "The acquisition data suggest that there are differences in the strengths and patternings of these correlations ... that may be important enough to have major consequences for the very nature of early gender systems" (1985, p. 451). In conclusion, an interaction between semantic and formal rules must be postulated which depends not on the categorization of the rules as semantic or formal, but rather on the relative 'clarity' of the rules in question within the gender system. The absolute dominance of semantic or phonetic principles at any stage cannot be upheld independently of the kind of linguistic structures to be acquired. This conclusion can obviously be extended to acquisition of other systems within language. Predictions on the order and speed of acquisition would then be based on the notion of 'clear rule', which will be briefly discussed in the following section.

114

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

Summary and Conclusions

115

The Relative Notion of 'Clear Rnle'

direction [compare the far more detailed proposals of Slobin (1986b) with the more global hypotheses of Slobin (1973)] on the basis of broad cross-linguistic

There are several factors which can determine how clear a rule or gender-

evidence.

assigning principle may be in the system to be learned by the child. Firstly, as mentioned above, there are categorial rules of gender assignment which allow no exceptions and which, in the adult system, are affected in their clarity only by the number of nouns to which the rule applies. Associative gender assignment rules, that is, those where groups of nouns with a common formal or semantic property are associated with a certain gender but where considerable numbers of exceptions exist, are affected by both the scope of the rule in the lexicon and the proportional number of exceptions. The influence of these two factors emerged clearly in the consideration of phonetic rules in German. Another possible factor which has not been explored in this set of studies is the status of the lexical items involved. As discussed earlier (pp. 29 - 30), Zubin and Kopcke (1983) suggested that exceptions to rules are more easily tolerated in the core and periphery. The status of these exceptions would then interact with the other factors such as the number of exceptions. Factors based on linguistic description contribute towards defining the clarity of a rule in terms of the number of items affected by a rule etc. The functions associated with a rule and the status of rules in adults' usage are also important factors. As was discussed in earlier chapters, the natural gender rule in German would not appear to be particularly 'clear' on the basis of the number of items affected and the number of exceptions to the rule. However, it is related to additional functions, and adults show that their language usage is affected by the rule, thus according it a higher status in the input to the child. In discussing the notion of 'clear rule' related to acquisition, additional factors pertain which are related to the lexicon of the learner. The learner's ability to perceive a rule will depend not only on the frequency, number of exceptions etc. which exist in the language system per se, but also on the number of pertinent items in the learner's vocabulary at anyone point in time' and their status in his or her vocabulary. It was shown for example that a 3year-old German child's vocabulary contained a relatively large number of feminine gender nouns ending in - e; correspondingly, the phonetic rule relating to - e was learned early. Items related to other phonetic rules were minimally represented at that particular age; the rules will therefore be 'unclear' at that time. This aspect can also be subject to individual variation according to the lexical items learned by a particular child. The relativity of this notion of clear rule means that predictions about acquisition will look quite different for languages of different structures. It is not the intention, however, to claim that predictions about acquisition can only be made for individual languages and that no universals of language acquisition exist. Rather, it is the intention that postulation of acquisition universals should be formulated in such a way as to account for differences in structures and systems. Work on language universals is moving steadily in this

Summary and Conclusions In both the naturalistic observational data and experimental studies, it was shown that, in their acquisition of the formal rules of gender assignment in German, children first lear!) the rules which affect the largest part of the vocabulary, have the fewest exceptions and are clearly represented in the child's lexicon. When the first gender-marked forms appear, that is, the definite and indefinite articles, few errors are made. The complexity of the gender paradigms through case marking has little effect on the acquisition of gender. The fewest errors are made with feminine nouns, possibly because of the help of the phonetic rules. Articles with masculine and neuter nouns are also frequently omitted. The feminine gender form of the definite article die is most commonly used in error; this may be due to an association with the plural article. It was shown, however, that a knowledge of plural morphology does not precede the acquisition of gender. German children show the ability to build up distributional patterns relating the forms within the gender paradigms, but this occurs over a considerable amount of time. Acquisition is affected by the different case forms and the different parts of speech on which gender marking occur. A comparison of the acquisition of the animacy rule in English and German has shown that animacy is a significant factor in both languages, despite the different status of the neuter forms in both languages. The observational data have shown that the rule is acquired early in both languages. In an experimental study it was established that English children associate it strongly with inanimacy and only gradually allow it to take over the common gender function. This effect can be related to the principle of one form-one function in acquisition, but can also be related to input. Despite their early use of the he instead of it, children are still in the process of learning the personification rule at the age of 9 - 10 years; rules linked to stylistic devices would therefore appear to be learned late. German children seem to associate neuter gender with inanimacy by implication, in that they avoid neuter gender for animate nouns, particularly in their selection of pronouns. Around 9 - 10 years, the grammatical gender rules are complied with absolutely. . An experimental study of the acquisition of the natural gencte"r rule showed that German children are in advance of English children at the ages of 3 and 4 years in producing gender-marked pronouns. Some formal properties of the pronoun forms and the exposure to the gender system from an early age would seem to facilitate the learning of the rule. The case marking of the

116

The Acquisition of Gender in Children

pronoun also affects acquisition, as does the situation, that is, whether the child is asked to comprehend a gender-marked form or produce it. There is evidence (observable only in the English children, since the German children already perform at too high a level) that unmarked forms (masculine) are learned before marked (feminine). For the English children, the child's own sex facilitates acquisition of the same sex pronoun at age 3. When the acquisition of formal and semantic rules in German was examined in respect of the interaction of the two rule types on the basis of above results, it was found that there was no evidence to support theories

CHAPTER 5

Psychological Gender

which claim the greater salience of semantic rules over formal rules or vice

versa. Rules seem to be acquired in an order determined by the clarity of the rule in the particular language system. Clarity of the rule can be defined by factors such as the scope of the rule, the number of exceptions to the rule, the number of examples of the rule in the child's lexicon etc. The formulation of language universals must take such language-specific principles more into account.

There was a mirror behind her and another behind me and she was watching herself in the one behind me, forgetting about the other one in which I could see her face, see her watching the back of my head with pure dissimulation. That's why nature is "she" and prQgress is "he". Nature made the grape af w

bor but progress made the mirror.

' William Faulkner, Sanctuary

Sie (die Vernunft) ist weiblich, sie empfangt bloG, erzeugt nicht. Es ist nicht zufallig, dan sie, sowohl in den Lateinischen, wie den Germanischen Spra chen, als weiblich auftritt, der Verstand hingegen als mannlich. 32 M

Schopenhauer, Ober die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde

Language and Thought The effect language has on the speaker's perception of objects and events has long been a subject of debate. Sapir (1944) expressed the view that language influences the way in which the speaker perceives the world, in what is known as linguistic relativity. This idea was expressed more strongly by Whorf (1952, 1956), who wrote: We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native l.<;lnguages. The catego ries and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds through our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and un M

M

32

Translation: 'It (reason) is feminine; it only receives and conceives, it does not produce. It is not coincidental that the word in both Romance and Germanic languages is feminine, whereas the word for intellect is masculine' .

Psychological Gender

118

stated one, but ITS TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (1956, pp. 213-214)

According to this hypothesis, classifications which are present in language will lead the speaker to classify the world in that way. This 'linguistic determinism' has been argued against (e.g. Bach, 1968) and also dismissed as a non-question (Coseriu, 1982). Considerable evidence against it has also been presented from reanalysis of the work of Whorf himself on the Hopi Indians (Gipper, 1972) and in the area of cultural universals (e.g. Pinxten, 1976). The weaker form of the hypothesis, which Whorf himself also formulated, claims that structures of language do not determine thinking, but exert some influence on the speakers. Evidence on this question of linguistic relativity is conflicting. Brown and Lenneberg (1954) claimed for example that the system of lexical classification, as exemplified in English colour terms, systematically influenced memory. Other experimental evidence indicates that the reverse of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis is true, that cognition influences language. For example, the experiments with colour identification conducted by Heider-Rosch (Heider, 1972; Heider & Olivier, 1972) show that the number of colour terms in a particular language does not affect the ability to remember colours. A language which only has two colours (Dani, New Guinea) does not apparently produce a difference in the way focal colours are stored in memory for the speakers of that language compared with the speakers of a language like English, which has more colour names.

Bach (1968) put forward linguistic arguments against the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis. He claimed on the basis of his analysis of noun phrases that there exists a universal system of base rules which can express any conceptual content; variation in the particular lexical items is therefore irrelevant. Even if one agrees with Bach's linguistic analysis, it still leaves open the question of the psychological status of concepts expressed by different linguistic means. After reviewing the evidence for and against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Clark and Clark conclude; The main thrust of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that differences in languages affect thought. Because one speaks English, Japanese, or Apache, certain concepts are difficult, perhaps impossible, to deal with. So far, however, no convincing examples of these differences have turned up. On the contrary, languages can apparently be stretched and adapted to fit the needs of virtually any group of experts. What this suggests is that language differw ences reflect the culture, and not the reverse. (1977, p. 557)

The area of gender has been used to investigate the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis by testing the assumption that languages with different gender systems will influence the perception of objects differently in terms of sex-related attributes. Thus, it is postulated that a language having a system of grammatical

Language and Thought

119

gender which reflects the natural gender rule but is extended to nouns whose referents have no natural gender will, according to the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, affect the perception of those referents. Thus, masculine gender nouns

will be seen as male and feminine gender nouns as female. Obviously, when a speaker uses a masculine gender form with a noun, it is not the desire to express the concept of male sex in association with the referent which determines

this usage. Sapir himself wrote: It goes without saying that a Frenchman has no clear sex notion in his mind when he speaks of un arbre ("awmasculine tree") or of une pomme ("awfemiw nine apple") ... The primary ideas of sex ... have become diluted by formanalogy and by extensions Into the relational sphere, the concepts indicated being now so vaguely delimited that it is rather the tyranny of usage than the need of their concrete expression that sways us in the selection of this or that form. (1949, pp. 97-98)

It is nevertheless possible that the gender classification system influences the perception of the referent in a situation in which the speaker is called upon

t6 attribute a

sex or sexual characteristics to the referent.

An important question here is whether such a hypothesis is testable. If it is found that there is a match between the grammatical gender of a noun and the sex attributes of the referent, it is possible that the gender influences the perception of the attributes, but it is also possible that the assignment of gender at the point when the word is first classified in the language is determined by those attributes (see pp. 6 - 8 for a discussion of the semantic theories of the origin of gender). If there is a mismatch, this shows that grammatical gender does not influence the perception of attributes. It is still possible, however, that the original assignment of gender was made on the basis of different attributes and that these attributes have changed owing to cultural influences. On the basis of data from one language, the hypothesis is only disprovable. If data are compared from two languages which allocate gender differently to the same set of nouns and it is found that the speakers perceive the sex attributes similarly, clearly, language does not influence the perception of attributes. If they perceive the sex attributes in terms of the gender of their own language, that is, the sex attributes are perceived differently by the speakers of the two languages, it would seem more plausible to argue that the language classification has influenced perception, but it is not proven. It is possible that cultural differences determined the assignment of gender in the first instance, hence the different gender allocation. Evidence, independent of language, would have to be brought to argue for the latter explanation, but it is not possible to disprove it either. Absolute proof of either explanation would seem impossible to find. Despite misgivings about the absolute provability of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, a comparison will be made of the sexual connotations or psychological gender of nouns in English and German in order to explore the possible relationships that may exist between the psychological and grammatical gender.

120

Psychological Gender

An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender

An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender and Sex Assignment in English and German

Table 5.1. Sex assignment in English children's stories

In earlier discussion (pp. 53 - 55), the association between grammatical and natural gender in German adults was shown to be strong: In cases of conflict, the adults frequently choose the pronoun conforming to natural gender; the natural gender rule also influences metaphorical language use. Children in acquisition learn the natural gender rule quickly. This strong association between grammatical gender and natural gender in German would lead to the hypothesis that German speakers will be affected in some way in their perception of objects by grammatical gender. Zubin and Kopcke (1983) have in fact argued that masculine and feminine characteristics of the referent have influenced gender assignment in the -mut compounds. The possibility that such a claim is correct will be explored in the following studies. In English, the prediction must be related to the predominant use of the masculine pronoun to refer to common gender animates and inanimates in an 'animated' context. That is, those nouns referred to in such contexts as he should be perceived as male, the few that are referred to as she should be perceived as female. The investigation takes at its basis the assignment of sex to inanimate objects or animals in German and English. The comparison between the languages was made under two conditions: firstly, in children's literature and, secondly, in an experimental situation with adults and children. The assignment of sex was selected as the context of the investigation, since it is assumed that these sex assignments are determined according to properties inherent in the object or animal, functional properties included. In an experimental task, the focus is then on the object or animal rather than on the referring name; this has the methodological advantage that the assignment of a sex can be obtained obliquely without undue emphasis on the sex specification.

Animacy

Sex feature

Inanimate Animate

Common and/or male

An Investigation of Sex Assignment in Children's Literature Children's literature in English and German was analyzed for the assignment of sex to objects and animate non-human beings. Such an analysis reflects actual usage, as opposed to assignment under experimental conditions, and so acts a basis of comparison for experimental results. It also indicates what the input to children may be in this dimension, which can influence their perception of the referents. Fifty children's stories in each language were analyzed, being selected randomly from the library of the school or local children's library. These stories had to be written by native speakers; translations were avoided, since sex assignment could be influenced by the native language of the author. Only those stories were selected for analysis which contained the assignment of a sex indicated by giving a name to the referent; pronominal reference on the basis of grammatical rule was not included.

Referent noun

Total

Example of noun

Sex assigned

Male

Common and/or female

Aeroplane Dog, cockerel Cow, vixen

Common

Elephant

121

7 22 13 98

140

Female 1

0 9

23 33

Total 8.

22 22 121 173

Note. Fifty English children's stories containing an anthropomorphization of an animal or object were analyzed for the distribution of sex assignment in the cases of anthropomorphization. The nouns referring to the animal or object were classified according to the features of animacy and' sex;,

The results of the analysis for English and German are given in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. The nouns are categorized according to the features of animacy and sex for German and English; the German nouns are also categorized according to grammatical gender. A group of nouns in both languages function both as a common gender term and as a sex-specific term (see pp. 20 - 23), for example, der Bar (masc.) 'bear' in German or dog in English; these are listed together with those nouns which are only sex specific. In English (Table 5.1), quite clearly the majority of objects and animals (81 "70) are given male sex. This matches the dominance of the masculine pronoun he as the common gender pronoun for animals in lively style and in personification (see pp. 20 - 26). It also fits in with the finding that adults used predominantly the pronoun he in the animated stylistic context (see pp. 95 - 97). In the literature, an almost equal number of male and female sex assignments were found for cats (6: 5) and mice (8: 5), which again matches the results of the earlier study (pp. 95 - 97), in which cat was referred to more often with the feminine pronoun (9: 39) and mouse almost equally (26: 22) with both pronouns. These findings from children's literature also match the results of an investigation of sex stereotypes conducted by Gill (1967) in connection with the Rorschach test in personality assessment. He tested adult and 11- to 12-yearold English speakers, asking them to attribute sex directly to the noun. He tested 50 animal names and found that 73% were designated as male, compared with 81 % in the children's literature here. He also found that mouse was perceived as feminine by the adult speakers, but as male by the younger girls. In German (Table 5.2), sex is predominantly assigned according to the grammatical gender of the referent noun. So, for example, frogs are assigned male sex corresJlonding to the masculine gender of Frosch, whereas a dragon-

122

An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender

Sex assigned

stereotypes. The task was similar for adults and children in that the sex assignment was camouflaged by asking the subjects first to find a name for a toy. The set of toys represented six animate and four inanimate referents. For German, these nouns included three of masculine gender, three of feminine gender and four of neuter gender (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.2. Sex assignment in German children's stories Referent noun

Gender

Animacy

Example of noun

Male Female Total

Sex feature Bus 'bus' Bar 'bear'

2 38

0

2

2

40

Frosch 'frog'

23

5

63

7

28 70

0 10

0 18

0 28

5

6

11

23

34

0 13

0 9

0 22

Total

13

9

22

Total

87

39

126

Masculine Inanimate Animate Common and/or male Common

Total Feminine

Inanimate Animate Common and/or female Common

Schere 'scissors' Gans 'goose' Libelle 'dragonfly'

Total Neuter

Inanimate Animate Common

Auto 'car' Huhn 'chicken'

123

Psychological Gender

Note. Fifty German children's stories containing an anthropomorphization of an animal or object were analyzed for the distribution of sex assignment in the cases of anthropomorphization. The nouns referring to the animal or object were classified according to grammatical gender, animacy and sex.

fly is made female corresponding to the feminine gender of Libel/e. The neuter gender nouns are split between male and female. Overall, the majority of referents are made male (69"70). This mnst be seen, however, in association with the greater number of masculine gender nouns, although, of the referents of the feminine gender nouns, a greater proportion are assigned male sex compared with the proportion of referents of the masculine gender nouns given female sex. A general male trend can therefore be detected. In conclusion, the distribution of sex is linked to the grammatical gender of the referent nouns in both English and German. Grammatical gender in English is defined here as the pronoun used predominantly in 'lively' style. To make an exact comparison between English and German with the same set of nouns, an experimental test for the assignment of sex was devised. Experimental Testing of Sex Assignment

Method. The sex assignment task was given to adults to test the existence of sex stereotypes. It was also given to children to assess the development of such

The adults were interviewed individually; they were presented with a writ-

ten list of the toys in their respective languages and given instructions to find a name, real or invented, for the toy, imagining the context of a children's story. The name had to be written in alongside the toy name. After they had completed the task, they were asked to indicate in a separate column, whether

the toy shonld be male or female, in the cases where the name did not make this obvious. The children were tested individually using real toys. They were introduced to the task by beginning general conversation about the toys they had at home and then asking about any names they had for these. The experimental toys were in a bag, and before they were presented to the child, it was explained that the toys were very upset because they did not have any names. They did not know what to say when they spoke to one another. The child was asked to cheer them np by finding names for them all. The toys were then presented individually, being fetched out of the bag by the experimenter and placed on a table in front of the child. The child was first asked to identify the toy, then to find a name and then to determine whether the toy was male or female. An excerpt from the transcripts will illustrate the procedure for English and German. English, Angela (7; 0): E: Well, these poor toys haven't got any names. So what I want you to do is find some names for them. Do you think you can do that?

Angela: Yes E: Well, what's this then?

Angela: A ball. E: Yes. Do you think you can find a good name? Angela: Er, Spotty. E: That's a good name. And is Spotty a boy or a girl?

Angela: A boy. German, Dominic (6; 11): E: Diese armen Spielsachen haben keinen Namen. Ich m6chte, daB Du NaM men fUr die findest. Probieren wir mal? Dominic: Ja. E: Was ist dies hier? Dominic: Ein Elefant. E: Findest Du einen Namen? Dominic: Hupp. E: Und ist Hupp ein Madchen oder ein Junge? Dominic: Ein Junge.

Psychological Gender

124

An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender

S 0

been selected so as to avoid any sex-specific features, such as colours linked

~

with one sex or the other, ornaments etc. The question asking for sex specification was formulated without repeating the noun or using a pronoun so as to avoid asking directly about the noun rather than the referent. The toys were presented in a different random order for each subject, and the order of the terms boy and girl, Junge and Madchen was alternated in the questiou asking for sex specification. The whole test was tape recorded and transcribed later. The English adult subjects were all native speakers of British English, 24 men and 24 women, aged between 21 and 30 years of age (men, x = 24; women, it = 23). All were resident or studying in the York area. The children between 5 and 11 years of age were grouped into four age groups containing 48 children equally divided between the sexes. The groups had the following

~ «: ~

~

'"

r--

~

~

;% II

tl

E" ~ ~

"S oj

\:l 0

>. .0

~

0

~

boys,x

= 6;1

girls, x = 5;11

S

I

~

>.

_ _ r--

Ol

NN_

0

" 0 ~

~

'"

......

r--'Or--

is

~

~

>.

0

Ol

r--

~

M

0""'0

B

M '0'"

"'r--M

II ~

~

0

dv

.~

" "

0

"'''''0

oj

__ N_ O\OOMt-

~

" " 0"

'd

M ... r--

~

>.

0

"' "'

~~

"

0

'd'd

§ _ _ ('\i_ \O\OO-.:j-

M M r--

5

"- """

S'" oj~

"oj ~ 0

- -

_ _ N_ 000\_00

('\IMo\N

....................

__ N_ r0'\ f'I') t-

...... M


... .,.0

'0 "" _

'0 '0

~

~~o

........

_ _ N l#") 00 0

...... on

'0

~

M

" § .~''= ~

oj

~o ~

B "

'"(j . ;

.,;;"

"~

oj

" ,,"iii \:l S

~ 0

~~

"'~ ~ d

o"

~§ ~ .!:9 "" ~~ ""oj oj~

'" 0

~

b

.S ;:';

§

v.o

-; .s."

-~ .go

~u

~

oj

~

\:l

~

~

Z"

§ ;..'E. . . . "1-
~

S

" [; " .-" :9~

" :5"

5

:i: .-""u~0

:fi'5

'"

~

~ ~ ~ 0l",0l

oj

'd

oj~

v

«:

on

"

{3 [j

~

..;

""

II~- 0~

>." .0'" v ~

0

0

"

~'" ~.S ~....,

~

__ _ 1.0 V') ( 0 ' \ Io.n

~

~

vB ~

!l S oj

'"

""0'"

~ Ii,

1:: >.

-- -- -_ - ---

0

Ol

'i:

" ...">. '"v MI

N...-; N

~

~

~

~

........ \0 ....... 00

M M

---

.S ~

0\ 00 0'\ 0\

~

~

i

oor--

"''''-

- --

>. ~

--"" r-- '0

~

v

'0

M ... '"

"''''-

- --

0

~

§

1. 3:0-4:11 boys,x = 4;1 girls, x = 4;6 2.5:0-6:11

0

Ol

oj

= 7;11

"''''-

~

>.

""I

"'0""

>.

v

4.9:0-10:11

All children were attending state schools or playschools in the York area and were selected on the basis of parental consent and in order to obtain groups of . matched age and sex. The German adnlts were all native speakers of German, comprising 24 men and 24 women, in the age range of 19 - 31 years, (men, it = 24; women, it = 23). All were students at the University of Tiibingen who volunteered to take part in the experiment. The German children were grouped by age in the same way as the English children, with 24 boys and 24 girls in each age group. The groups had the following mean ages:

~

oj

1. 3:0-4:11 boys, x = 4;3 girls, x = 4;1 2.5:0-6:11 boys,x = 5:10 girls, x = 5;10 3.7:0-8;11 boys,x = 7:11

girls, x = 10;4

~

!;',

0

~ ~

boys,x = 10;3

" v

~

mean ages:

girls, x

v

5

The toys used with the children were the same set in every case. They had

~

~ ~

8~ "'"

~'" ~ u

0

0

u~iJ

o~ .",

"'-

~

~

~ ~

125

Psychological Gender

126 3. 7;0- 8;11 boys, X = 8;0 girls, x = 7;11

4.9;0-10;11

boys,x = 10;1 girls, x = 10;3

All children were attending kindergarten or primary school in the Tiibingen area and were selected on the basis of parental consent in order to obtain groups of matched age and sex. Results and Discussion. The results for the German subjects are shown in Table 5.3 and for the English subjects in Table 5.4. The table shows the number of responses assigning male sex to the toys; the maximum number of responses was 24. By implication, the remaining number indicates the selection of female sex. The toys are grouped in Table 5.3 according to the grammatical gender of the German noun referring to the toy; the same order is kept in Table 5.4 for purposes of comparison. Within each language group, the results were analyzed using a three-way chi-square statistic for each age group. The null hypothesis was that there would be an equal division between the choice of male and female sex. A comparison was made between the gender of the noun and the sex selected for the toy. In German, the grammatical gender is clearly defined; in English, the

An Investigation of the Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender

gender of the noun was defined according to the use of sex-marked pronouns as taken from use in lively style (see pp. 95 - 97). In this study, adult speakers had used the feminine pronoun for cat and mouse and the masculine pronoun for the other nouns tested. The sex of the subjects was also a variable in the analysis. The sex of the subjects was a clear influence in the younger subjects. In the youngest English children (groups 3 - 4 and 5 - 6 years), the boys made a significantly high choice of male sex for the masculine nouns, and the girls made a significantly high choice of female sex for the feminine nouns. The 7to 8-year-olds made a significantly high choice of female sex for the feminine nouns, boys and girls alike. In the next age group, the boys made a significantly high number of male sex choices for masculine nouns and female sex choices for feminine nouns; the girls make a significantly high number of female choices for the feminine nouns. An analysis of the gender:..matching choices across the age group of English 'children shows a significant interaction with age, the matching choices increasing with age (x2 = 27.15; p <0.001). This effect is represented graphically in Figure 5.1. As in the English language subjects, the youngest German boys (groups 3 - 4 and 5 - 6 years) made more choices of male sex for masculine nouns, and

100

Key: a - a English male

6---6

0---0 German

m

w

I

English female

. - . German male

x w

Table 5.4. Assignment of sex to toys by English subjects

80

female

"0

Toy

E

Responses (maximum = 24)

_ _ ---a---

.

a-

3-4 years

5-6 years

Boys Girls Boys Girls

7 - 8 years

Boys Girls

9 -10 years Boys

Adult

Girls Men

~ 60 Women

E c rn

Horse

13

Pig Car Book Cat

17 20 21 6 11 16

Mouse

Clock

12 12 14 8 14 13 15 3 5 10

19 14 20 14 16 20 22 5 16 16

13

12 13

6 11 11 16 4 6 9

22 18 14 12 16 19 16 10 8 17

17 13

18 12 19 21 17 3 9 14

19 20 18 11 19 22 18 4 11

16

19 14 19 14 15 18 15 3 6 16

22 19 22

19 20 16 16 8 19 20

23 17 12 15 15 21 13 1 7 22

·c

Note. English adults and children (24 in each age/sex group) were asked to assign a name, and thereby a sex, to ten different toys. The results were presented in terms of the number of assignments to male sex. The nouns are listed in the same order as for German (Table 5.3) for purposes of comparison.

=.--1 ,,6--------6--1

:::::::::::::: /

0-

"

"""

d

C

'"

-' I

I I

1--"

t--'

I

I

I I

I

I I

0..

I I

I I

20

I I

I I I I

II

6

40

ru rn

~

I I I I a---"1

_-_0----/.:.--0--------0---1I

6---- ____

d

a

______

.'=

I I

__ - "

m

20 Elephant 16 17 Ball Bear

127

I

I I I I I

I I 0L---3~_~4------~5~_6~----~7_~8~------~9~_1~O~---L~A-d~u~lt-

Age of subjects

Fig. 5.1. Selection of male sex for toys in German and English adults and children. English and German adults and children (24 in each language/age/sex group) were asked to assign a name, and thereby a sex, to ten different toys. The assignment of male sex to the toys is shown here as a percentage in order to compare the two language groups and to show the influence of the subjects' own sex and age

128

Psychological Gender

An Investigation of t~e Interrelationship of Grammatical Gender

the German girls made significantly more choices of female sex for feminine nouns. For the next two age groups of children and for the adult subjects,

male and female subjects made significantly more choices of male sex for masculine nouns and female sex for feminine nouns. The gender-matching choices interact with the age of the subjects significantly (;(2= 42.97; p
Age, sex and toy can therefore be seen to interact significantly in both language groups (see Figure 5.1). There is a significant difference between the behaviour of male and female subjects in both English and German. The younger children assign roles according to their own sex more than the older children and adults. This tendency is stronger in the English children than in the German children. The difference between male and female subjects remains across ail age groups. In the English children, this difference is not significant for the 7- and 8-year-olds, but increases again in the next age group and again in the adults. It cannot be assumed that the progression is linear from the oldest children tested to the adults as puberty could affect sex assignment significantly. The graph indicates this break by a hiatus. There is a significant effect of the sex assigned and the individual toy. In German, this effect is related to the grammatical gender of the noun referring to the toy. Taking into consideration the influence of the subject's own sex, it can be seen that, across all age groups, the feminine gender nouns were related to a predominant choice of female sex for the corresponding toy; the masculine gender nouns were related to a predominant choice of male sex for the corresponding toy. This effect is represented graphically in Figure 5.2, from which it can be seen that the association of sex and gender increases with age. Among the neuter gender nouns, it might be expected that the choice would be split equally between male and female sex, but, for the nouns tested here at least, the predominant choice was for male sex for the corresponding referent. The one exception was found among the female adults, who more frequently chose female sex for the pig. This result indicates quite clearly that, for German speakers, the choice of sex is related to the grammatical gender of the referring noun. Other factors must be relevant, however, since the neuter nouns are also clearly associated with a particular sex in the corresponding toys. It is likely that attributes of the referents are influential here. The question then remains whether the attributes of the referents of the masculine and feminine gender nouns correspond to the grammatical gender. If this were so, the relation found above could be explained on the basis of attributes, not grammatical gender. This will be explored in a further study. The English subjects made the majority of toys male. The women made the cat and the mouse females, while the men made only the cat female. The children all made the cat femaie; the monse was also made female by all except the 5- to 6-year-old boys. This assignment of sex corresponds to the pronoun use found in the studies reported earlier (pp. 95 - 97). Here, cat and to a lesser extent mouse, were referred to with the pronoun she. Taking this pronoun use

100 ~

ru

~

feminine gender nouns

D

masculine gender nouns

129

.c u

a E x

80

ru

w

ru ru

.c

•

60

ru a

mu

.2:g

:cu

E

0..

m

20

E ru "

" a

O~__LZ~~-L~-L__LU2-L-~~-L~~~

mase. fem. 3-4

mase. fem. 5-6

mase. fem. 7-8

mase. fem. 9-10

mase. fem. Adult

Fig. 5.2. Sex assignment and grammatical gender. German adults and children' (48 in each age group) were asked to assign a name, and thereby a sex, to ten different toys. The results are presented here in terms of the percentage of sex assignments which matched the grammatical gender of the noun (masculine and feminine only)

as equivalent to grammatical gender, there is a clear relation between the gender of the pronoun used and the sex given to the corresponding toy, as in German, although this pronoun use is not fixed as is grammatical gender in German. The use of the pronouns in English was established by examining actual language use rather than by applying generally formulated rules. According to such rules, the pronoun he should have been used in all cases, with the exception of she for the item car. This was not the case, however: she was used for cat and sometimes for mouse, but not for car. The question then arises for English (not for German, since the grammatical gender is fixed) of whether the pronoun use is to be related to attributes of the referent 33. If this is the case, the sex assignment and pronoun use may only be indirectly linked to each other through the common factor of the attributes of the referent. If grammatical gender alone determined the choice of sex, it would be expected that the masculine gender nouns would have close to 1000/0 selection of 33

According to Freudian symbolism, the car, as earlier the horse, is perceived as a symbol of male sexuality (Faraday, 1973). This could be related to the choice of male sex, which then must be seen as being based on attributes of the referent.

Psychological Gender

130

male sex and feminine gender nouns 100"10 selection of female sex. In German, the neuter nouns should be equally split between male and female sex. This is quite clearly not the case. In both languages, there is a gradation in the perception of maleness/femaleness. For German speakers, the bear, elephant, horse and car have a high male rating; for English speakers, the bear and ball have a high male rating. For German speakers, the cat, mouse and clock have a high female rating; for English speakers, cat and, in some cases, mouse have a high female rating. The perception of maleness/femaleness is comparable across the age groups in both languages. If the nouns are ranked in a hierarchy of the most male to the least male, there is a significant correlation across all age and sex groups in the ranking (according to Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance, German W = 0.645, p
131

The Testing of Sex Attributes

2

3

5

Significance of difference

hoch. rauh

lief glatt verschwommen

*

klar

warm klein sonft

kalt gran

passiv

aktiv

wild

schwach

stark

schon trourig

hontich froh

leise

laut

rund gel6s1 feucht stetig

eckig

*** ***

*

*** *** ***

gesponnt *** trocken veranderlich 0 ___ 0

Frau

0-. Mann The Testing of Sex Attributes Method. In order to investigate the attributes of the toys in relation to maleness and femaleness, German and English adults were asked to rate the ten referents used in the previous study on a semantic differential test (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957). The 15 attribute poles chosen were those associated with maleness and femaleness on the basis of previous research (see Osgood et aI., 1957; HofsUitter, 1963; Gill, 1967); see Figure 5.3 for the complete list. The items man and woman, or the German equivalents, were included in the list to check the subjects' conformity on the selected attribute poles. The size dimension is relevant to sex, for example, so that the poles large and small are associated with maleness and femaleness respectively. The subjects were asked to rate each item individually on a five-point scale, so for example, on the Ball large

LI--'~LI~LI~L--.JI

small

scale, large-small, an entry in the middle box would indicate that either adjective was appropriate for the item Ball or that both adjectives were equally appropriate. An entry in the extreme right-hand box would indicate that small was highly appropriate, in the next box moderately appropriate. The items were presented on individual sheets, in a different random order for each subject. The subjects were asked to work through the test booklet in their own time, but on average, the test took 15 min. The English subjects were 24 adults in the age range of 21 - 30 years of age, comprised of 12 men and 12 women resident or studying in the area of Manchester. The German subjects were 24 adults in the age range of 21 - 25

Fig. 5.3. Profiles of the items Mann and Frau as rated by German male speakers. A group of 12 male adult German speakers rated the items Mann 'man' and Frau 'woman' on a 15-pole scale where the values 1- 5 indicate the rating on a particular polar scale. These two items were part of a larger semantic differential test

years of age, resident or studying in the area of Tiibingen. All the subjects volunteered to take part and were tested individually by the author.

Results and Discussion. For the ease of presenting the analysis, the ratings at the end of the scale associated with maleness were scored high, with 4 or 5 points, the ratings at the end of the scale associated with femaleness were scored low, with 1 or 2 points. The middle value was 3. The full results of the study are set out in Appendices G and H. Firstly, the results of the test for the items man and woman, Mann and Frau are presented in order to establish the male and female profiles for the particular groups of subjects. The rankings are presented in graphic form in Figures 5.3 - 5.6 comparing the profiles of man and woman for English speakers and Mann and Frau for German speakers. The rankings are shown individually for male and female speakers of German and English. The statistical significance of the difference in rankings on individual attributes between man and woman or between Mann and Frau, as measured on a t test, is indicated on the extreme right 34. 34

A factor analysis could not be run on all the sets of data because the correlation matrix was singular in a number of cases owing to the relatively small number of subjects in each group. A partial presentation would be confusing; therefore, the analysis will be done using correlations of the profiles.

Psychological Gender

132

2

4

3

5

The Testing of Sex Attributes 2

Significance

133 3

4

5

Significance of difference

of difference rauh

**

klar

verschwommen warm

kalt gran wild

klein

sanft passiv

***

aktiv stark

schwach

schon

h6.nlich froh lout eckig gespannt lrocken veranderlich

traurig

leise rund gelos!

feucht stetig 0---0

smooth hazy warm tittle gentle passive weak beautiful sod

quiet round relaxed damp constant 0---0

Frau

* ***

*

woman

. - - . mon

. - - . Mann

Fig. 5.4. Profiles of the items Mann and Frau as rated by German female speakers. A group of 12 female adult German speakers rated the items Mann 'man' and Frau 'woman' on a is-pole scale where the values 1 - 5 indicate the rating on a particular polar scale. These two items were part of a larger semantic differential test

2

3

4

5

Significance

of difference high rough clear cold big wild active strong ugly happy noisy jagged tense dry changeable

law smooth hazy warm

little gentle passive

weak beautiful sad

quiet round relaxed damp constant 0- __ 0

high rou'gh clear cold big wild active strong ugly happy noisy jagged tense dry changeable

low

hoch

lief glatt

*** *** *** *** *** *** * ***

woman

. - - . man

Fig. 5.5. Profiles of the items man and woman as rated by English male speakers. A group of 12 male adult English speakers rated the items man and woman on a 1S-pole scale where the values 1 - S indicate the rating on a particular polar scale. These two items were part of a larger semantic differential test

Fig. 5.6. Profiles of the items man and woman as rated by English female speakers. A group of 12 female adult English speakers rated the items man and woman on a is-pole scale where the values 1 - S indicate the rating on a particular polar scale. These two items were part of a larger semantic differential test

When the Q-correlation value for these profiles is calculated (HofsU\tter, 1963, pp. 96-97), the profiles for man and woman or Mann and Frau obtained from male speakers have an almost zero correlation (English male speakers, Q = 0.09; German male speakers, Q = 0.085). The profiles for the female speakers correlate positively (English female speakers, Q = 0.525; German female speakers, Q = 0.631). The origin of these correlation values can be determined by examining the ranking of the individual attributes in the graphs. As can be seen from the profiles, the rankings of both man and Mann lie in general to the right of the equivalent rankings of woman and Frau, that is, further towards the extreme associated with maleness. For the male German speakers and male English speakers, there was a statistical difference between these rankings on eight of the 15 attributes (see Figures 5.3, 5.5). For the female English and German speakers, although the rankings for man and Mann still lie predominantly to the right of those for woman and Frau, this difference was significant in only three and two instances respectively. German and English men judge women to be smoother, smaller, more gentle, more passive, more beautiful, quieter and more relaxed than men. For English and German women, women are only smoother and smaller. The difference in the amount of polarity in the profiles between male and female speakers can be explained by the more egalitarian view of the sexes held by women of this age group in both Germany and Great Britain. Several female subjects comment-

134

Psychological Gender

ed after completing the test that they deliberately rejected the "typical female stereotype". The stereotype has, however, only become weaker for these speakers; that is, it is still equal to that of men, rather than being reversed. The profiles of the German and English speakers correlated positively with each other, male and female speakers being matched (English and German male speakers, Q = 0.92; English and German female speakers, Q = 0.94). The individual attributes on which there is a significant distance between the speakers are the same for both groups. The discrepancy between the behaviour of male and female speakers would appear to be problematic in talking about a general maleness or femaleness prome. However, the rankings of the female speakers on the other ten nouns was not significantly different from those of the male speakers. The issue of women's equality seems only to have affected the rankings of the items man and woman, Mann and Frau. The results will therefore be pooled. For the purposes of comparison with the other ten nouns, the profiles of man and woman, Mann and Frau obtained from the male speakers will be used, since they show greater polarization. Firstly, when the rankings of ten nouns were compared between the speakers of German and English, no significant difference was found. The profiles of each individual noun correlated positively with those of the corresponding noun in the other language (Q values ~0.8). This goes against the hypothesis that grammatical gender will determine the perception of the referent's attributes. Were this the case, clock should have been perceived differently from Uhr, since German Uhr is feminine in gender, whereas English clock is pronominalized (in lively style) with the masculine pronoun he. A number of studies on gender systems and perception have been carried out by the Michigan Personality and Language Research Group (Guiora et aI., 1975; Guiora & Sagi, 1978). Guiora and Acton (1979) report a study with English and Hebrew speakers who were asked to rate existing words on a masculinity-femininity scale. The test words were grouped into three categories: neutral, in which no clear sexual connotations were present; consonant, in

which sexual connotations were present but in agreement with the grammatical gender of the Hebrew words; dissonant, in which the sexual connotations were at odds with the grammatical gender. They found that there was little difference between the English and Hebrew speakers and concluded that the ratings on the masculinity-femininity scale were a result of shared human experience, not of the grammatical system. Clarke, Losoff, Dickenson and McCracken (1981) replicated the study, but used Arabic and English speakers. They found that the Arabic speakers were influenced by the grammatical gender of the nouns tested in that they rated masculine gender nouns higher on the masculinity scale and feminine gender nouns higher on the femininity scale. The English speakers made ratings according to the predicted sexual connotations in the categories where this was appropiate (consonant and dissonant).

The Testing of Sex Attributes

135

The discrepancy in results between the study of Guiora and Acton and that of Clarke et al. could well lie in the methodology itself (see also Herold, 1982, for a reply to Clarke et al.). Both studies required a rating on a scale which is explicitly labelled masculine and feminine, rather than attributes which are associated with masculinity/femininity. The subjects are thereby made highly conscious of the dimension of sex in the task. Clarke et al. also stated in the instructions that they were not asking about grammatical gender, which also makes the subjects explicitly aware of the connection. The Arab subjects were also given the instructions to the test in English, so that it could be in doubt that they understood exactly what was required. It would seem less problematic to approach the perception of masculinity and femininity indirectly, by using a task such as the semantic differential which does not focus on this dimension.

Hofstatter (1963) obtained results similar to those of this study using the semantic differential. He investigated ,the perception of the terms Sonne (fern.) 'sun' and Mond (masc.) 'moon' by German speakers and compared it with that of Italian speakers, since in Italian the gender assignment of the two terms sole (masc.) 'sun' and luna (fern.) 'moon' is reversed. As in this study, the speakers were asked to rate the terms on attribute scales associated with masculinity/femininity. The profiles of these terms obtained from the German and Italian speakers correlated highly, so that Hofstatter concludes that the grammatical gender has little influence on how the objects are perceived, but that this perception is determined by the attributes of the objects themselves. These results clearly disprove the hypothesis that grammatical gender determines perception in every case 35.

In order to establish the perception of their relative maleness and femaleness, the profiles of the ten nouns were compared with those for the items man and woman, Mann and Frau. These correlations are set out in Tables 5.5 and 5.6. Comparing these two tables, it can be seen that, for both English and German speakers, the profiles for bear, elephant, pig, horse and car correlate positively with the profile for man and do not correlate with that for woman. The profiles for cat, mouse and clock correlate with the profile for woman, but not with that for man. The profiles for ball and book do not correlate with either. Again, if grammatical gender were determining the perception of attri-

35

Rainer Maria Rilke (quoted by Hofstatter, 1963) noted that the associated properties of the sun and moon were in conflict with the grammatical gender in German. In this connection, Rilke proposed not only a change in the gender, but a change in the form of the words which matches that change. He wrote: "Ich denke immer im

Sinne von Ie solei! und la lune, und das Umgekehrte in unserer Sprache ist'mir kontriir, so dajJ ich immer machen mochte <der grojJe Sonn' und
136

Psychological Gender .c u ~

'" 0

"

< -0 ~

<.!:

"-

-or;",

cd I

~

lfJ

~

"' ;0

"" ~

*"'~

,,~

cid I

., <>- -

or; '"

dci

00

[;l

""

:E

~00

S

"

.~ .c " .c

N

1ii

~

~

.~

'@

00

'"

S

."" t>

II

"

.<: ~

~

0 00

-0

0

00

" II" ~

] &l

u

" ~

0

Z

~

"'

0 ~ 0.

"

.c f-<

on on ..!<

.c

,:1

~

'"

U

"00 s'" ~

~

,~

'"

*<--

~

t:

" .

"" cd ~

*or; 0<>~

dd

0"

cd I

•

<>--0

"''' cici

-

"'~

'"cci

--

*-00

00 I

00 I

~

U

i3

~o

-0

S 5 2 .t:: ~

f-<-8

. ......."

u00 ~ "

" ~ o -"" .~

-

0.'"

.;,~

" "'Oil " S o " oo~

"-0

~

00

"

"'~ 0 ~

"0

"g-a "" 00 "0.

'" i:!

" " ~ " ~~

[; 0.

~

-0 '" cr;I .~ ,,-0

s-s " 0 ~

0-0

g~ ~ " 00" <~ ~

or;

-0 '"

00

e

:@E .~

or; _

*

"'-0

00

"

00

§ §

~

0

:E

"S

•

~~

0"

dd

."t:"

.

,,~

~or;

-8 ~."

o~

00 00

~ .~"

_

*0

~~ o~ o.~

,

'" "

"o<.!:S 00-0

U

cici

"g~ ""'"

~ 00

'@

00

<--

- s

.~

'"

~

"'cia

§

"'" ~

~

-0

" "

~

00

~

01

" Z

00

~

0

IE"0 ~

0.

@

*or; " -00

00 I

•

'"

"~ 0. 0.>

~-8

~

.S

~

0

oo~

~f-<

~~

" S

U

:E~

Gender

Attributes

Sex assigned

Bar

M M M F F F N N N N

M M

M M M F F F M M M M

Elefant Ball Katze Maus

Uhr

""

'80.-0"

Auto Buch

~
~

Noun

Schwein

;'\ §

.2

~

"

Pferd

neither F F F M M M

neither

o '"

0

0

"0. ~ ~

-"

"g:a

<>-0 "'''' " 00

Table 5.7. Sex attributes and sex assignment: German

0

00 " .=:~ ~ u

on

~

"

.~

"

." "

'"

.c f-<

0

-o~

0.>

.~

u

!"'

,,~

1ii o~ ~

00

"

~

~ ~

In English, there is agreement in all three columns in seven of the ten cases (see Table 5.8). In two instances, the attributes cannot be the basis for the choice of sex; in one case (ciock), there is a conflict between the attributes and the pronoun use, and the choice reflects the pronoun use. These results also go against the proposal that the use of sex-marked pronouns in this context is determined by the attributes of the referent.

",Oil

S

0

perceived as either predominantly male or female, grammatical gender seems

butes, male sex was chosen.

",or;

0

For German (Table 5.7), there is a match in all three columns for five instances. This does not, however, help disentangle the question of the dominant influence on the assignment of sex. In the case of Ball, which was not

" 00 Oilll

~ 0.00

" "

1ii

0 00

the grammatical gender or pronoun use is also indicated.

.c-8 f-< .s

~~

.~

tion with the profile of man and the choice of male sex and between a correlation with the female profile and the choice of female sex. This relationship is depicted in Table 5.7 for German and Table 5.8 for English. In these tables,

to be the influence. In the neuter gender nouns, where the grammatical gender gives no basis for a choice of sex, there was a match in three cases between the perceived attributes and the sex chosen. For the one noun which is neuter gender and which was not perceived as either male or female in terms of attri-

or;

00

.""'

~

*<>-

~

-0

5§

II S

referents reported in the previous section, there is a match between a correla-

"@

~ V

0

"'~

-" '"

0

§

" -8

o "

"§ '"~

-" u

0."

]

~

~

0

u

S

.,

00

";:::0:;~

:E~

~

'at...

o ~

~

~

I

"c:: ,,0

-8"

'" 00

*

.2

0

:I:

~;n

" v

." "

~

"000

.~

~

• ~ -" do or;'"

~ 0 u

137

butes, it would be expected that ball in both English and German should correlate with the profile for man, that is, it should have predominantly male characteristics. However, this is not the case, and this hypothesis can thus be rejected. Considering these results in connection with the allocation of sex to the

~

-0

"C::

*or; <><>-0

00

~

~

~

~

"

'"

0'"

~o

00 _

"'"

~

~

~

-0

0

0 0

-0

,5 .c u

" "" ,,cci

"

-8

.c

The Testing of Sex Attributes

§ '" 0

~

"

~

e

<00";; ~ .~

M, masculine or male; F, feminine or female; N, neuter. Note. The predominant response of German adults in a sex attribute rating task and sex assignment task is listed with the grammatical gender in order to show the relationship between these three aspects.

""',""

Psychological Gender

138

The Testing of Sex Attributes

139

Table 5.8. Sex attributes and sex assignment: English Noun

Gender

Attributes

Sex assigned

Bear

M M M F F M M M M M

M M

M M M F F M M M M M

Elephant Ball Cat Mouse Clock Pig Horse

Car Book

neither F F F M M M

neither

M, masculine or male; F, feminine or female. Note. The predominant response of English adults in a sex attribute rating task and sex assignment task is listed with the gender of the most frequently used pronoun in 'lively' style in order to show the relationship between these three aspects.

The results of this study, as those of Hofstatter (1963), clearly disprove the hypothesis for German that the grammatical gender of nouns is determined according to the perceived attributes of the referent. It is still possible, however, that the perceived attributes affected the gender selected for the generic term in the field of animals. Here, it could be seen that the bear and elephant were perceived as strongly male, whereas the cat and mouse were perceived as female. This matches the grammatical gender. This could also be argued for the English choice of pronouns, which can also become conventionalized. The choice of sex can be described as the result of a rule which assumes grammatical gender or pronoun use to be already established. This rule is depicted in Figure 5.7. Grammatical gender or pronoun use will determine the assignment of sex, if it is masculine or feminine. If the gender is neuter, the attributes determine the sex. If these are not specifically male or female, the choice is for male. This use of the grammatical classification for such a task as sex assignment rather than the attributes of the referent reflects the psychological strength of this classification system. Ervin-Tripp (Ervin, 1962) demonstrated the influence of the grammatical system in Italian by investigating the connotations of gender-marked words. She avoided the factor of the referent's own attributes, however, by using nonsense words. She tested the perception of Italian nonsense words, marked by the masculine suffix -0 or the feminine suffix -a, in terms of male and female characteristics. She selected four attribute poles from those strongly associated with the features 'feminine' and 'masculine' (Osgood et aI., 1957): bello-bruto 'beautiful-ugly', buono-cattivo 'good-bad'. The first adjective is associated with femininity, the second with

is grammatical gender or pronoun use sex-specific?

YES ASSIGN female

sex NO

are attributes sex-related?

YES

ASSIGN male

sex

NO

Fig. 5.7. Schematic representation of the rule determining the subjects' choice in a sex assignment task

masculinity. Adult Italian speakers were asked first to rate the Italian words . for men gti uomini and women Ie donne on these scales and secondly a list of nonsense words. The nonsense words consisted of the same 30 roots with either the masculine suffix -0 or the feminine suffix -a. Ervin-Tripp found that the roots with the masculine endings were rated more frequently at the end of the pole associated with masculinity and the roots with the feminine ending more frequently at the end of the pole associated with femininity. She writes: We can conclude that there is a tendency to ascribe different connotations to masculine and feminine words in Italian, and that the differences are related to differences in the connotations of gli uomini and le--donne. (1962, p. 259)

This result shows that there is an influence of grammatical gender on perception where the referent itself has no clear attributes. Ervin-Tripp relativizes her own findings thus: Generalization of connotations is least important when the association of a word and a tangible referent is well-learned and automatic, and when the semantic referent is unambiguous and its properties are obvious. Probabilistic aspects of experience are more important when language is being learned, when a situation is ambiguous, or when active commerce with the environment is minimized and thought and feeling are maximized. (1962, p. 260)

140

Psychological Gender

The evidence presented here shows that gender as a language classification system offers the possibility to the speaker of classifying reality in this way, if it is appropriate to do so. Thus, on a sex assignment task and in the writing of children's stories, the grammatical gender system in German and the established system of pronoun use in English are exploited, albeit unconsciously, by the speaker as the basis for choosing a sex. The attributes of the referent only become important where the classification system offers no direction. The results confirm the description of gender systems by several authors (see Chapter 1) as the potential basis for personification (e.g. Hjelmslev, 1956, p. 218; Jespersen, 1914, 1924; Wienold, 1967, p. 325). Jakobson's report (1959) of problems in translating personified non-animate nouns into other languages suggests that these findings can be generalized. In acquisition, the child seeks regularities and systems within language and attempts to link these to regularities and systems perceived in the world external to language. At the same time, language can offer a possible way to classify reality which would not necessarily come from the perception of that reality alone. This possibility appears to be taken up by children from an early age. An interaction takes place between different types of classification systems, of which language is but one.

Summary and Conclusions It has been proposed that language and particularly language classification

systems such as gender will affect the perception of reality (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). This hypothesis was investigated by studying the relationship be" tween the gender classification system and the perception of sex features in a series of studies. It was shown from children's literature that the sex chosen for animals and objects in the context of their being anthropomorphized correlated highly with the grammatical gender of the noun in German or the predominant pronoun use (in lively style) in English. In an experimental study with adults and with children aged 3 -10 years, the sex assigned to a set of referents was again shown to correlate highly with the gender of the corresponding noun in German or the gender of the pronouns used in English. German and English speakers behaved differently in so far as the language determined a difference; for example, the referent clock was made female by German speakers and male by English speakers. The German speakers made the referents of the neuter nouns predominantly male, which indicated that the attributes of the referent were another factor in influencing the choice of sex. The children showed that they were influenced in the choice of sex by the gender of the noun, but also by their own sex, in that the youngest children also gave the toys a sex which agreed with their own sex. This tendency decreased in the older children. The perception of sex-related attributes was investigated with English and German adults using a semantic differential test on the same set of nouns test-

Summary and Conclusions

141

ed in the sex assignment task, as well as the items man and woman (and the German equivalents). The perception of the referents in terms of attributes

correlated positively between the speakers of the two languages, thus contradicting the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The grammatical gender did not agree in every instance with the male- or femaleness of the referent. On a comparison of the grammatical gender, perceived male. . or femaleness and sex chosen, the dominant influence on the choice of sex was gram-

matical gender, attributes being taken into account only where the grammatical gender did not make a clear specification. If no specification could be made from attributes either, the choice would seem to be male. From this evidence, it is suggested that gender is used by speakers as a possibility of classifying reality if it is appropriate to do so. This exploitation of the classification system begins early in language acquisition.

N

Conclusions

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

The results of the investigations presented in the previous chapters have provided a description of aspects of the acquisition of gender in German and English. Detailed reports of the findings are to be found in the corresponding sections. The purpose of the following discussion is to draw together the general implications of these findings and to show the direction they indicate for future research. This study of gender was conceived within the standard psychological framework. That is, hypotheses were set up about acquisition, tested and reexamined for their validity; where the hypothesis was not upheld, alternative explanations for the behaviour were sought. The hypotheses in this study were formulated on the basis of the linguistic description of the area in so far as that could be related to acquisition, the description of adult usage and, where appropriate, principles of acquisition derived from previous research. The results of the various investigations showed that the hypotheses based most directly on linguistic description were rarely correct or, if correct, could not necessarily be related only to that factor. The natural gender rule, for example, was shown to be one of many gender assignment rules in German, and on the basis of this description, it would be predicted that German children would take longer to learn this rule than English children for whom the natural gender rule is one of only a few rules. This prediction based on the linguistic description of the rules in the two languages was shown to be incorrect, since German children learn the natural gender rule as marked on pronouns before English children. The possible factors influencing this behaviour are the strong link shown between natural gender and grammatical gender in adult usage in German, the fact that the German gender system affects parts of speech other than pronouns, which requires German children to sort out the system earlier than English children, who are only exposed to gender reflected on pronouns, and phonetic similarities between pronoun forms in English, which may make it difficult to keep the forms apart. The predictions based on markedness theory were rarely upheld. The German children, for example, showed no difference in their acquisition of the masculine and feminine pronouns with reference to natural gender. The English children did show a tendency to use he more frequently than she, which matches the prediction, since he is the unmarked form. Here, though, it

Min (

143

should be noted that the form he is used far more frequently by adults than the form she, since he is the unmarked form. Possibly for this reason, it is ac-

quired first rather than directly as a consequence of its distributional and semantic unmarkedness. This finding that linguistic description is rarely adequate alone as a basis for predicting acquisition behaviour underlines the gap that exists between the information included in linguistic description and the factors which account for linguistic behaviour. If linguistic description is to come closer to accounting for behaviour such as acquisition, its basis must be far broader than is allowed in any current theories. It was not found necessary either in the formulation of the hypotheses or in the explanations offered post factum to appeal to any innate language-specific capacity. All explanatory principles fitted into the cognitive theory of acquisition. For example, the learning of forms which co-occur frequently with other forms in input relies on the ability to store and assess the frequency of co-occurring units. This ability is fundamental to learning gender rules. It would not seem to be language specific, in the sense of unique to the languagelearning faculty, however, since it underlies pattern learning in all cognitive areas. As was pointed out in the introduction to this study, however, research needs to be carried out on the use of such principles in non-language areas in order to clarify the relationship between language abilities and cognitive abilities. As was discussed above in relation to the acquisition of the natural gender rule, in several of the investigations here explanations for the acquisition be. haviour had to be provided post factum. These explanations adequately fit the behaviour found in the acquisition of gender. If the explanations are to have any generality in the sense of explaining behaviour not only in the acquisition of gender, but also in other areas of acquisition, then it is essential that such principles function as predicting hypotheses in further research. For example, in the study of the animacy rule, English children were found to make an early association of it with the marking of inanimacy contrasting with the use of he for animates in which sex is not specified, that is, common gender; the com-

mon gender function of it was acquired later. These findings were explained using the one form-one function principle, which states that the child will first associate a form which has two distinct functions with only one of those functions and mark the other function in a different way. Although, in this case, the explanation seems plausible, the one form-one function principle cannot be confirmed and refined unless it is used as a predicting principle. Through the instances in which the principle is shown not to apply, its formulation can be made increasingly precise. As it is, it is unavoidably vague, for example, in its reference to the concepts of form and function; these need to be defined in terms of the child's perception at the particular point in time. The above example illustrates the necessity of pursuing hypothetical principles of language acquisition in order to achieve greater precision. A general criticism which can be made of a large amount of work in child language is

144

Conclusions

that researchers are content with post factum explanations and continue to apply explanations as principles post factum in other areas. The purpose of elaborating a set of operating principles for acquisition, as has been done by Slobin (1973, 1986b), is that they function as a research programme for further' testing and refinement. It is hoped that the principles elaborated in this study, such as the principle of predicting the order of the acquisition of rules according to the notion of 'clarity' in the system, will be explored and refined in this' way, not only in relation to gender systems, but in wider areas of child language acquisition.

Appendices

A. List of Nonsense Words Tested for the Use of Phonetic Rules B. Production of the Definite Article in a Gender Selection Task with 5- and 6-Year-Old German Children C. Sentences Used in the Pronoun Completion Task D. Results of the Sentence Completion Task According to the Pronoun Used and Sex and Age of the Child E. Cloze Test Used in a Pronoun Experiment F. Results of the Pronoun Selection in the Cloze Test by Children and Adults G. Mean Rankings of English Nouns by Adult English Speakers on a Semantic Differential Test According to Attribute and Sex of Subject H. Mean Rankings of German Nouns by Adult German Speakers on a Semantic Differential Test According to Attribute and Sex of Subject

Appendices

146

Appendix A. List of nonsense words tested for the use of phonetic rules (see pp. 45-50,79-85)

Appendices

147

Appendix C. Sentences used in the pronoun completion task (see pp. 90 - 94)

English

1. der Knaff 2. der Schnach 3. die Knirf 4. das Troch 5. die Klirm

das Knaff das Schnach der Knirf

23. das SchlaB 24. cter Knink 25. die Schett

der SchlaB ctie Knink das Schett

def Troch def Klirm

26. def Sperf

die Sperf die Luhr def Kier

6. der Flett 7. die Knich

das Flett der Knich

8. das Trilch 9. die Muhr

def Trilch def Muhr

10. der StiB 11. das Grolch 12. der Knump

die StiB def Grolch

13. die Sier

14. der Kaft 15. die ZOr

16. die Spank 17. def Trant 18. def Treik

19. das Gret! 20. cter Schwirk 21. die Pucht 22. das Prier

27. der Luhr 28. das Kier 29. cter Knolk

das Knolk

30. def Schrenk

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

das Knump das Sier

die Kaft das Zor der Spank die Trant die Treik die Grett

das Schrenk def KniB

das KniB der Tralp der Knauck die Speuch das Zacht die BraIt das Wur die Gocht

die Tralp die Knauck def Speuch die Zacht

def Brolt die WOr der Gocht das Flier def Trunt das Quett def Trauch das Tsirf der Draff

39. die Flier 40. das Trunt

41. der Quett 42. die Trauch 43. der Tsirf 44. das Draff

das Schwirk das Pucht def Prier

Appendix B. Production of the definite article in a gender selection task with 5- and 6-year-old German children (see pp. 77 -79)

Gender of the noun

Noun

Neuter Neuter

Pferd

Feminine

Buch

7 7 3 1

6 5 2 3

48 48 48 48

Total

158

18

16

192

6 3 3

36 39 42

6 6 3

48 48 48

Total

12

117

15

144

Katze Maus

2 2

Uhr

0

0 2 2

46 44 46

48 48 48

Total

4

4

136

144

Bar

Elefant Ball

Feminine

Masculine

35 36 43 44

Schwein Auto

Masculine

Total

Gender of article chosen

1. The horse is standing in the stable. 2. The pig is lying on the grass. 3. The book is on the table. 4. The car is in the garage. 5. The bear is under the tree. 6. The elephant is in the circus. 7. The ball is in the toy box. 8. The key is on the hook. 9. The cat is in the cupboard. ' 10. The mouse is in the cage. 11. The candle is on the shelf. 12. The clock is in the hall.

· .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · ..

is eating hay. is very dirty. has many pictures. is out of the rain. is very hungry. is very big. is brand~new. is very small. is hiding behind the coats. is grey and white. is made of wax. is very old.

German 1. Das Pferd steht im Stall. 2. Das Schwein liegt auf dem Gras.

... friBt Heu. · .. ist sehr schmutzig.

3. Das Buch liegt auf dem Tisch. 4. Das Auto steht in der Garage. 5. Der Bar steht unter dem Baum.

· .. hat viele Bilder. · .. ist nicht im Regen.

6. Der Elefant ist im Zirkus. 7. Der Ball ist in der Kiste. 8. Der Schlussel hangt an dem Haken. 9. Die Katze ist im Schrank. 10. Die Maus ist im Kafig. 11. Die Kerze ist auf dem Regal.

12. Die Uhr steht im Flur.

· .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ... · ..

hat viel Hunger. ist sehr groB. ist nagelneu. ist sehr klein. versteckt sich hinter den Manteln. ist grau und weiB. ist aus Wachs. ist sehr alt.

Appendix D. Results of the sentence completion task according to the pronoun used and sex and age of the child (see pp. 90-94)

Book

5-6 years Girls 5 - 6 years Boys 7 - 8 years Girls 7 - 8 years Boys

9-10 years Girls 9-10 years Boys

Animate

Inanimate

English

he she it

4 0 8

he she it

3

Car

Ball

Key

4

2 1 9

1 9

o

0 9

o

Candle 2

Clock

18 4 50

3 9

19 3 50

3

15

9

2 55

8

4 1 7

3 1 8

3 1

o

o

8

9

3

3 1 8

2 1 9

a

he she it

2

2

0 10

o

o

10

9

he she it

2 1 9

3 1 9

o

he she it

1 0 11

o o

he she it

2

Horse

Pig 7

5

Bear

6

Elephant

3 6 3

9

4

3

4 4

a

a

7

5

6

8

7 1 4

a

a

5

a 4

7

7

7

a

a

a

o

5

3

7

5

5

7

4 5

4

2

5

13 4

9

2 2 8

55

2

a

1

9

11

62

58

7

6

7

1

a a

a

2

5 1

a

a

a

o

12

10

66

9

9

10

12

1 10

0

1

o

o

0 12

o

o o

a

a

a

a

o

a

a

12

12

12

11

70

11

9

10

10

2

6 34

2 10

10

3

32

o

10

2

5 2 5

3

10

a

40 8 24

43

a

11

5 3 4

7

a 2

30

8

o 3

10

8

a 3

32

3 2

27

12 2

o

5

4

5

a

6

Total

a

2

o

5

Mouse

2

2

1

Cat

7 1 4

a

o

1

11

3

Total

3 1 8

1 8

11

~

&

11

o

2

i

fr.

n

~

Appendix Do (continued)

German

Buch 5-6 years Girls 5-6 years Boys

M F N M F

1

a

Ball

Schlussel

Kerze

12

11 1 12

11

a a

a

12

a

Total

12

1 11

25 25

o a

a a

a

22

9

12

12

25 26 21

2 1 9

a

12

24 24 24

12

25 24

o

o

a o

0

a

a o

12

12

0

12

a

12

12

a o

o a

o a

12

12

a a

12

N

1 0 11

M F

0

a

a

12

N

12

12

M F N

0

a

a o

12

12

M F N

7-8 years Boys

M F

a

a a

12

a a

a a

Uhf

1 11

7-8 years Girls

9-10 years Boys

a 1 11

Auto

[<so

Animate

1 10

N

9-10 years Girls

~

'0

Inanimate

a a

12

a a

12

o a

12

a a

12

o a

a o

Pferd

3

Schwein

Bar

Elefant

Katze

1 3 8

12

11 1

12

3

12

12

2

a o

a

a a

7

a o

12

a

a

a

12

12

a

23

9

a

a

24 24 24

o a

a o

12

12

12

12

12

a a

a a

24 24 24

a

a

o a

12

12

12

12

a

12

12

0

a

a

a a

1 11

12

a

o o

o

11 1

1 11

a a

28 27

o a

3

a

1 11

a

10

12

12

Total

0

o a

a

o

Maus

a

12

o a

0

12

a a

a o

12

o a

12

o

17 30

26 16

24 26

a o

22

12

25 20

o

a

27

12

24 24 24

12

24 24 24

a o

a

n

~

~

~

150

Appendices

Appendices

151

.,.,

Appendix E. Cloze text used in a pronoun experiment (see pp. 95 - 97)

"'::!""'::!"\O

t.-- ...... on

O\t.--oo

\ON"'::!"

t.-- ...... \O

OM ~

.,.,

NNo\ N ...... ~

Age (years) ......... . Please fill in the blanks numbered 1 - 55 in the following text with an appropriate word. Please write your answers clearly in the space provided.

Playtime in the toy cupboard Katy was (1) .......... fast asleep and (2) .......... went very quiet, (3) ......... . least for a few (4) ........... Then the toys in the toy cupboard (5) .......... to wake up. "She's asleep now". whispered (6) .......... the ball. "Are (7) .......... sure?" answered the elephant. "Of course I'm (8) .......... " the ball shouted back at (9)

........... "Alright, alright", (10) .......... the bear, waving (11) .......... hands in dismay. "You'll wake Katy (12) .......... again." "How (13) .......... a game of

<'i

hide and seek?" suggested the pig, (14) .......... the subject. "I (15) .......... know why you (16) .......... to play that. You're much too fat to hide (17) .......... ", said the book and (18) .......... looked at the pig disapprovingly. The pig hung (19) .......... head in shame. "I know", (20) .......... said, "but it is fun". "I'll do the seeking, if you like," said the ball. So the toys (21) .......... the cupboard doors and the ball covered (22) .......... eyes and counted to twenty. "Coming", (23) ......... .

called and started the search. The toy cat had hidden behind one cupboard (24) .......... and was feeling very pleased with (25) ........... But the ball found (26) .......... easily, spotting a tail sticking out round the side. "Not a bright animal that,"

thought (29) .......... horse who was (28) .......... behind the other door. The horse had hidden (29) .......... tail very carefully but the ball found (30) .......... quickly

1

nevertheless. The other toys were discovered in (31) .......... succession. The bead

had fallen (32) .......... and you could hear (33) .......... snores from underneath the table. The model car's lights were on (34) .......... mistake and they (35) .......... out in the dark. "How was (36) .......... to know Katy had forgotten to turn them (37) .......... ?" (38) .......... complained bitterly. The mouse's whiskers

iii

were tickled (39) .......... a draught. "Atishooo" (40) .......... sneezed violently

u

and so the ball found (41) .......... straight away. The (42) .......... draught rustled the pages of the book, much to (43) .......... dismay. "I don't think much of this

~

game", moaned the car again and took (44) .......... off in a huff. The other toys all laughed as (45) .......... were found and it was (46) .......... quite noisy when the clock chimed ten o'clock. "Ten o'clock", called the clock. "You'd (47) .......... get back in the cupboard." "1 wish (48) .......... would not interfere so much with us",

said the ball (49) .......... the elephant who waved (50) .......... trunk in agreement, and so the toys carried on. Just then the door (51) .......... and Katy's Mum (52) .......... in. "What a mess", (53) .......... said. "Toys allover the floor". "See, warned you". said the clock and rubbed (54) .......... hands in glee. The toys locked

(55) .......... glum.

o


00

Appendix G. Mean rankings of English nouns by adult English speakers on a semantic differential test according to attribute and sex of subject (see pp. 130-140)

Low - high Smooth - rough Hazy - clear Warm - cold Little - big Gentle - wild Passive - active Weak - strong Beautiful - ugly Sad - happy Quiet - noisy Round - jagged Relaxed - tense Damp - dry Constant - changeable

Mean:

Man m

Man f

Bear m

Bear f

Elephant m

Elephant f

Ball m

Ball f

Woman m

Woman f

Cat Cat mf

3.08 3.67 3.50 3.08 4.17 3.33 4.17 4.17 3.08 3.58 3.42 3.33 3.50 3.33 3.58 3.53

3.17 3.17 3.33 2.33 4.25 2.83 3.33 3.58 2.75 3.17 3.08 2.83 3.25 3.16 3.42 3.18

2.50 3.75 3.00 1.92 3.75 3.83 3.33 3.67 2.08 2.92 3.33 2.33 2.50 3.50 3.42 3.06

3.00 3.92 3.00 2.67 4.42 4.58 3.92 4.58 2.17 3.17 3.58 2.33 2.83 3.67 3.50 3.42

3.50 3.42 3.00 2.92 3.75 3.33 3.75 4.17 2.50 2.50 3.33 2.17 3.17 3.50 3.58 3.24

3.58 3.33 2.67 2.17 3.83 3.33 3.33 3.75 2.58 2.50 3.33 2.00 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.06

2.83 2.17 3.75 3.33 2.33 3.00 2.50 3.17 2.33 3.08 3.00 1.00 3.25 3.25 3.75 2.85

3.33 1.75 3.67 3.58 3.83 3.25 3.25 3.17 3.17 3.25 3.08 1.00 3.92 3.50 3.25 3.13

2.92 2.25 3.75 2.75 2.25 1.67 2.83 2.00 1.25 3.00 2.67 2.50 2.33 3.08 3.42 2.59

3.00 2.50 3.42 1.92 2.33 2.25 3.42 2.83 2.08 3.17 3.17 2.75 3.08 3.33 3.58 2.86

3.08 3.33 2.75 2.17 1.92 3.08 3.17 2.58 2.00 2.92 2.08 2.75 2.50 3.33 3.42 2.74

~

..., V>

3.17 3.08 2.67 2.00 1.42 3.00 2.83 3.00 1.92 3.00 1.67 2.67 2.33 3.50 3.25 2.63

.Goo ro

o

[

Appendix G. Differential test (continued)

Low - high Smooth - rough Hazy - clear Warm - cold Little - big Gentle - wild Passive - active Weak - strong Beautiful - ugly Sad - happy Quiet - noisy Round - jagged Relaxed - tense Damp - dry Constant - changeable

Mean:

Mouse m

Mouse f

Clock m

Clock f

Horse m

Horse f

Pig m

Pig

Car

f

2.58 3.75 3.08 2.67 1.58 2.00 3.75 1.67 3.00 3.25 1.83 2.42 2.92 2.83 3.42 2.72

2.75 3.67 2.92 2.83 1.92 2.08 3.92 1.83 3.00 3.08 2.00 2.33 3.00 2.92 3.33 2.77

3.25 1.75 3.42 3.92 2.67 2.83 3.75 3.33 2.50 3.25 2.50 2.67 2.83 3.42 3.33 3.03

3.42 2.25 3.83 4.58 2.67 3.50 3.75 3.50 2.50 2.75 2.50 2.83 3.17 3.50 3.17 3.19

3.50 2.92 4.00 2.17 4.50 3.17 4.00 3.83 1.92 3.25 3.42 2.25 3.25 3.17 3.50 3.26

3.33 2.83 3.50 2.00 3.92 2.83 3.33 3.42 1.92 3.42 3.25 2.58 2.83 3.00 3.33 3.03

3.08 3.17 3.17 2.25 3.17 2.75 3.08 3.50 3.17 2.75 3.75 1.75 2.75 2.75 3.08 2.94

2.92 2.83 3.00 1.83 2.83 2.50 3.00 3.17 2.50 2.75 3.33 1.50 2.58 3.00 3.08 2.72

Book

Book

m

Car f

m

f

3.33 2.17 3.00 3.17 4.00 3.17 -2.17 3.17 2.58 2.92 3.92 3.17 2.58 3.00 3.42 3.05

3.08 2.08 3.58 4.00 3.25 3.58 2.83 3.92 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.08 2.83 3.33 3.17 3.25

3.00 2.25 3.58 3.00 2.83 3.00 1.92 2.50 2.75 2.50 2.50 4.25 3.08 3.75 1.92 3.07

3.00 2.58 3.33 3.33 2.92 2.92 2.08 3.00 2.42 2.67 2.83 4.50 3.00 4.08 2.08 2.98

~ [

~.

m, male; f, female

-

V> W

Appendix H. Mean rankings of German nouns by adult German speakers on a semantic differential test according to attribute and sex of subject (see pp. 130-140)

Tief - hoch Glatt - rauh Verschwommen ~ klar Warm - kalt Klein - groB Sanft - wild Passiv - aktiv Schwach - stark Schon - haBlich Traurig - froh Leise ~ laut Rund - eckig Gelost - gespannt Feucht ~ trocken Stetig - veranderlich Mean:

Mann

Mann

Ear

Bar

Katze

Katze

f

Ball m

Frau

m

Elefant f

Frau

f

Elefant m

Ball

m

f

m

f

m

f

3.17 3.42 3.42 3.00 4.00 3.42 3.92 4.25 2.92 3.42 3.58 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.33 3.46

3.00 3.25 3.25 2.08 3.58 2.92 3.33 3.42 2.67 3.08 3.17 3.00 2.92 3.08 3.58 3.09

3.00 4.00 3.08 2.50 4.50 4.50 3.58 4.67 2.25 3.08 3.50 2.42 2.83 3.25 3.50 3.38

3.25 3.25 3.33 1.83 4.58 4.25 4.17 4.83 2.08 2.92 3.08 2.17 3.25 3.33 3.25 3.31

3.75 3.75 3.42 2.67 4.50 3.58 3.67 4.50 2.42 2.75 4.00 2.50 2.50 3.25 3.50 3.38

3.58 3.67 3.33 2.08 4.83 2.75 3.42 4.67 2.25 2.83 3.75 1.92 3.00 3.75 2.83 3.25

2.92 2.33 3.67 3.25 2.50 3.08 2.50 3.08 2.67 3.08 3.25 1.08 3.25 3.17 3.75 2.91

3.17 1.17 3.33 3.92 2.67 3.00 2.67 3.17 2.17 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.25 3.58 2.75 2.79

2.83 2.42 3.25 2.67 2.58 1.75 3.17 1.92 1.33 3.17 2.58 2.75 2.42 2.92 3.17 2.59

3.00 2.33 3.42 1.83 2.67 2.75 3.58 3.00 2.58 3.08 3.08 2.67 2.92 3.08 3.67 2.91

3.00 3.50 3.08 2.25 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.83 2.33 2.83 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.25 3.50 2.87

2.92 2.08 3.33 1.75 2.33 3.00 4.00 3.08 1.42 3.08 1.42 2.17 2.75 3.58 3.92 2.72

~

...

~

"oro

[

Appendix H. Differential test (continued)

Tief - hoch Glatt - rauh Verschwommen ~ klar Warm - kalt Klein - groB Sanft - wild Passiv - aktiv Schwach - stark SchOn - haBlich Traurig - froh Leise - laut Rund - eckig Geiost - gespannt Feucht - trocken Stetig - veranderlich Mean:

Maus

Maus

Uhr

m

f

m

Uhr f

Pferd m

Pferd f

Schwein m

Schwein f

Auto m

Auto f

Euch m

Buch f

3.08 2.33 3.58 3.50 2.50 2.83 2.67 3.00 2.33 3.00 2.58 2.50 3.33 3.42 2.50 2.90

3.17 1.83 3.58 4.25 2.75 3.25 3.83 3.17 2.33 3.00 2.58 2.67 3.00 3.50 3.25 3.08

3.75 2.75 3.42 2.50 4.08 3.00 3.75 4.00 2.00 3.08 3.42 2.75 2.92 3.25 3.17 3.18

3.33 2.58 3.25 1.83 3.92 3.00 3.50 3.92 2.00 3.00 3.42 2.50 3.17 2.83 3.17 3.03

3.08 3.66 3.17 2.50 3.00 3.08 2.83 3.42 3.42 2.75 3.75 1.92 3.00 2.67 3.08 3.02

3.00 3.08 3.33 2.33 3.00 2.75 3.08 3.33 L75 3.08 3.67 1.83 2.83 2.67 3.08 2.92

3.17 2.50 3.50 3.58 3.50 3.25 2.67 3.75 2.50 3.00 3.75 3.33 3.08 3.17 3.50 3.19

3.00 1.67 3.67 4.17 3.33 3.08 2.67 3.50 2.75 3.00 3.83 3.00 3.00 3.17 3.17 3.13

3.17 2.42 3.50 3.33 2.75 3.00 2.08 2.92 2.50 2.75 2.67 4.58 3.08 3.92 2.08 2.98

3.00 2.00 3.67 3.67 2.92 3.00 2.08 3.00 2.25 2.92 2.33 4.50 3.00 4.00 2.17 2.97

2.58 2.92 3.17 2.58 1.50 2.08 3.67 1.75 3.17 3.08 1.75 2.25 2.92 2.75 3.33 2.63

2.83 2.50 3.25 2.08 1.17 2.08 3.58 1.50 2.25 3.00 1.83 2.33 3.17 3.33 3.25 2.54

{ ;;. ~

m, male; f. female

U> U>

References

References

Abbott, E. A. (1966). A Shakespearian grammar. New York: Dover. Altmann, G .• & Raettig, V. (1973). Genus und Wortauslaut im Deutschen. Zeitschri/t jur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschajt und Kommunikationsjorschung, 26, 297 - 303. Angermaier, M. J. W. (1968). Ergebnisse von Messungen def sprachlichen Entwicklung 3 - 9jahriger mit dem psycholinguistischen Entwicklungstest PET. In G. Augst (Ed.), Spracherwerb von 6 bis 16 (pp. 33 - 52). Dusseldorf: Schwann. Arndt, W. W. (1970). Nonrandom assignment of loanwords: German noun gender. Word, 26, 244 - 253. Aron, A. W. (1930). The gender of English loanwords in colloquial American German. In 1. T. Hatfield (Ed.), Curme Volume oj Linguistic Studies (pp. 11-28). Baltimore: The Linguistic Society of America. Atkinson, M. (1982). Explanations in the Study oj Child Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ausbuttel, E. (1904). Das personliche Geschlecht unpers6nlicher Substantiva einschliejJlich der Tiernamen im Mittel-Englischen seit dem Aussterben des grammatischen Geschlechts (Studien zur englischen Philologie, Vol. 19). Halle: Niemeyer. Avery, D. (1984, May). Die Diskriminierung der Frau beginnt in den Schulbuchern. UNESCO Service, 31 (5), 11-13. Bach, E. (1968). Nouns and noun phrases. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 91-122). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1971). A gender problem in language contact situation. Lingua, 27, 141-159. Barbaud, P., Ducharme, c., & Valois, D. (1981). L'usage du genre en canadien-francais. Une etude syntaxique et sociolinguistique de la feminisation des noms a initiale vocalique. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 1-42. Baron, 1., & Kaiser, A. (1975). Semantic components in children's errors with pronouns. Journal 0/ Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 303 - 318. Baron, N. S. (1971). A reanalysis of English grammatical gender. Lingua, 27, 113 -140. Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic. Bauch, H. 1. (1971). Zum Informationsgehalt der Kategorie des Genus im Deutschen, Englischen und Polnischen. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universittit Rostock, 20 (6), 411-418. Beit-Hallahmi, B., Catford, 1. C., Cooley, R. E., Dull, C. Y., Guiora, A. Z., & Raluszny, M. (1974). Grammatical gender and gender identity development: Cross-cultural and cross-lingual implications. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44 (3), 424-431.

157

Berman, R. (1986). Acquisition of Hebrew. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study oj language acquisition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, Nl: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bindseil, H. E. (1836). Uber die verschiedenen Bezeichnungsweisen des Genus in den Sprachen. In H. E. Bindseil (Ed.), Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen vergleichenden Sprachlehre. Hamburg: Perthes. Bloomfield, L. (1946). Algonquian. In H. Hojer (Ed.), Linguistic structures oj native America (pp. 85 -129). New York: Viking Press. B6hme, K. (1983). Children's understanding and awareness o/German possessive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Holland. B6hme, K., & LeveIt, W. (1979). Children's use and awareness of natural and syntactic gender in possessive pronouns. Paper presented at the International Reading Research Seminar on Linguistic Awareness and Learning to Read, Victoria, Canada. Bornemann, E. (1971). Sex im Volksmund. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Brener, R. (1983). Learning the deictic meaning of third person pronouns. Journal oj Psycholinguistic Research, 12 (3), 235 - 264. Brener, R. (1986). The acquisition of personal pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull, Great Britain. ' Brinkmann, H. (1954). Zum grammatischen Geschlecht im Deutschen. Soumalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae [Ser. B. Tom.], 84, 371- 428. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harmondsworth: George Allen & Unwin. Brown, R. W., & Lenneberg, E. H. (1954). A study in language and cognition. Journal oj Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 454 - 462. Brugmann, K. (1897). The nature and origin of the noun genders in the Indo-European languages. New York: Scribner. Brunner, K. (1962). Die englische Sprache (Vol. 2). Tubingen: Niemeyer. Carstensen, B. (1980a). The gender of English loan-words in German. Studia Anglica Posnaniensa, 12, 3 - 25. Carstensen, B. (1980b). Das Genus englischer Fremd- und Lehnworter im Deutschen. In W. Viereck (Ed.), Studien zum Ein/lujJ der englischen Sprache au/ das Deutsche. Tubingen: Narr. Chiat, S. (1978). The analysis oj children's pronouns: An investigation into the prerequisites/or linguistic knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, Great Britain. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects oj the theory oj syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays onjorm and interpretation. New York: North-Holland. Clahsen, H. (1982a). Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: Eifie Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tubingen: Narr. Clahsen, H. (1982b). Dokumentation von Daten zur fruhen Kindersprache. Wuppertaler Arbeitspapiere zur Sprachwissenschaft, 4. Universitat-Gesamthochschule-Wuppertal. Clahsen, H. (1983). Die Profilanalyse: Ein linguistisches Verjahren fur die Sprachdiagnose im Vorschulalter. Unpublished manuscript, University of Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany. Clahsen, H. (1984). Der Erwerb von Kasusmarkierungen in der deutschen Kindersprache. Linguistische Berichte, 89 (84), 1- 31. Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal oj Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 10, 266-275.

158

References

Clark, E. V. (1986). Acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch. Clarke, M. A., Losoff, A., Dickenson, M., & McCracken, J. A. S. (1981). Gender perception in Arabic and English. Language Learning, 31 (1), 159 -169. Clyne, M. G. (1967). Transference and triggering: Observations on the language assimilation ofpostwar German-speaking migrants in Australia. The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff. Clyne, M. O. (1969). Inhalt, Klangassoziation und Genus in def deutschen Sprache bei Ein- und Zweisprachigen. Zeitschri/t jiir Phonetik, Sprachwissenschajt und Kom-

munikationsjorschung, 22 (1), 218 - 224. Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

Corbett, G. G. (1979a). The agreement hierarchy. Journal oj Linguistics, 15 (2), 203 -224. Corbett, G. O. (1979b). A mis-match between semantics and syntax: Animacy in Russian. Paper presented to the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, April, 1979, Hull, Great Britain. Coseriu, E. (1982). Naturbild und Sprache. In J. Z. Zimmermann (Ed.), Dos Naturbild des Menschen (pp. 260-284). Munich: Fink. Coseriu, E., & Geckeler, H. (1974). Linguistics and semantics. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.) Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 12 (pp. 103 -171). The Hague: Mouton. Cromer, R. F. (1974). The development of language and cognition: The cognition hypothesis. In B. Foss (Ed.). New perspectives in child development (pp. 184-252). Bungay, Suffolk, Great Britain: Penguin Education. Curme, G. O. (1935). Parts oj speech and accidence. Boston: Heath. Curme, G. O. (1960). A grammar oj the German language (2nd ed.). New York: Ungar. Deutsch, W., & Jarvella, R. J. (1983). Asymmetrien zwischen Sprachproduktion und Sprachverstehen. In C. F. Graumann & T. Herrmann (Eds.), Karl Buhlers Axiomatik. Frankfurt: Klostermann. Deutsch, W., & Pechmann, T. (1978). Ihr, dir, or mir? On the acquisition of pronouns in German children. Cognition, 6, 155 -168. de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (1986). Acquisition of English. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study 0/ language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Donaldson, M. E., & Wales, R. J. (1970). On the acquisition of some relational terms. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development oj language (pp. 235 - 268). New York: Wiley. Engels, B. (1976). Gebrauchsanstieg der lexikalischen und semantischen Amerikanismen in .:lwei Jahrgangen der "Welt" (1954 und 1964) (Mainzer Studien zur Amerikanistik, Vol. 2). Bern: Peter Lang. Ervin, S. (1962). The connotations of gender. Word, 18, 249- 261. (Reprinted in S. M. Ervin-Tripp, 1973, Language acquisition and communicative choice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Faraday, A. (1973). Dream Power. New York: Afor. Fodor, I. (1959). The origin of grammatical gender (Part 1). Lingua, 8 (1), 1 - 41; 8 (2), 186-214.

References

159

Froitzheim, C. (1981). Sprache und Geschlecht: Bibliographie (Series B, Paper No. 72). Linguistic Agency, University of Trier, Federal Republic of Germany. Gabelentz, G. v. d. (1891). Die Sprachwissenschajt. Leipzig: Weizel. (New edition published in 1972 with essay by E. Coseriu, Tiibingen: Narr). Galinsky, H. (1980). American neologisms in German. American Speech, 55, 243 -263. Geest, T. v. d. (1978). Sprachentwicklungsprozesse in semantischer und interaktionistischer Sicht. Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und Piidagogische Psychologie, 10 (3), 286 - 304. Gill, W. S. (1967, April). Animal content in the Rorschach. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 49 - 56. Gipper, H. (1972). Gibt es ein sprachliches Relativitiitsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir- Whorf-Hypothese. Frankfurt: Fischer. Givan, T. (1986). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. , Glahn, N. van (1918). Zur Geschichte des grammatischen Geschlechts im Mittelenglischen vor dem v611igen Erl6schen des aus dem Altenglischen ererbten Zustandes. Anglistische Forschungen (Vol. 53). Heidelberg: Carl Winters. Gleitman, L. (1981). Maturational determinants of language growth. Cognition, 10, 105 -113. Goggin, J. (1974). Proactive interference and gender change in short-term memory. Bulletin oj the Psychonomic SOciety 3, 222 - 224. Gopnik, A. (1984). The acquisition of gone and the development of the object concept. Journal oj Child Language, 11, 273 - 292. Greenberg, J. H. (1966a). Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Greenberg, J. H. (1966b). Language universals. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp 61 -112). The Hague: Mouton. Greenfield, P. M., Nelson, K. E., & Saltzman, E. (1972). Development of rule-bound strategies for manipulating seriated cups: A parallel between action and grammar. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 291-311. Greenhalgh, S. (1976). Erwerb und Entwicklung der Interrogativpronomen in der Kindersprache am Beispiel des Deutschen. Master's thesis, University oJ Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany. Gregor, B. (1983). Genuszuordnung: Das Genus englischer Lehnworter im Deutschen. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Grimm, H. (1968). Der Heidelberger Sprachentwicklungstest (H-S-E-T): Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Ergebnisse (pp. 53 - 80). In G. Augst (Ed.), Spracherwerb von 6 bis 16. Dusseldorf: Schwann. Grimm, H. (1973). Strukturanalytische Untersuchung der Kindersprache. Stuttgart: Huber. Grimm, J. (1831). Deutsche Grammatik. Gottingen. Guentherodt, I., Hellinger, M., Pusch, L. F., & Tramel-PlOtz, S. (1980). RichtUnien ZUr Vermeidung sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs. Linguistische Berichte, 69, 15 - 21. Guiora, A. Z., & Acton, W. R. (1979). Personality and language behavior: A restatement. Language Learning: A Journal oj Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 193 - 204. Guiora, A. Z., & Sagi, A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of symbolic meaning: Developmental aspects. Language Learning, 28 (2), 381 - 386.

160

References

Guiora, A. Z., Paluszny, M., Beit-Hallahmi, B., Catford, J. C., Cooley, R. E., & Dull, C. Y. (1975). Language and person: Studies in language behavior. Language Learn~.~0),~-M.

.

Gvozdev, A. N. (1949). Formirovanie u rebenka grammaticeskogo stroja russkogo jazyka [ The development of the grammatical structures of Russian in the child]. Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii Pedagogiceskich Nauk RSFSR. Hall, R. A., Jr. (1951). Sex-reference and grammatical gender in English. American

Speech, 26, 170 -172. Hawkins, J. A. (1985), On English/German contrasts: Some explanatory speculations. London: Croom Helm. Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology,93,10-20. Heider, E. R., & Olivier, D. (1972). The structure of the color space in naming and memory for two languages. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 337 - 354. Hellinger, M. (1980). Zuni. Gebrauch weiblicher Berufsbezeichnungen im Deutschen: Variabilitat als Ausdruck auBersprachlicher Machtstrukturen. Linguislische Berichte, 69, 37 - 58. Herold, A. L. (1982). Linguistic relativity: Transforming the relative into the insensible: A reply to Clarke et al. Language Learning, 32 (1), 201.-207. Hjelmslev, L. (1956). On numerus og genus [On number and gender]. In L. L. Hammarich (Ed.), Festskrift til Christen M¢lIer (pp. 167 -190). Copenhagen: Borgens. Hjelmslev, L. (1959). Anime et inanime. In L. Hjelmslev (Ed.), Essais linguisliques (pp. 211-249). Copenhagen: Cercle Linguistique de Copenhagen. Hofstatter, P. R. (1963).. Uber sprachliche Bestimmungsleistungen: Das Problem des grammatikalischen Geschlechts von Sonne und Mond. Zeitschrift fur experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 10, 91-108. Hofstatter, P. R. (1973). Einfuhrung in die Sozialpsychologle. Stuttgart: Kroner. Hook, D. D. (1974). Sexism in English pronouns and forms of address. General Linguistics, 14, 86 - 96. Ibrahim, M. H. (1973). Grammatical gender: Its origin and development. The Hague: Mouton. loffe, V. V. (1973). The origin and development of the gender category in the proto- Indoeuropean language. Filologicheski nauki, 16 (2), 53 - 62. Jacobsen, B. (1977). Transformational generative grammar. (North-Holland Linguistic Series). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums (pp. 74-84). Charisteria Giuidelmo Mathesio. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.). On Translation (pp. 232 - 239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jarnatowskaja, V. E. (1968). Die Kategorie des Genus der Substantive im System der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 5, 213 - 219. Jespersen, O. (1914). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Part 7. Syntax. London: George Allen and Unwin. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy oj grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin. (Reprinted 1975). Joly, A. (1975). Toward a theory of gender in modern English. In: A. Joly and T. Fraser (Eds.) Studies in English grammar (pp. 227 .... 283). Paris: Editions Universitaires. Kaa, M. (1976). The logic of non-European linguistic categories. In R. Pinxten (Ed.), Universalism versus relativism in language and thought (pp. 85 - 98). The Hague Mouton.

References

161

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1978). The interplay between syntax, semantics and phonology in language acquisition processes. In R. N. Campbell & P. T. Smith (Eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language (pp. 1 - 21). New York: Plenum.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A junctional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karpf, F. (1930). Studien zur Syntax in den Werken Geoffrey Chaucers (Wiener Beitrage zur englischen Philologie, Vol. 55). Vienna: Braunmuller. Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39,

170-210. Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.

Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (1), 63 - 99. Keenan, E. L., Comrie, B., & Hawkins, J. A. (1974). The psychological testing of a putative linguistic universal. Unpublished seminar paper, University of Essex, Great Britain. Key, M. R. (1975). Male/female language, with a comprehensive bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Kleinke, C. L. (1974). Knowledge and favorability of descriptive sex names for males and females. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 419-422. Kbpcke, K.-M. (1982). Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Kopeke, K.-M., & Zubin, D. A. (1981). Zur Frage der psychologischen Realitat von genuszuweisenden Regeln zu den einsilbigen Nomen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Paper presented to the Linguistic Colloquium, University of Kiel, Federal Rew public of Germany. Kbpcke, K.-M., & Zubin, D. A. (1984). Sechs Prinzipien fOr die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur natiirlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte, 93,

26- 50. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1968). English relativisation and certain related problems. Language, 44, 244 - 266. (Reprinted in D. A. Reibel and S. Schane (Eds.), Modern Studies in

English (pp. 264-287). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kutter, U. (1972). Rezension zu Bornemann, E.: Sex im Volksmund. Fabula, 13,

200 - 201. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2, 45 -79. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper. Lang, A. (1976). The semantic base of gender in German. Lingua, 40, 55 - 68. Lang, E. (1977). Semantik der koordinativen Verknupjung (Studia Grammatica, Vol. 14). Berlin: Akademie.. Langenfelt, G. (1951). 'She' and 'her' instead of 'it' and 'its'. Anglia, 70, 90-101. Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. International Journal of American Linguistics, 26 (3), (Part 2, Publication 12 of the Indiana Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics).

Lehrer, A. (1985). Markedness and antonymy. Journal o/Linguistics, 21 (2), 397 -430. Levy, Y. (1983). It's frogs all the way down. Cognition, 15, 75-93. Lienert, G. A. (1978). Verteilungsjreie Methoden in der Biostatistik (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.). Konigstein im Taunus: Anton Hain Meisenheim. Lohmann, J. (1932). Genus und Sexus: eine morphologische Studie. Zeitschriftfur verw gleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiet der indogermanischen Sprachen,

[Suppll0j. Lutzmann, K. (1975). Rezension zu Ernest Borneman: Sex im Volksmund. Westerw

manns Piidagogische Beitrage, 27 (4), 224 - 226.

162

References

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1,2). London: Cambridge University Press. Mackay, D. O. (1980). On the goals, principles and procedures for prescriptive gram-

mar: Singular they. Language in Society, 9, (3) 349-368. MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43 (1- 2, Serial No. 174). Maratsos, M. P. (1979). Learning how and when to use pronouns and determiners. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition (pp. 225-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maratsos, M. P. (1983). The child's construction of grammatical categories. In E. Wanner and L. R. Gleitmann (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 240-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maratsos, M. P., & Chalkley, M. A. (1980). The internal language of children's syntax, the ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (Vol. 2). New York: Gardner. Martinet, A. (1956). Le genre feminin en indo-europeen: Examen fonctional du probleme. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 52, 83 - 95. Martinet, A. (1962). A junctional view oj language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martyna, W. (1980). The psychology of the generic masculine. In R. Barker, N. Furman, & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 69-78). New York: Praeger. Mater, E. (1967). Riickliiufiges Worterbuch der deu!schen Gegenwartssprache (2nd ed.). Leipzig: VEB Verlag. Mathiot, M. (1979). Sex roles as revealed through referential gender in American English. In M. Mathiot (Ed.), Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf revisited (pp. 1 - 47). (Contributions to the Sociology of Language, Vol. 27). The Hague: Mouton. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1979). Prototypes, pronouns and persons. In M. Mathiot (Ed.), Boas, Sapir and Whorf revisited (pp. 63 - 83). The Hague: Mouton. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1980). Linguistics and the Feminist Challenge. In R. Barker, N. Furman, & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 3 -25). New York: Praeger. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1983). Review article of Orasanu, Slater, & Loeb-Adler (Eds.), Language, sex and gender, and of Vetterling-Bragging (Ed.), Sexist language. Language, 59 (2), 373 - 391. Meillet, A. (1965). Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Paris: Klincksieck. Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1972). De-sexing the English language. Ms., 1. Miller, M. (1976). Zur Logik der friihkindlichen Sprachentwicklung. Stuttgart: Klett. (English translation by R. T. King, 1979, Springer Series in Language and Communication, Vol. 3. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag). Mills, A. E. (1986). Acquisition of German. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.). The crosslinguis!ic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum . Mohn, D. (1972). Rezension zu E. Bornemann: Sex im Volksmund. Germanistik Internationales, 13, 465 - 466. Morsbach, L. (1913). Grammatisches und psychologisches Geschlecht im Englischen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: 'Neutral' pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33, 1032 -1036. Mugdan, J. (1977). Flexionsmorphologie und Psycholinguistik. (Tiibinger Beitrdge zur Linguistik, Vol. 82). Ttibingen: Narr. Mulford, R. (1985). 'Comprehension of Icelandic pronoun gender: Semantic versus formal factors. Journal of Child Language, 12, 443 - 454.

References

163

Nalibow, K. L. (1973). The oppositions in Polish of genus and sexus in women's surnames. Names, 21, 78 - 81. Nash, R. (1982). Jobs, gender, and civil rights: Puerto Rican Spanish responds to the law. Word, Journal of the International Linguistic Organization, 33 (1-2),81-95. Nesbit, E. (1904). The Phoenix and the carpet (1st od.). London: Fisher, Unwin (Reprinted 1959, London: Puffin). Nilsen, A. P. (1973). Grammatical gender and its relationship (0 the equal treatment of males and females in children's books. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa. Oehmann, E. (1969). Genusbeeinflussung von Substantiven durch eine fremde Sprache. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 153, 1-20. Orasanu, J., Slater, K. M., & Loeb-Adler, L. (Eds). (1979). Language, sex and gender: Does '10 difference' make it difference? New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement ofMeaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (4th ed. 1964). PaIsd6ttir, M. (1982). Hvernig laerist kyn pe/s6n ujornajna? [How is personal pronoun gender learned?]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iceland. Park, T.-Z. (1974). A study of German language development. Mimeograph, Psychologisches Institut der Universitat Bern. Park, T.-Z. (1981). The development of syntax in the child with special reference to German [Special issue]. Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschajt, 45. Pateman, T. (1982). MacKay on singular they (discussion). Language in SOciety, 11, 437 - 438. Pechmann, Th., & Deutsch, W. (1982). The development of verbal and nonverbal devices for reference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 330 - 341. Peters, A. M. (1986). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petzold, L. (1971, October). Rezension zu Ernest Bornemann: Sex irn Volksmund. Wissenschajtlicher Literaturanzeiger, 5, 176. Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pinker, S. (1982). A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation oj grammatical relations (pp. 654 ~ 726). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S. (1985). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pinxten, R. (1976). Epistemic universals. In R. Pinxten (Ed.). Universalism versus relativism: Language and thought (pp. 117 -176). The Hague: Mouton. Polzin, A. (1903). Geschlechtswandel der Substantiva im Deutschen (mit Einschll(/! der L~hn- und Fremdworte). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Poplack, S., Ponsada, A., & Sankoff, D. (1982). Competing influences on gender assignment: Variable process, stable outcome. Lingua, 57, 1- 28. Popova, M. 1. (1958). Grammaticeskie Olementy jazyka v reci detej preddosKol'nogo vozrasta' [Grammatical elements of language in the speech of pre-pre-school children]. VoprosyPsichot, 3,106-117. [English abstract byD. 1. Slobin. InF. Smith & G. A. Miller (Eds.), (1966), The genesis of language (p. 139). Cambridge: MIT Press]. Preyer, W. (1882). Die Seele des Kindes. Leipzig: Grieben.

164

References

Pusch, L. F. (1980a), Das Deutsche als Mannersprache: Diagnose und Therapievorschlage: Linguistische Berichte, 69, 59 -74. Pusch, L. F. (1980b). Die rnannliche Gruppe als referenzsemantische Grundeinheit. LAB Berlin (West), 15, 178-181. Salis, J. R. von (1952). Rainer Maria Rilkes Schweizer Jahre. Frauenfeld: Huber. Sapir, E. (1944). A study in semantics. Philosophy oj Science, 11, 93 -116. Sapir, E. (1949). Language. An introduction to the study oj speech. Harvest: New York. Schaner-Wolles, C. (1978). Der Gebrauch substantivischer Pluralallomorphe bei Kindern mit Down-Syndrom. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 18, 37 - 52. Schlesinger. J. M. (1977). The role of cognitive development and lingllistic input in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 4, 153 -169. Schneider, J. W., & Hacker, S. L. (1973). Sex role imagery and the use of generic "man" in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology. The American

Sociologist,8,12-18. Schneuwly, B. (1978). Zum Erwerb des Genus im Deutschen: Eine mogliche Strategie. Manuscript, Max-Planck-Institut, Nijmegen, Holland. Schulz, H., & Sundermeyer, W. (Eds.). (1974). Deutsche Sprachlehre jur Auslander. Munchen: Max Hueber. Scupin, E., & Scupin, G. (1907). Bubi's erste Kindheit (Vol. I). Leipzig: Durr. Scupin, E., & Scupin, G. (1910). Bubi's erste Kindheit (Vol. 2). Leipzig: Durr. Simmons, H. (1971). Problems of grammatical gender in German, with particular reference to English loanwords. Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Heinamaki, O. (1979). When this very prestigious researcher met Mrs. average housewife, or: Where have all the women gone ... Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 507-519. Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.) Studies oj child language development (pp. 175-276). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Slobin, D. I. (1986a). Introduction: Why study acquisition crosslinguistically? In D. I. Slobin (Ed.) The crosslinguistic study oj language acquisition (Vol. I). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slobin, D. I. (1986b). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D.1. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study oj language acquisition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smoczynska, M. (1986). Acquisition of Polish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Spiewok, W: (1975). Semantische Konsequenzen morphologischer Dubletten beim deutschen Substantiv. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 12, 164 -169. Stern, C., & Stern, W. (1909). Die Kindersprache: Eine psychologische und sprachtheoretische Untersuchung (4th rev. ed. 1928). Leipzig: Barth. (Monographien aber die seelische Entwicklung des Kindes, Vol. 1. Reprinted 1965, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Surridge, M. E. (1982). L'attribution du genre grammatical aux emprunts angiais en fran~ais canadien: Le role des homologues et des monosyllables. Glossa, 16 (1), 28 - 39. Surridge, M. E. (1984). Le genre grammatical des emprunts angiais en fran~ais: La perspective diachronique. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 29 (1), 58 -72.

References

165

Taeschner, T. (1983). The sun isfeminine. A study on language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. Talmy, L. (1978). Relation of grammar to cognition. In D. Walz (Ed.), Proceedings oj TINLAP-2. Champaign, ILH: Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois. Talmy. L. (1983). How languages structure space. In H. Pick, & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum. Talmy, L. (1986). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic descriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tamburello, M. (1980). Sexism in the Italian Language. Osnabriicker Bettrage zur Sprachtheorie, 15, 154-166. Thavenius, C. (1983). Referential pronouns in English conversation (Lund Studies in English, Vol. 64). Gleerup: CWK. Tramel-PlOtz, S. (1980). Sexismus in der englischen Sprache. Eng/isch-Amerikanische Studien,2,189-204. TrudgiIl, P. (1975). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. In B. Thorne, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 88 -104). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., Rigauit, A., & Segalowitz, N. (1968). A psychological investigation of French speakers' skill with grammatical gender. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 312 - 316. Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., & Rigault, A. (1977). The French speaker's skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Vachek, J. (1964). Notes on gender in modern English. Sbornik Prac{ Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenenske University, A12, 189-194. Vachek, J. (1966). The linguistic school oj Prague. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Valentine, T. (1983). Sexism in Hindi: Form, function and variation. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 13 (2), 143 -158. Vetterling-Braggin, M. (Ed.). (1981). Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Viereck, K. (1980). Englisches Wortgut, seine Haufigkeit und Integration in der osterreichischen und bundesdeutschen Pressesprache. (Bamberger Beitrage zur Eng/ischen Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 8). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Weinreich, U. (1968). Languages in contact: Findings and problems (6th ed.). The Hague: Mouton. Wells, O. (1981). Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werner, O. (1975). Zurn Genus im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschriftfur Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation. 1, 35 - 58. Werth, P. (1984). Focus, coherence and emphasis: Mechanisms of discourse. London, Croom Helm. Wheeler, B. I. (1898). The origin of grammatical gender. Journal oj English and Germanic Philology, 2, 528 - 545. Whorf, B. L. (1952). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. Collected Papers on Metalinguistics. Washington D. C. Foreign Service Institute, Dept. of State.

166

References

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality, Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf(Edited and with an introduction by John B. Carroll). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Subject and Author Index

Wienold, G. (1967). Genus und Semantik. Konigstein im Taunus: Anton Hain Meisenheim. Wade, H. (1971). Some stages in the acquisition of questions by monolingual children.

Word, 27, 261- 310. Wurzel, W. E. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Nattirlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theorienbildung (Studia Grammatica, Vol. 21). Berlin: Akademie. Yaguello, M. (1978). Les mots et les femmes. Paris: Payot. Zubin, D. A. (1979). Discourse function of morphology: The focus system in German.

In T. Givan (Ed.). Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 469- 504). New York: Seminar.

Zubin, D. A., Kopcke, K.-M. (1981). Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category. In R. A. Hendrick, C. S. Masek, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 439 - 449). ChIcago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zubin D., Kopcke, K.-M. (1982). Affect classification in the German gender system. Manuscript, University of New York at Buffalo and University of Hannover, Federal Republic of Germany. Zubin, D. A., K6pcke, K.-M. (1983). Semantic categorization efoouns in the German

gender system. Paper presented to the Conference on Noun Classification, Eugene, October 1983.

Abbott E. A. 24 accusative case 64,67-69, see case acquisition explanatory theories of 1-2,8, lO9-li5 of animacy rule 86-98 of formal rules 62-85 of gender 61-116 of natural gender rule 98-109 adjective 52,61,63,65,109 declensions 13-15 affective context 97, see emotional markedness age, and gender 52,56,91-93, lO3-lO4,127-128 agreement 9, 10, 13, see also cohesion, congruence Algonkian 6 Altmann G. 32 analogy 47-50 , anaphoric reference 38, see also pronouns Angermaier M. J. W. 4 animacy 5,7,9,23-24,29-30, 53-55,62,77, 115, 120-121 acquisition of 86-98 rule of 17-20,143 Apache li8 Arabic 134-13 5 Arndt W. W. 32, 44, 50 articles 36-37,52,61,73,84,99, lOl, lO7-1lO, li3, 115 definite 62,63,74,80,85,88, 112 acquisition of 67-71 experimental testing of 78-79 gender marking on 13-14 indefinite 62,63,67,74,83,85,112

acquisition of 64-66 gender marking on 13-14 association, gender and 47-50,70, 72,81-83 Atkinson M. 2 Ausbiittel E. 24 AveryD. 59 avoidance strategy 67 awareness of gender, see metalinguistic awareness Bach E. li8 Baetens-Beardsmore H. 44 Barbaud P. 44 Baron J. lOO-lOl Baron N. 13, 24 Bates E. 3,7 Bauch H. J. 32,53 Beit-Hallami B. 98 Berman R. il2 bilingualism lO6 Bindseil H. E. 7 Bloomfield L. 6 Bohme K. lO5 -lO6, lO8 Bornemann E. 53-55 Brener R. 89, lOO-lOl Brinkmann H. 18 Brown R. 86, li8 Brugmann K. 7 Brunner K. 13 Carstensen B. 44, 50 case 61,63-64,77, lO6, 115 accusative 13-15,64,67-69 dative 13-15,99,106, lO8, III genitive 13-15 marking of 13-14 nominative 13-15,64,67-69,113

Subject Index

168 Chiat S. 100 children's literature 52,55-57,59, 87,93,120-122,140 Chinese 6 Chomsky N. 2, 8-9 C1ahsen H. 2,4,63,86-87 Clark E. V. 11, 112 Clark H. H. 36, 118 Clarke M. A. 134-135 classification systems 140-141, see also noun classification systems clear rule, notion of 114-115,144 Clyne M. 47, 50 cognitive development and lan-

guage 2,29,98-99,107,118,143 cohesion, syntagmatic 37 common gender 29-30,41,44, 55-56,115,121,143 rule of 20-23, 55 acquisition 86-98 comprehension

and production 104,108-109, 116 of pronouns 100-101,105 Comrie B. 6 congruence 7,61, see also agreement, cohesion content, anticipation of 36

contrast 40-41, 106 convention 26, 138 CorbettG. 51 Coseriu E. 8, 118 Cromer R. 12 cross-linguistic investigation

Donaldson M. 11 Dutch 44

endings, see phonetic rules Engels B. 43 English acquisition of

1,4

gender system of 5, 12-42 parts of speech marked for gender 13-15 pronouns, frequency of 55-57, see also acquisition, gender Ervin-Tripp S. 138-139 exceptions 29,33,49-50,81,83, 112, 114-116 experimental data 5,74,115 on animacy rule 90-98 on definite articles 67-69 on formal rules 77-85 on indefinite articles 65-66 on natural gender rule 101-109 on phonetic rules 45-50,59,61, 120 on sex assignment 122-130 explanatory theories, in child language 62, 109-115 feminine gender

1, 110,

115 cross-sectional studies 5, 100 Curme G. O. 19,32,52 Dani 118 dative case, see case de Vi1liers J. G. and de Villiers P. A. 4 deictic reference 38-39 demonstrative pronouns, see pronouns derivational suffixes 30-31,44, 72-74 Deutsch W. 65,99,106,108 dialect 35,47,76-77 diminutive suffixes 30-31,53-54,73 disassociation with gender 32 distributional patterns 62,85, 111,115

and animacy 18-20 development of 7 markedness of 10 marking of 13-15, see gender Finnish 6 Fodor r. 7 form and function, see function

formal rules, acquisition of 62-85, 99, 109-113, see phonetic rules and morphological rules French 8,10,43-44,51,57,93-94, 112 frequency 55-57,63,71,84, 114, 143 functions 3,36-42,108 and fann 13, 65, see one form-one function principle, plurification of nOun classification sys-

tems

6-7

Gabelentz G. v. d. Galinsky H. 43

52

Subject Index

169

gender acquisition of 61-116 and linguistic description 4,6-11 arbitrary classification 41 concept of 98, 108-11 0 definition of 6 ontology of 6-8 origins of 36, 119 paradigms 13,63-65,83,85, 100, 108, 110, 112, 115, see also distributional patterns

parts of speech affected by 13-15 system 1,4,7-8,12-42,61,109, 112, 119, see also animacy rule,

Hall R. 16 Hawkins J. 12 Hebrew 112, 134 Heider-Rosch E. 118 Hellinger M. 58 Herder J. G. 7 Herold A. L. 135 hierarchy of endings 84 of rules 9,34-35,42,51 Hindi 57 Hjelmslev L. 9,17,38, 140 Hofstiitter P. 130, 135, 138 hypernym 10, 18,22

loan words, morphological ru.les,

personal rule, personification rule, natural gender rule, semantic rules

generic terms

53-59, 104, 107-108

German

acquisition of I, 4 distribution of gender in 32 gender system of 5,7,9-10, 12-42 metaphors in 53-55 parts of speech affected by gender 13-15 see acquisition, gender GillW.S. 121,130 Gipper H. 118 Givan T. 8 Glahn N. von 13 Gleitman L. 109 Goggin J. 45 Gopnik A. 3 grammatical gender and natural gender 41,93, 105 and sex assignment 120-130 and sex attributes 134-140 conflict with semantic rules

Greenberg J. 11,99 Greenfield P. 2 Greenhalgh S. 89 Gregor B. 50 Grimm H. 4,76 GrimmJ. 7 Guentherodt r. 59 Guiora A. Z. 134-135 Gvozdev A. N. 86

51-54

Ibrahim M. H. 7, 50 Icelandic 106-107, 113 inanimacy, see animacy

Indo-European 6-7,16 Indo-Germanic 9 innate principles 3,8,110, 143 see explanatory theories oflanguage acquisition input 35,93,98, 115 interaction, related to language acquisition 3

interaction of rules hierarchy

109-113 see also

interrogative pronouns see pronouns

Ioffe V. V. 7 Italian 57, 135, 138-139

Jakobsen B. 10 J ako bson R. 6 Japanese lJ8 Jarnatowskaja V. E. 13 Jespersen O. 13,140 Joly A. 24-25 Karmiloff-Smith A. 3,93, 107, 112 Karpf F. 24 Katz J. 8 Kleinke C. L. 54 Kopcke K.-M. 16,20-21,26-29, 31-34,36-38,45-50,74,78,82, 110, 114, 120 Kuroda S.-Y. 41 Kutter U. 53

Subject Index

170 LakoffR. 57 LangA. 51 Lang E. 40 Langenfelt O. 24 language and thought 5,117-120 change 29 language acquisition, see acq uisition Last member principle, see noun carow pounds Latin 43-44, 51 Lehrer A. II Levy Y. 98-99,105, 107, 112 lexicon 72-73, 113-116 entry in 9 equivalents in 50 organisation of 26-29,37-38 status in 33,50,59,114 structure

12

Mater E. 32,70,84 Mathiot M. 25,97 Meillet A. 6-7 metalinguistic awareness 88,106,108 metaphor, gender in 53-55, 59, 120 Middle English 24, 43 Miller C. 55 Miller M. 3,65 Mills A. E. 3-4,64,75,86 MohnD. 53 morphological changes 13,24 morphological rules 9, 14,26,29-31, 34-35,41,59,61,74,99 psychological status of 43-50 morphology 12 Morsbach L. 24 Moulton J. 58 Mugdan J. 75 Mulford R. 106-107, 113

Lienert O. 91 linguistic description and gender 6-11 related to language acquisition 142-143 literature, see children's literature loan words, gender of 43-45,50-51, 59 Lohmann 1. 16 longitudinal data 5,63,85, 100 Lutzmann K. 53 Lyons J. 9, II Mackay D. O. 59 MacWhinney B. 83-84, 105 male dominance 57-58,120-122 MaratsosM. 9,41,62,85,111-112 markedness 4,9-11, 18,89,99, 104-105,109,116,142-143 distributional 10 emotional 25 psycholinguistic aspects of 11,57-59 semantic 10 Martinet A. 6, 8 Martyna W. 58 masculine gender

and animacy 18-20 and common gender 21-23 and markedness 10 marking of 13-15, see gender

Subject Index

171

object 106, see case observational data 5,115

phonological change 13,24 PiagetJ. 2 Pinker S. 8, 110-112 Pinxten R. 118 plural acquisition of 68-69,75,85 description of 13-15 gender and 37,74-75,115 plurifunction 14, 113, see also func-

on animacy and common gen-

der 87-89 on formal rules 63-77 " on natural gender 99-10 I Ohmann E. 50 Old English 13, 24 omission

of article 67-68 of gender marking 115 one form-one function principle 115, 143, see functions opposition 9-11 male/female 39-41 neutralization of

tion and form

93,

10

semantic 39-41 Osgood C. 130, 138 overgeneralization 65,67,89,100, 104-105, 108

Nalibow K. L. 57 Nash R. 57 nativist approach 2-3, see innate principles natural gender 5,44,59-60,94, 120 rule of 1,16-17,29-31,41-42, 51-55,59,61-62,115,142 acquisition 98-109,120 natural sex 6, see natural gender negative poles 25-26, see affective

Palsdottir M. 107 paradigm, see distributional patterns, gender paradigm Park T. Z. 64-65 part of speech gender marking on 2, see gender influence of 106 Patemann T. 59 Pechmann T. 65

context, positive poles neuter gender

perception of objects, see sex-related features

and common gender 20-23,87 and inanimacy 18-20,86,88,94, 115 marking of 13-15, see gender Nilsen A. 58 nominative case, see case

person

noun

gender marking on 7 with two genders 35 noun classification systems 8-9,16, 36 functions of 6-7 systems of 6, see also classification systems, gender systems noun compounds 30-31,37,72-74 noun phrase, marking onset of 36-37 number 63, see also plural

III

13-14,107

pronouns

101

personal rule 17 - 20 personification 93, 121, 140, see also metaphor rule of 23-26,95-98,115 Peters A. 107 Petzold L. 53 phonetic cue 113 phonetic regularities 72 phonetic rules 9, 14,28, 59, 62, 70-73,78,99,105-107,110-115 acquisition of 63-77,79-85 description of 32-35,41 experimental testing of 79-85 psychological status of 43-50 phonetic similarities 142

Polish 57,83,112 Poplack S. 34-35 Popova M. 1. 83 positive poles 25-26, see also affective context, negative poles possessive function III

possessive pronouns, see pronouns pragmatic factors 22, 106 pragmatic rules 34-35,41 Preyer W. 63,67 production task 90-97,101-108, see comprehension

pronouns 36-41,61,63,83,85,99, 124, 142 acquisition of 100, 107-113, 115, 121 comprehension of 100-10 I, 105 demonstrative 7,17-20,87 experimental testing of 90-98 function of 113 gender marking on 13-14 generic 58, see generic terms indefinite 17-19,22 personal 51-53,62, III possessive 105-106 production of 101-108 relative 17-19,51-52,62,75-77 psychological factors in gender use 24-26 psychological gender 5,117-141 PuschL. 57-58 question words

75-76, see pro,nouns

interrogative reduced forms

regularization eralization

63-65,68 112, see also overgen-

relative pronouns, see pronouns

Subject Index

172 rhyme 24,49 rote learning 9,41,78, 100 rules

and speaker's behaviour categoria! 114

43-60

exceptions to, see exceptions hierarchy of, see hierarchy

psychological status of, see psychological reality relative strength of 35 scope of 32,62-63, 112, 114, 116 status of 61,112, 114, see formal rules, morphological rules, phonetic rules, semantic rules

Russian

6, 51, 83

Sapir E. 117, 119 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 117-120, 141 Schaner-Walles C. 67,75 Schlesinger J. M. 108 Schneider J. W. 58 Schneuwly B. 67, 71, 84 Schulz H. 26 Scupin E. and Scupin G. 63-65,67, 71-72 self-corrections 65,69 semantic differential 130-140 semantic features 8, 16 semantic fields 24,26-29,44, 87 semantic primacy principle 109-110 semantic rules 5,9-10,14,16-31, 33-35,41-42,61-62,74,109-113 acquisition of 86-109 psychological status of 50-57, see sex

animacy rule, common gender fule, natural gender rule 7,9, see natural gender

sex assignment 88,137-140 and grammatical gender 120-130

Simmons H. 44 Siobin D. I. 1,3,63,69,83,86,89, 109-110,115,144 Smoczynska M. 83,86 Spanish 16,45,51,57,112 speaker's behaviour 43-60 Spender D. 58 Stern W. and Stern C. 1,4,6,63-65, 67,75 stress 41 style, and use of gender 17,35,56, 93-98, 121-122, 127-140 subject 106, Ill, see case nominative subject's sex, see sex of subjects

superordinate terms 20-21,26-27, 30,87 Surridge M. E. 44 Swiss-German 68,84 syllabacity 32-33,44,81,83, see also phonetic rules

Talmy L. 110 Tamburello M. 57 Thavenius C. 55 they, use of singular

23,59, see com-

mon gender, generic terms

Tromel-Ploetz S. 57 Trudgill P. 47 Tucker G. R. 112 universals language 6,8,118 language acquisition

2,114,116

Vachek J. 10,25-26,93 Valentine T. 57 van der Geest T. 109 Viereck K. 43 vocabulary 68,71-72,74,78-79, see lexicon

sex attributes and sex assignment 137-140 perception of 5,7,25-26, 117-120 testing of 130-140 sex of subjects as factor 52, 58, 96, 103-104,109, 116, 127-128, 133-134 sex stereotypes 93, 121, 123, 134

Weinrich U. 43 Wells G. 3 WemerO. 13 Werth P. 40 Wheeler B. I. 7 WhorfB. L. 117-118, see SapirWhorfhypothesis Wienold G. 6, 38, 140

Subject Index Wurzel W. Yaguello M.

173

74 57

Zubin, D. 16,20-21,26-29,31,34, 36-38,45-50,83,86,114,120