Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The concurrent trends of globalisation and ‘indigenisation’ affecting the English language (varieties) around the world pose some interesting questions for language planning and reform issues (e.g. Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994; Crystal, 1997). With this project we examine the impact of these competing trends on relating to gender-inclusive language use in the Englishes of Singapore and the Philippines, categorised as ‘outer-circle’ Englishes by Kachru (1992,1997). In this paper we present some findings on aspects of gender-inclusive language reform based on an analysis of the student and academic texts in the Singapore and Philippine components of the International Corpus of English [ICE]. Education, particularly higher education, has been identified as a leading site of contact with and trajectories of change for gender-inclusive language reform. We focus in particular on one of the main features of gender-inclusive language reform: generic pronouns. The results of the ICE corpus analysis suggest that adoption of gender-inclusive and gender-neutral generic pronouns is not yet profiled in these ‘outer-circle’ Englishes. Generic remains the pervasive generic pronoun in the student and published academic writing in the Singapore English corpus. The Philippines data reveal a similar trend although there is some emergence of forms as the preferred gender-inclusive alternative.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Conkright, L. , Flanagan, D. , & Dykes, J.
    (2000) Effects of pronoun types and gender role consistency on children’s recall and interpretation of stories. Sex Roles, 43 (7-8), 481–497. doi: 10.1023/A:1007167432657
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007167432657 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cooper, R.
    (1984) The avoidance of androcentric generics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 50, 5–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Crystal, D.
    (1997) English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dubois, B. L. , & Crouch, I.
    (1987) Linguistic disruption: He/She, S/HE, He or She. In J. Penfield (Ed.) Women and language in transition (pp.28–35). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hamilton, M. C.
    (1988) Using masculine generics: does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery?Sex Roles, 19, 785–799. doi: 10.1007/BF00288993
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288993 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hellinger, M.
    (1990) Kontrastive Feministische Linguistik. Ismaning: Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Holmes, J.
    (2001) A corpus-based view of gender in New Zealand. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussmann (Eds.) Gender across languages (pp.115–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9.10hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.10hol [Google Scholar]
  8. Jacobs, G. , Seviers, M. , & Teo, W.
    (1997) Ripple effects: the case of gender-inclusive language. Paper presented at theWorld Englishes Conference, National University of Singapore, December19–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kachru, B.
    (Ed.) (1992.) The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1997) World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 66–87. doi: 10.1017/S0267190500003287
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003287 [Google Scholar]
  11. Leitner, G.
    (2000) Lexical frequencies in a 300 million word corpus of Australian Newspapers. Analysis and interpretation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 5 (2), 147–178. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.5.2.04lei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.5.2.04lei [Google Scholar]
  12. Mackay, D. , & Fulkerson, D.
    (1979) On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 661–673. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90369‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90369-4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Markovitz, J.
    (1984) The impact of the sexist language controversy on language in university documents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8 (4), 337–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1471‑6402.1984.tb00641.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1984.tb00641.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Martyna, W.
    (1978) What does ‘he’ mean? use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28 (1), 130–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1978.tb01576.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01576.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Moulton, J. , Robinson, G. M. , & Elias, C.
    (1978) Sex bias in language use: neutral pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33, 1032–1036. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.33.11.1032
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ooi, V.
    (1997) Analysing the Singapore ICE corpus for lexicographic evidence. In M. Ljung (Ed.) Corpus-based studies in English (pp.245–259). Amsterdam: Rodophi.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pauwels, A.
    (1998) Women changing language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001) Non-sexist language reform and generic pronouns in Australian English. English World Wide: a Journal of Varieties of English, 22 (1), 105–119. doi: 10.1075/eww.22.1.06pau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.22.1.06pau [Google Scholar]
  19. (2002) The sociolinguistics of generic pronouns: women’s and men’s use of gender inclusive, gender neutral and masculine generic pronouns. Paper presented atthe International Sociological Association Congress, Brisbane, Australia, July8–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Pennycook, A.
    (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Peters, P. , Purvis, H. , Martin, C. , & Jenkins, R.
    (1990) Word frequencies from the Macquarie corpus: the newspaper files. Working Papers of the Speech, Hearing and Language Research Centre. Special joint addition with the Dictionary Research Centre, North Ryde, New South Wales, School of Language and Linguistics, Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Phillipson, R.
    (1992) Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Romaine, S.
    (2001) A corpus-based view of gender in British and American English. In M. Hellinger & H. Bussman (Eds.) Gender across languages (pp.153–176). Amsterdam: Jolm Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9.12rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.12rom [Google Scholar]
  24. Schneider, J. W. , & Hacker, S.
    (1973) Sex role imagery and the use of generic ‘man’ in introductory texts. American Sociologist, 8, 12–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Soto, D. H. , Forslund, E. F. , & Cole, C.
    (1975) Alternative to using masculine pronouns when referring to the species. Paper presented atthe Western Speech Association, San Francisco, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Winter, J. , & Pauwels, A.
    (2003) Mapping trajectories of change – women’s and men’s practices and experiences of feminist linguistic reform. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26 (1), 19–37. doi: 10.1075/aral.26.1.03win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.26.1.03win [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error