![Type of response for [-o] morphological variant (generic masculine)](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabriela-Zunino/publication/353527101/figure/tbl1/AS:1050675031056384@1627511856341/Type-of-response-for-o-morphological-variant-generic-masculine_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Gabriela Mariel Zunino
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriela Mariel Zunino on Jul 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
BINARY OR NON-BINARY? GENDER MORPHOLOGY IN SPANISH:
DIFFERENCES DEPENDENT ON THE TASK
Gabriela Mariel Zunino & Noelia Ayelén Stetie
Instituto de Lingüística
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
gmzunino@conicet.gov.ar
Manuscript for peer review
For Peer Review
BINARY OR NON-BINARY? GENDER MORPHOLOGY IN SPANISH:
DIFFERENCES DEPENDENT ON THE TASK
ABSTRACT
There is empirical evidence in different languages on how the computation of gender
morphology during psycholinguistic processing affects the conformation of sex-generic
representations. However, there is no empirical evidence on the processing of non-binary
morphological variants in Spanish (-x or -e) in contrast to the generic masculine variant (-o).
To analyze this phenomenon, we conducted two experiments: an acceptability judgment task
and a sentence comprehension task. The results show differences depending on the task. So,
the underlying processes that are put into play in each one generate different effects. In
acceptability judgments, which involve strategic processes mediated by beliefs and the
linguistic norm, the generic masculine is more acceptable to refer to mixed groups. In the
sentence comprehension task, which inquires about automatic processes and implicit
representations, the non-binary forms consistently elicited a reference to mixed groups.
Furthermore, the response times indicated that these morphological variants do not entail a
higher processing cost than the generic masculine.
KEYWORDS: Psycholinguistics. Gender. Morphology. Gender stereotypes.
Introduction
The question of the multiple ways in which language can influence thought dates back at least
a century (SAPIR, 1921; ZLATEV; BLOMBERG, 2015). Through the years, and from
different approaches –theoretical and empirical–, this problem has been taking different forms.
Extreme forms of this idea, which sustained a linguistic determinism, more than an influence
or bias, have provoked opposite reactions. Some of them, also extreme (PINKER, 1999),
neglect intermediate approaches or proposals, also known as weak (EVERETT, 2013; LUCY,
1996; SAPIR, 1921; SCOTTO; PÉREZ, 2020; WHORF, 1956; ZLATEV; BLOMBERG,
2015). Initially, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity held that the language we speak shapes
the way we think. In other words, due to the different categories and distinctions that each
language makes, especially semantic ones, its speakers are forced to pay attention to different
aspects of the environment. This would lead them, ultimately, to generate different
For Peer Review
representations of the same world events. Discarding a strong determinism does not mean
ignoring the possibility of analyzing the multiple and complex forms in which the relationship
between thought and language –or cognition, mental representations and linguistic forms–
occurs. There are, certainly, diverse and very current proposals concerning this issue
(EVERETT, 2013; SCOTTO; PÉREZ 2020; ZLATEV; BLOMBERG, 2015): language as an
"enhancer" of thought, language as an "intrusion" or "obstacle", language as a "focuser",
language as an "inducer" and some variants of the well-known hypothesis of thinking for
speaking (SLOBIN, 1991; 1996). Several of these perspectives have been taken up by empirical
studies in the area of experimental psycholinguistics and have managed to collect substantial
evidence to support some forms of bias or influence of linguistic forms on cognition. Many of
the studies on the projection of the gender morphological marks of different languages towards
the sex-gender representations are conducted in this framework. These works try to investigate
the possible gender biases that the linguistic forms of each language could bring to cognition.
Gender marks in languages are multiple and varied: they are found in both grammatical and
lexical aspects. Beyond the structure of languages, the discursive uses of linguistic forms and
the ways in which constructions are organized can also display various gender biases (LEAPER
2014; PÉREZ; MORAGAS, 2020; STAHLBERG et al., 2007). Thus, grammatical gender is
only one of the multiple dimensions in which we can analyze the relationship between sex-
gender representations, construction of meanings linked to gender identities, and (uses of)
language.
In this regard, it is necessary to begin by clarifying that languages vary in terms of how they
mark grammatical gender. Over the years, different taxonomies have been proposed based on
grammatical gender (CORBETT, 1991; DIXON, 1987; LEAPER, 2014; PREWITT-
FREILINO; CASWELL; LAAKSO, 2012). The most recent is the one proposed by Gygax et
al. (2019) which considers five types of languages: languages with grammatical gender,
languages with natural gender, languages with a combination of grammatical and natural
gender, and languages without gender –with some traces of grammatical gender and without
traces–. Within the first group, where Spanish and other languages such as French, Polish and
German are found, the gender controls the grammatical agreement and all nouns –referring to
both animate and inanimate entities– have gender assigned. For example, in Spanish, most role
names, which refer to people, are inflected for gender, such as secretaria [secretary.FEM] and
secretario [secretary.MASC] or enfermera [nurse.FEM] and enfermero [nurse.MASC], and we
also assign grammatical gender to inanimate objects, such as la leche [the milk.FEM] and el
cartón [the cardboard.MASC].
For Peer Review
One of the phenomena studied, for example, is whether, for speakers of languages with
obligatory gender marking and binary gender paradigms, the bias of generic interpretation
ceases to be as arbitrary as grammatical studies suppose and starts to project representations
associated with sex-generic identities of human entities to other words that refer to non-human
entities (EVERETT, 2013; FLAHERTY, 2001; KONISHI 1993; SAALBACH; IMAI;
SCHALK, 2012; SEGEL; BORODITSKY, 2011; SERA et al., 2002).
Another of the most extensively studied points is the case of the so-called role names. Since
these are instantiated differently in each language, depending on the grammatical gender
paradigm (GYGAX et al., 2019), one question that arises is whether these different realizations
generate different mental representations. In other words, as was suggested by Scotto and Pérez
(2020), to what extent the influence of the grammatical gender of languages on cognition can
be analyzed within the framework of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity.
Experiments in different languages (KAUFMANN; BOHNER, 2014; LEAPER, 2014; SATO;
GYGAX; GABRIEL, 2016; SCZESNY; MOSER; WOOD, 2015; VIGLIOCCO et al., 2005)
have shown empirical evidence of stable biases –not contingent in particular linguistic uses or
specific communicative contexts– of certain linguistic forms in cognition, namely in the mental
representations that we manipulate during tasks both mediated and not mediated by language.
A central phenomenon of this line of studies is to what extent the so-called generic masculine
functions as generic, that is, works for representing groups of people with non-uniform gender.
In a binary gender paradigm, as in Spanish, the asymmetry between the uses of the feminine
morphology to refer to exclusive groups of women is clear in comparison to the ambiguous
uses of the masculine to refer to both groups of men and people with non-uniform gender
identity (BRAUN; SCZESNY; STAHLBERG, 2005; CACCIARI; PADOVANI, 2007;
GYGAX; GABRIEL, 2008, GYGAX et al., 2008, MACIUSZEK; POLAK;
SWIATKOWSKA, 2019; MISERSKY; MAJID; SNIJDERS, 2019). Some mention this fact as
another example that the feminine is the marked form (JIMÉNEZ RODRIGO; ONSALO;
TRAVERSO CORTÉS, 2011; STAHLBERG et al., 2007). Some empirical studies in Spanish
show that the bias generated by the generic masculine is identifiable and that it seems to have
a sustained effect on cognition. For example, Kaufmann & Bohner (2014), with a pioneering
study in Spanish, analyze the binary form with a bar (los/as) and two morphological
innovations to generate inclusive non-binary forms (-@ and -x). In their experiment,
participants had to read short stories and complete some fragments of different words.
Although they found a weak bias in the completions modulated by the gender of each
participant, they did not find differences due to the linguistic form used in the items.
For Peer Review
In this paper we develop the first stage of a broader line of research that tries to analyze how
Spanish speakers process binary and non-binary morphological variants as ways of
representing and referring to groups of people with non-uniform gender identity. In this sense,
this study dialogues with others that inquire about the cognitive projections of the generic
masculine, but adds another phenomenon scarcely studied. We also analyze the
psycholinguistic processing of the two morphological variants that a part of the community of
Spanish speakers uses to flex nouns that refer to people –and all kinds of words that must agree
in gender with them– under a non-binary gender paradigm (-x and -e). When we speak of non-
binary forms here, we refer specifically to the morphological variants that are also known as
gender-inclusive language
1
: las niñas (girls) to refer to groups of women, los niños (boys) to
refer to groups of men, and morphological innovations such as lxs niñxs or les niñes to refer to
groups without uniform gender. The denomination itself can be disputed, and indeed it is. To
avoid possible interpretations in which inclusive implies holding a binary norm as the axis to
only apply a third form as a way of encompassing what is supposed to be outside a hegemonic
binarism, we will speak of non-binary (morphological) forms. Besides, we do not mean to
reduce the notion of inclusive forms of language use to the gender morphology of that language.
Thus, we propose to analyze: 1. if the generic masculine in Spanish projects generic mental
representations or, on the contrary, conditions these representations with a bias towards the
exclusive reference of men; 2. if Spanish speakers accept the three morphological variants to
the same extent; 3. if non-binary morphological variants (-x and -e), adopted in Spanish,
manage to adequately represent non-uniform groups in their gender identity; 4. and if the
processing cost to make that reference during sentence comprehension is greater for phrases
with non-binary forms in comparison to the generic masculine form.
Experiment 1
As a first approach to the study of the phenomenon, we designed an acceptability judgments
task. This would allow us to analyze the way in which speakers judge the acceptability of noun
phrases based on two factors: the level of stereotipicality of the role names involved and the
type of morphology used (binary and non-binary forms to refer to groups of people with non-
uniform gender identity). Like any judgment task, this experiment investigates a strategic,
1
Also known as non sexist language, gender-neutral language or gender-fair language.
For Peer Review
conscious and belief-mediated process that may exhibit different types of cultural biases. But
we were especially interested, as a first step in this research, to have a measure of this type. In
addition, this task allows us to verify if the levels of stereotipicality considered a priori in the
design are effectively projected as a determining factor for the speakers and if the items
considered at each level respond adequately to that classification.
Our central hypothesis holds that acceptability judgments will vary depending on the level of
Stereotipicality of the noun phrases according to the following pattern. On the one hand, we
expect that, in the case of role names with low stereotipicality –los niños (the children)–, the
generic masculine produces a more consistent reference to mixed groups of people. In the case
of high stereotipicality –los plomeros (the plumbers)–, however, it would be less likely to
interpret those noun phrases as appropriate to refer to a group that is not entirely conformed by
men. Furthermore, our predictions assumed that non-binary forms would have more acceptance
for the terms of low stereotipicality –les niñes meaning the children in the sens of boys and
girls– than for those of medium and high stereotipicality –les plomeres [the plumbers.NB
2
]–,
as the former phrases are used more often flexed with non-binary forms.
Participants
Seventy-five people participated, 53 women (M=32.55, SD=11.04; range=18 and 62) and 22
men (M=35.68; SD=11.03; range=20 and 60). Of the total number of participants, 12 indicated
that they had finished secondary school, 31 were undergraduate students, 29 had completed a
college degree and 3 had postgraduate studies. All participants are speakers of Spanish as a
first language and residents of Argentina.
Materials
The linguistic items used presented simple noun phrases (determiner + noun) that referred to
groups of people. For the elaboration of the sentences, two variables with three levels for each
one were considered. On the one hand, the morphology used as generic: generic masculine (-
o) and the two non-binary forms (-x and -e). On the other hand, the stereotipicality (low,
2
NB=Non-binary morphological variant
For Peer Review
medium and high) of role names regarding their ascription to one gender or another, in a binary
sex-generic system.
Six items were chosen for each level of stereotipicality and were presented in the three
morphological conditions that in Spanish could refer to groups of people without uniform
gender. All three would correspond to morphological forms for generic plurals. To choose the
items, it was considered that they admitted masculine and feminine morphemes. Role names
that did not present variation in gender –as los estudiantes (the students)– were avoided. Special
care was also taken not to select words that required spelling changes when using the non-
binary form [-e] –as les amigues (friends)–. In addition, 6 more female items were included as
fillers. The sentences were organized into 3 counterbalanced lists of 21 items each. Below are
examples of the items used according to the level of Stereotipicality:
Low stereotipicality: Los hijos/ Lxs hijxs/ Les hijes (the children)
Medium stereotipicality: Los funcionarios/Lxs funcionarixs/Les funcionaries (the
functionaries)
High stereotipicality: Los plomeros/ Lxs plomerxs/ Les plomeres (the plumbers)
Procedure
The task was designed and taken through a Google form that randomly assigned a different list
to each participant. In all cases, an informed consent was first submitted that had to be accepted
to access the demographic questions and the experiment. Participants were asked to indicate
gender identity, level of formal education and age. Then the instructions were presented. They
had to judge the degree of acceptability of each sentence on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being very
low acceptability and 7 very high. Special emphasis was placed on the fact that the task should
be carried out on the basis of understanding that phrase as a valid way to refer to a group of
people without any gender distinction, that is, to refer to groups of people of non-uniform
gender, or mixed groups.
The task was distributed through social networks to potential participants who spoke
Rioplatense Spanish, particularly who lived in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires
(AMBA). Participation was voluntary and the participants did not receive any remuneration in
return.
For Peer Review
Results
The data analysis was carried out from the Likert scale scores of each participant for each noun
phrase. The data were organized in spreadsheets of the Microsoft Excel computer program, and
then were processed through the R program in the R Studio interface (R CORE TEAM, 2020).
Given the theoretical discussions about the best way to statistically treat data arising from
scales, we followed Endresen and Janda (2015). We developed multiple different analyzes:
ANOVA, Multiple Linear Regression, Mixed Model and Chi square. In all cases the pattern of
results is similar and the statistically significant contrasts were the same.
Taking into account the experimental hypotheses, the packages lme4 (BATES; MAECHLER;
BOLKER; WALKER, 2015), lmerTest (KUZNETSOVA; BROCKHOFF; CHRISTENSEN,
2017) and MuMIn (BARTON, 2020) were used to perform different LMM (Linear Mixed
Model)
3
. Table 1 shows the results of the analysis of the chosen LMM.
As can be seen in Figure 1 and 2, for both men and women, the pattern shows an acceptance
scale. The sentences corresponding to high stereotipicality role names have a lower acceptance
for all non-binary forms, especially the morphological variant with [-e], and among men.
Figure 1 - Means of acceptability judgments
by Stereotipicality, Morphology and Gender
identity of the participant.
Figure 2 - High acceptability by
Stereotipicality, Morphology and Gender
identity of the participant.
Table 1 - Specifications of the selected model
3
Six models were developed with one, two or three fixed factors (Stereotipicality, Morphology, Gender Identity),
with and without interactions and with two random effects (Items and Participants). Based on the comparison of
all models, the final model was selected by AIC.
For Peer Review
Total observations = 1350
Total participants = 75
Total items = 54
Fixed effects
Est/Beta
Standard error
t
p
Intercept
5.0231
0.2020
24.864
< 2e-16 ***
Morphology-X
-0.6541
0.1817
-3.599
0.000331 ***
Morphology-E
-0.5597
0.1817
-3.080
0.002112 **
Gender identity-Men
1.0123
0.3356
3.016
0.002960 **
Stereotipicality-Medium
-0.2956
0.1528
-1.935
0.053240
Stereotipicality-High
-0.5378
0.1528
-3.520
0.000446 ***
Morphology-X : Gender identity-Men
-1.3762
0.3355
-4.102
4.36e-05 ***
Morphology-E : Gender identity-Men
-2.1448
0.3355
-6.392
2.29e-10 ***
Random effects
Variance
SD
Participants (intercept)
0.8758
0.9358
Model fit
R2
Marginal
Conditional
0.07553874
0.2076953
The p-values of the fixed effects were calculated with the Satterthwaite approximations.
Model equation: Acceptability ~ Morphology * Gender identity + Stereotipicality + (1 | Participants)
Multiple comparisons were made with the emmeans package
4
(LENTH, 2020). Statistically
significant differences were found only between low and high Stereotipicality (p=0.0013). As
4
It uses p-values adjusted by Tukey's method.
For Peer Review
for the generic variants, statistically significant differences were found between the generic
masculine form (-o) and both non-binary forms (-x, p=0.0001; -e, p=0.0001), but not between
the two non-binary variants (p=0.1965). As for the variable Gender identity, an interaction was
found with Morphology. Statistically significant differences were found in the acceptability of
the non-binary variant [-e] between women and men (p=0.0129) and in the acceptability of the
generic masculine (p=0.0374).
Discussion
Firstly, we were interested in using this task as a normative study to verify the levels of
Stereotipicality considered a priori in our experimental design. According to our results, the
items included in each level of the Stereotipicality factor seem to adequately represent the
levels of this factor. However, it is important to point out that no statistically significant
differences were found between the medium and high level of Stereotipicality.
Secondly, as expected, the Morphology factor showed a statistically significant effect. Non-
binary forms were less accepted than the generic masculine form. Although the groups of men
and women were unbalanced and there were no statistically significant differences between the
two, a consistent pattern can be highlighted: non-binary forms are less accepted among men
than among women, in particular the morphological variant with [-e].
Finally, no statistically significant interactions were found between Stereotipicality and
Morphology. However, the results showed a clear pattern: 1. role names with high
Stereotipicality –such as the plumbers– were less accepted when presented with non-binary
forms –especially [-e]–; 2. the generic masculine was more accepted across the three levels of
Stereotipicality; 3. the medium level of Stereotipicality seems to be the group with less
consistent results. A possible explanation for these results is that the more frequent use of non-
binary forms generates more acceptance and that the words we categorize as high
Stereotipicality are not usually used in their non-binary morphological variants. But those we
classify as medium Stereotipicality seems to be, indeed, used more frequently with non-binary
forms.
Acceptability judgment tasks involve strategic processes conditioned by linguistic ideologies,
normative paradigms and social representations of gender. In this line, as we advance in our
hypothesis, we can say that when the task involves strategic processes strongly mediated by
beliefs and linguistic norm, the generic masculine is acceptable as a form to refer to mixed
For Peer Review
groups, over non-binary forms. The acceptability judgments are very relevant data, as they also
show the conscious dispositions of the speakers in relation to the linguistic forms and their
social uses. However, they may not allow us to verify what happens when the underlying
mental processes involve manipulating gender representations in an implicit way and
computing linguistic elements automatically during reading.
Our results show that when speakers must judge acceptability, as a conscious, voluntary and
strategic process, the judgments reflect the support of binary forms and are in accordance with
the norm that assumes that the Spanish generic masculine manages to refer to groups of people
without gender identity bias. In order to analyze whether this tendency is maintained during
automatic mental processes that require the manipulation of implicit sex-gender
representations, and in order to evaluate the psycholinguistic processing of these morphological
forms online –not only through precision or response type paradigms– we developed a second
sentence comprehension experiment.
Experiment 2
The second experiment was designed from the Stereotipicality classification of nominal
phrases evaluated in Experiment 1. It was intended to analyze the online psycholinguistic
processing during the comprehension of sentences that include such phrases. It was expected
to verify which were the implicit sex-gender representations that speakers constructed as
reference for those phrases during the comprehension process.
We designed a sentence comprehension task that involves reading a sentence at its own pace.
Afterwards we presented a question about the possible reference of the nominal phrase in the
subject position. The answer to this question was made through a multiple-choice paradigm.
The central hypotheses for Experiment 2 assume that: 1. there will be an effect of the
Stereotipicality factor of the role names for the selection of possible references; 2. there will
be an interaction between Stereotipicality and Morphology that will focus not only on the type
of option chosen but also on the time it takes to make the choice; 3. although the selection of
referents of the non-binary forms will be more consistent towards groups with non-uniform
gender, the times for making that choice may show an advantage for the generic masculine
form, as an unmarked form in Spanish.
For Peer Review
Participants
This task involved 551 people of whom 13 had to be removed (underage participants or subjects
who did not declare their age). Of the remaining participants (538), 386 were women
(M=34.52; SD=11.60; range=19 and 98), 131 were men (M=34.15; SD=12.09; range=18 and
82) and 21 were identified as non-cisgender
5
(M=29.67; SD=8.21; range=19 and 55). Of the
total number of participants, 399 declared to live in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires and
139 outside this area
6
. In terms of education, 34 participants declared that they had completed
high school, 103 were undergraduate students, and 401 had completed a higher level degree or
had postgraduate studies. Finally, they were asked if they used any form of non-binary language
and 136 stated that they did not, 111 that they used it little or occasionally and 291 that they
used it frequently.
Materials
With the nominal phrases used in the previous task, we elaborated sentences with these phrases
as subjects. The same experimental design was maintained and 18 sentences were created and
presented in the three morphological variants. Below are examples for each condition of
Stereotipicality:
Low Stereotipicality: Los/xs/es maestros/xs/es usan recursos variados durante la
alfabetización inicial. (Teachers use a variety of resources during initial literacy training.)
Medium Stereotipicality: Los/xs/es enfermeros/xs/es tienen obligación de actuar si hay un
accidente en la vía pública. (Nurses have an obligation to act if there is an accident on the
road.)
High Stereotipicality: Los/xs/es plomeros/xs/es con matrícula pueden hacer trabajos en
edificios y consorcios. (Licensed plumbers can do work in buildings and consortiums.)
For each sentence, we asked a multiple-choice question about the understanding of the noun
phrase, to indicate whether it referred to men, women or mixed groups. In addition, three more
answer options were added that acted as fillers. For this purpose, we used names that, in
5
The group of people we grouped under this denomination was composed of: non binaries, non binary girl, trans
man, gay cis, none, nongender, fluid gender, lesbian, demi-girl, queer.
6
This includes several provinces in Argentina.
For Peer Review
Argentina, are usually used with high frequency to name women or men. The following is a
sample question and its response options:
¿A cuál de las siguientes opciones puede referir “los maestros”? (Which of the following
options can "the teachers" refer to?)
a. Carolina.
b. Manuel.
c. Manuel, Marta y otras personas. (Manuel, Marta and other people)
d. Carolina, Marta y otras mujeres. (Carolina, Marta and other women)
e. Manuel, Federico y otros varones. (Manuel, Federico and other men)
f. Ninguna de las opciones anteriores. (None of the above)
Specifically, we were interested in measuring the distinction between options c. and e. in the
previous example: the option that referred to a mixed group of people and the one that referred
to a group of men.
In addition, based on the fillers used in the previous task, 18 filler sentences were created with
the nominal phrases in feminine. Also, 12 fillers that used the three generic variants, but
presented a different comprehension question, were added. In this way, the exposure to diverse
sentences and questions was balanced, to avoid learning or training within the task. For
example:
Lxs pintorxs prefieren trabajar con óleos para conseguir mejores texturas y relieves. (The
painters prefer to work with oil paints to get better textures and reliefs.)
¿Qué prefieren lxs pintorxs? (What do painters prefer?)
a. Trabajar con óleos. (To work with oil paints)
b. Pintar con acuarelas. (To paint with watercolors)
c. Usar muchos colores. (To use lots of colors)
d. Usar pinceles anchos. (To use wide brushes)
e. Realizar trazos finos. (To make fine strokes)
f. Ninguna de las opciones anteriores. (None of the above)
The stimuli were divided into three counterbalanced lists in which 2 items of each condition
were included. Each list was formed by 48 items: 18 experimental and 30 fillers –the same for
the three lists–.
Procedure
For Peer Review
The task was designed and taken using PCIbex software (ZEHR; SCHWARZ, 2018), which
randomly assigned a different list to each participant. In all cases, an informed consent form
was first submitted and had to be accepted to access the demographic questions and the
experiment. Participants were asked to indicate gender identity, highest level of education
attained, age, nationality, city of residence, and how often they used non-binary morphological
forms. They were then presented with the instruction to first read the sentences and then answer
a multiple-choice question as quickly as possible based on their first impression. It was clarified
that they would have three test sentences, followed by three more practice sentences, which for
the participants were already part of the task.
The experiment was distributed through social networks among Spanish speakers, preferably
the Rioplatense variety. Participation was voluntary and participants received no remuneration
in return.
Results
Analysis of responses
The data were analyzed with the same programs and packages as in Experiment 1. For the
analysis of the times and type of response, we only considered those corresponding to the items
answered correctly. That is, we considered only those responses that referred to a group of men
or a mixed group of people, and discarded those that referred to a single person, a group of
women or none of the above. Of the responses eliminated, none referred to a single person –
neither by a typically female nor a typically male name–, 51 referred to a group of women and
342 referred to none of the above
7
. The items discarded for incorrect answers represent 4.06%
of the data.
7
A more detailed analysis of those answers marked as "none" reveals that this option was mostly used to answer
sentences in non-binary language –162 answers to sentences with the [-e] variant and 158 to sentences with the [-
x] variant–. Since of these 320 answers, 279 belonged to people who had declared not to use any non-binary
language form, we consider that this was a way of pointing out that non-binary language forms cannot be
understood. In addition, of the 342 responses, 221 (64.62%) referred to persons identified as cis women, 116
(33.92%) referred to persons identified as cis men, and 5 (1.46%) referred to a person identified as non-cisgender.
Of the remainder, we believe that it was an error due to lack of attention. We evaluated the possibility that, with
these answers, the participants wanted to point out that the non-binary form does not refer only to men and women,
but also to non-cisgender people, but this hypotheses was later discarded because the option that referred to a
mixed group of people included stereotypical names used for women, others used for men and the clarification
"and other people".
For Peer Review
As can be seen in Figure 3 and Table 2, both non-binary morphological variants (-x and -e)
consistently generate an unequivocal representation and reference to mixed groups of people,
regardless of the level of stereotypicality of the role name. However, the same does not hold
up to the generic masculine. First of all, it would seem not to work unequivocally as a generic
form. Secondly, the representation and reference that are constructed would seem to depend on
the level of Stereotypicality: those names with low stereotypicality –such as los niños (the
children) or los maestros (the teachers)– generate more effectively generic representations,
while those with high stereotypicality –such as los plomeros (the plumbers) or los herreros (the
blacksmiths)– generate eminently masculine representations.
Figure 3 - Type of response by Stereotipicality and Morphology
Also, as can be seen in Table 3, these representations seem to vary according to the gender
identity of the participants. On the one hand, although the responses of women and men for
both options go in the same direction, among women the preference for a masculine reference
is even stronger as the stereotipicality of role names increases. On the other hand, for
participants identified as non-cisgender, the [-o] variant would seem not to generate effectively
generic representations even when the stereotipicality of role names is low.
Table 2 - Type of response by condition (%)
For Peer Review
Stereotipicality
Low
Medium
High
Type of response
Mixed
Men
Mixed
Men
Mixed
Men
Morphology-O
65,41%
34,59%
48,50%
51,50%
34,02%
65,98%
Morphology-X
99,51%
0,49%
98,91%
1,09%
94,73%
5,27%
Morphology-E
99,21%
0,79%
99,21%
0,79%
97,35%
2,65%
Table 3 - Type of response for [-o] morphological variant (generic masculine)
Stereotipicality
Low
Medium
High
Type of response
Mixed
Men
Mixed
Men
Mixed
Men
Gender identity-Women
63,95%
36,05%
45,96%
54,04%
30,12%
69,88%
Gender identity-Nen
74,61%
25,39%
59,85%
40,15%
48,26%
51,74%
Gender identity- Non-
cisgender
35,71%
64,29%
24,39%
75,61%
17,07%
82,93%
Due to the characteristics of the phrases in non-binary language and the differences in the type
of response presented in Tables 2 and 3, the statistical analyses were carried out in two separte
ways. First, on the mixed responses and, secondly, on the generic masculine responses, the
only ones that effectively enabled a response by a group of men.
As shown in Table 2, there was a statistically significant difference in the mixed responses
according to the Morphology for low (X2(2, N=3086)=744.03, p=<2.2e-16), medium (X2(2,
N=3091)=1189.6, p=<2.2e-16) and high (X2(2, N=3111)=1431, p=<2.2e-16) stereotipicality.
In all three cases, the differences were between the generic masculine and both non-binary
forms.
For Peer Review
For the analysis of the responses of the generic masculine, we used a GLM (Generalized Linear
Model) since it was a dichotomous variable –response by mixed groups or groups of men–.
The percentages in Table 3 show that there was no interaction between Gender identity and
Stereotipicality. A statistical model was run to verify this and the interaction was not
statistically significant. Table 4 presents the results of the statistical model chosen to explain
the data obtained.
Table 4 - Specifications of the selected model
Total observations = 3193 (corresponding to the [-o] morphological variant)
Total participants = 537
Total items = 18
Fixed effects
Est/Beta
Standard error
z
p
Intercept
-1.3586
0.3199
-4.247
2.17e-05 ***
Stereotipicality-Medium
1.8789
0.3536
5.313
1.08e-07 ***
Stereotipicality-High
3.4728
0.3701
9.384
< 2e-16 ***
Gender identity-Non-cisgender
2.8339
1.0050
2.820
0.00481 **
Gender identity-Men
-1.7263
0.4304
-4.011
6.04e-05 ***
Random effects
Variance
SD
Participants (intercept)
13.1457
3.6257
Items (intercept)
0.2939
0.5421
Model fit
R2
Marginal
Conditional
0.1496804
0.8327839
Model equation: Type of response ~ Stereotipicality + Gender identity + (1|Participants) + (1|Items)
For Peer Review
As can be seen from Table 4, two main effects were found: one linked to the Stereotipicality
factor and the other linked to the Gender identity of the participants. These effects confirm the
differences shown in Table 3. The difference between responses by a mixed group or group of
men was statistically significant among the three levels of Stereotipicality (p=<.0001 for the
three contrasts), and among the three Gender identity groups (between women and men:
p=0.0002; between non-cisgender and women: p=0.0133; between non-cisgender and men:
p=0.0001).
Time analysis
For the analysis of the response times, we carried out an identification of outliers. Measures
that were more than 2.5 SD from the mean by condition were replaced by the mean of each
participant in each condition. This involved replacing 2.64% of the sample (BAAYEN; MILIN,
2010; COUSINEAU; CHARTIER, 2010; RATCLIFF, 1993).
In addition, before performing the statistical analyses, response times were plotted by condition
in order to visually identify if there was any general pattern in the data. Figure 4 and Table 5
show the response times by Type of response, Morphology, Stereotipicality of role names, and
Gender identity of participants. For responses that referred to a mixed group of people, the
pattern of time between women and men is similar, while the pattern of participants identified
as non-cisgender is different. In relation to responses that referred to a group of men, the non-
cisgender participants did not, in any case, indicate that phrases with the non-binary [-e] variant
could refer to this type of response. Due to these differences in this group and the imbalance of
the sample with respect to gender identity (3.81%), we decided to remove the non-cisgender
participants from the statistical models.
Figure 4 - Response times by Type of response, Gender identity, Stereotipicality and
Morphology
For Peer Review
Table 5 - Means and standard deviation of response times by Gender identity, Type of
response, Stereotipicality and Morphology.
Women
Resp
Mixed
Men
St
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
RT
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
-o
6520 (3558)
6520 (3818)
7306 (4166)
5867 (3274)
5359 (3482)
5329 (3302)
-x
5424 (2430)
5301 (2439)
5782 (3022)
7147 (3591)
4509 (2080)
5609 (3750)
-e
5521 (2494)
5434 (2495)
5371 (2426)
5722 (2963)
6365 (4646)
5348 (2646)
Men
Resp
Mixed
Men
St
Low
Medium
High
Baja
Media
Alta
RT
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
-o
6383 (3073)
6628 (3423)
7930 (5233)
6737 (4169)
5975 (3558)
5616 (4486)
For Peer Review
-x
5172 (2311)
5243 (2268)
5304 (2460)
1801 (-)
4575 (-)
5249 (5539)
-e
5554 (2498)
5498 (2516)
5591 (2595)
2685 (77)
5541 (368)
5719 (3754)
Non-cisgender
Resp
Mixed
Men
St
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
RT
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
-o
5532 (1372)
5024 (1448)
5215 (2224)
4110 (1712)
5627 (3900)
4885 (2346)
-x
4890 (1901)
4900 (2642)
4444 (1637)
-
6984 (-)
5061 (3776)
-e
5712 (2793)
5298 (2240)
4769 (1865)
-
-
-
Resp= Type of response; RT=Response Time; St=Stereotipicality; M=mean; SD=Standard
deviation
Taking into account the experimental hypotheses, six models (LMM) were developed with one,
two, three and four fixed factors (Type of response, Stereotipicality, Morphology, Gender
identity), without and with interactions. In all models, Participants and Items were placed as
random effects. From the comparison of all the models, the final model was selected by AIC.
Table 6 reports the final model selected.
Table 6 - Specifications of the selected model
Fixed effects8
St/Beta
Standard
error
t
p
Intercept
6469.28
152.14
42.521
< 2e-16 ***
Resp-Men
-493.83
206.39
-2.393
0.016747 *
Morphology-X
-1014.36
174.76
-5.804
5.86e-08 ***
Morphology-E
-930.79
174.75
-5.326
5.06e-07 ***
8
When reporting this model, some interactions that were not related to the experimental hypotheses and that were not statistically significant
were obviated.
For Peer Review
Stereotipicality-Medium
29.05
200.62
0.145
0.885027
Stereotipicality-High
807.87
226.62
3.565
0.000421 ***
Gender identity- Men
-138.96
268.75
-0.517
0.605151
Resp-Men : Morphology-X
1592.53
1355.81
1.175
0.240188
Resp-Men : Morphology-E
544.42
1126.84
0.483
0.629007
Resp-Men : Stereotipicality-Medium
-612.69
276.28
-2.218
0.026606 *
Resp-Men : Stereotipicality-High
-1434.30
290.66
-4.935
8.18e-07 ***
Resp-Men : Gender identity-Men
1057.92
442.69
2.390
0.016880 *
Resp-Men : Stereotipicality-High :
Gender identity-Men
-1321.07
581.28
-2.273
0.023069 *
Random effects
Variance
SD
Participants (intercept)
2082927
1443.2
Items (intercept)
19642
140.1
Model fit
R2
Marginal
Conditional
0.03218864
0.2612121
The p-values of the fixed effects were calculated with the Satterthwaite approximations.
Model equation: RTresp ~ RTA * Morphology * Stereotipicality * Gender identity + (1 | Participants)
+ (1 | Item)
Resp= Type of response; RT=Response Time; St=Stereotipicality; M=mean; SD=Standard
deviation
In the reported model (Table 6), a main effect of the Type of response was found: there were
statistically significant differences (p=0.016747) in the times for the two types of responses. A
main effect of Morphology was also found in favor of non-binary morphological variants;
variant [-x]: (p=0.0105) and variant [-e]: (p=0.0076). No statistically significant differences
For Peer Review
were found between both non-binary forms (p=0.9261). An interaction was also found between
Type of response and Morphology, specifically linked to the generic masculine. Longer
response times with the generic masculine to refer to a mixed group (p=<.0001). In relation to
Stereotipicality, an interaction was found with the Type of response: it took longer to choose a
response that referred to mixed groups when Stereotypicality was high than when it was
medium (p=0.0003) or low (p=0.0001). In addition, an interaction Type of response *
Morphology * Stereotypicality was found: with generic masculine, there were only statistically
significant differences between the times of the two types of responses in the levels of medium
(p=0.0106) and high Stereotipicality (p=<.0001). These differences were not found in the non-
binary morphological variants. Specifically, with high and medium Stereotipicality, responses
to mixed groups with masculine phrases took longer than responses to a masculine reference.
Regarding Gender identity, interactions were found between Type of response * Morphology
* Gender identity. Statistically significant differences (p=<.0001) emerge between the times of
each type of response that women gave for the generic masculine. They took longer to respond
that the generic masculine referred to a mixed group than to a group of men and this difference,
although existing and in the same direction, was not statistically significant for men. Finally,
an interaction was found between Type of response * Gender identity * Stereotipicality: for the
responses that referred to mixed groups, a statistically significant difference (p=0.0140) was
found between the levels of medium and high Stereotipicality for women, and the levels of low
and high Stereotipicality for men (p=0.0134).
Discussion
Unlike the first task, this second experiment shows automatic processes during language
processing and their relationship with implicit or unconscious gender representations.
Firstly, it is interesting to note the distribution of the type of responses. As we mentioned in
the Results section, the first piece of information to take into account is the modulation that the
Stereotipicality of role names exerts on the choices of possible referents when the nominal
phrase was presented in the form [-o], that is, the generic masculine. This modulation does not
occur for either of the non-binary morphological forms. Consequently, we can point out that
the non-binary forms seem to function as specific linguistic and semantic forms that are more
precise and unequivocal with respect to their referential capacity: regardless of whether the role
names are more or less associated with a given sex-gender identity, both non-binary forms
For Peer Review
seem to consistently generate representations of groups of people without a uniform gender.
This is not, however, the same situation that occurs for the phrases with the generic masculine.
In this case, there seems to be a mixed representation only in cases where a role name is not
strongly associated a priori with some sex-gender identity or gender stereotype. In other words,
if we want to refer to mixed groups of people whose profession is, for example, plumbing,
using the morphological form of generic masculine would not generate that mixed
representation in the interpretation of the speakers. On the other hand, using any of the non-
binary forms would generate representations of mixed groups.
Secondly, it is necessary to analyze the results linked to the online response selection process,
that is, the time it takes to make the choice of an option for each reference. In this sense, the
interpretation of these data implies understanding the response time as a reflection of the
process that leads to the construction or recovery of a sex-gender mental representation suitable
for each nominal phrase that allows the generation of a valid reference.
In this line, a first point that should be highlighted is that the Morphology factor generated a
main effect on response times, but in the opposite direction to that which, in principle, could
be hypothesized. Furthermore, it showed a different pattern from the one exhibited by the
acceptability judgments in Experiment 1. Phrases with generic masculine required greater
response times than those exhibited with either of the two non-binary morphological variants.
Within the non-binary variants, no statistically significant differences were found. The generic
masculine is distinguished from the non-binary forms, but, at least in written text, the [-x] and
[-e] variants show no difference in the speed required to manipulate a mental representation
and generate a reference to mixed or non-uniform gender groups. It is important to note that
this internal pattern to the non-binary forms is similar to the one found for acceptability
judgments, although it is necessary to develop studies that investigate the processing of oral
statements and forms that require spelling changes, since that is where the major difference
between these two variants could be located.
If we analyze the response times in each of the three morphological variants, we note that
women who choose a reference to mixed groups from a generic masculine nominal phrase take
longer to make that choice than men. However, for both groups of participants, there is a similar
pattern when comparing the choice of mixed reference with generic masculine with respect to
the reference to groups of men. So, in cases where the generic morphology is ambiguous,
answering for a mixed option takes more time, that is, it exhibits a higher processing cost. This
same interpretation will be supported by a similar effect arising from the effect of the
Stereotipicality factor, which we will comment on later.
For Peer Review
We can say, then, that when we understand phrases with the generic masculine form [-o] as
constructing a reference to groups formed by people of different genders is not only more costly
in terms of the final result of that reference –type of responses, precision in the mixed
reference– but also in relation to the underlying process –the response times are longer–. Both
measures taken together build a pattern. Non-binary variants enable unequivocal and consistent
reference towards mixed groups. Also the times required for that process are shorter for those
cases of unambiguous references than for those with the generic masculine, that generates an
ambiguous reference between exclusive groups of men or mixed groups. In this last case, both
representations could be competing.
Finally, as it is shown in the statistical models, the Stereotipicality resulted in a modulating
effect of the process when it is analyzed according to the type of response. In general, as in the
case of Experiment 1, the medium level of Stereotipicality is not significantly different from
the other two levels, so there seems to be support for considering that this medium level may
be exhibiting a diachronic and gradual process of greater use of non-binary forms for those
phrases. We propose a sort of frequency effect of exposure to phrases such as les funcionaries
[functionaries.NB] in their non-binary form –a frequency, in this synchronic cut, lower than
that of, for example, niñes–. There is also a significant interaction between the Type of response
chosen and the Stereotipicality: assigning a mixed reference showed higher processing costs in
the condition of high Stereotipicality than in the other two conditions. But even more
interesting is the interaction in the cases of Morphology with generic masculine. For the levels
of high and medium Stereotipicality that were presented with a generic masculine
morphological form –i.e. los funcionarios [the functionaries.MASC] or los plomeros [the
plumbers.MASC]– the mixed reference seems to generate a higher processing cost, with
significantly higher response times, with respect to the responses that exhibit a representation
that constructs an exclusive reference for a group of men. We can interpret, then, that for role
names with strong sex-gender associations, the generic masculine forms produce a first default
bias towards the exclusive male interpretation. So, arriving at a mixed interpretation may
involve a second stage in processing, with possible revisions or monitoring.
Finally, we would like to highlight the interaction found between the Morphology factor and
the Gender identity of the participants. Although in the two groups identified as cisgender, the
generic masculine shows longer response times, the general pattern shown in Figure 4 shows
some particularities for each case. Only 21 participants were identified as non-cisgender, and
only that group shows a different pattern of responses and response times. When we analyzed
the statistical models with only two levels of gender identity –men and women– we noticed
For Peer Review
that the significant differences due to that factor were eliminated and the pattern of response
times did not vary according to the gender identity of the participants. We can say that during
processes strongly associated with levels of automatic processing and unconscious or implicit
manipulation of mental representations, the underlying psycholinguistic process exhibited by
women and men is similar. This is so even when in strategic tasks, mediated by linguistic
ideologies and explicit sex-gender representations, differences may exist due to this factor. This
seems to be one of the key points in analyzing differences due to the task, a phenomenon that
we will return to in the General discussion.
General discussion
As we mentioned in the Introduction, there are no studies that analyze the psycholinguistic
processing of non-binary forms in Spanish. There are some studies on perceptions, beliefs and
evaluation of linguistics uses with and without gender bias in Spanish and other languages
(JIMÉNEZ RODRIGO; ONSALO; TRAVERSO CORTÉS, 2011; KAUFMANN; BOHNER,
2014; LEAPER, 2014; PREWITT-FREILINO; CASWELL; LAAKSO, 2012). However, there
are no studies that strictly inquired about the levels of acceptability of specific phrases with
non-binary morphological variants.
With this study, we are interested not only in beginning to analyze these phenomena with
greater systematicity, but also in studying the differences that may arise due to the task, or
rather, the underlying process involved in carrying out each one of them.
On the one hand, in the task of acceptability judgments, what is evaluated is the degree of
conscious acceptance that the speakers of a linguistic community show. In this case, the
judgment on noun phrases that are presented with variants of gender morphology that do not
correspond to the binary paradigm of Spanish (-o or -a). This task, in that sense, supposes a
voluntary decision task, on which a number of beliefs operate. Not only gender representations
and stereotypes, but also linguistic ideologies and dominant discursive matrices, which in turn
construct frameworks of dominant common sense (MORENO CABRERA, 2008; PÉREZ;
MORAGAS, 2020; SAYAGO, 2019). This is how an acceptability judgment task involves not
only processes and mental representations in an implicit way, but also involves many of these
factors, in addition to the linguistic norms and prescriptions imposed by formal institutions,
beyond the usual linguistic uses and speakers' daily lives.
For Peer Review
A sentence comprehension task in which not only the type of responses but also the times
required to carry out the comprehension are measured, instead, aims to study automatic
psycholinguistic processes, many of them outside executive control and separated from the
aware judgments of the speakers. This is how, in this way, it is possible to evaluate
representations manipulated cognitively in an implicit way when we process language. Beyond
whether we believe that a morphological variant is more or less valid for Spanish, if we can
understand it adequately and without high costs processing, we have backup data to refute that
there are strictly (psycho)linguistic obstacles that block its use or its adequate comprehension.
Given this general framework, the results reported in this work are especially relevant. The two
experiments presented here show, individually, novel data on the use and comprehension of
non-binary morphological variants in Spanish. These specific findings have been discussed in
the corresponding sections. In this last section, we want to bring the attention to the interesting
differences that we have found due to the task and the underlying process that each imposes.
As we could see in Experiment 1, the non-binary variants (-x and -e) continue to generate less
acceptance than the generic masculine. Above all, men show more rejection of non-binary
forms and, in general, this rejection is observed on role names that have a strong gender bias
because they are associated with firm stereotypes –i.e. plumbers–. However, when what is
asked is not a judgment but rather the reading and comprehension of a sentence, for which
subjects have to indicate the possible reference, the pattern of results changes. Non-binary
variants are more precise –they do not offer ambiguity about their reference– and they are
processed without extra cognitive costs compared to the generic masculine. In other words,
when conscious beliefs about gender representations and linguistic ideologies are at stake,
speakers exhibit very different explicit positions –even in some cases opposite– than when they
process language, without this process being under their executive and conscious control.
There is, however, an interesting point of contact between the results found in the two tasks.
Role names with high stereotypicality always behave in a particular way: just as non-binary
forms are less accepted in these cases, the processing of these phrases when presented in the
generic masculine condition produces a significant bias towards an exclusive reference of men.
Instead, mixed referencing is only consistently enabled when presented under conditions with
non-binary variants [-x] or [-e]. This seems to be supporting the same phenomenon: when there
is a very strong gender bias on the possible references of a role name, there are at least two
projections. On the one hand, it is less frequent and, therefore, less accepted a phrase that marks
non-binary gender in these nouns –i.e. les plomeres [the plumbers.NB]–. Simultaneously, the
absence of that gender marker makes invisible the possibility that a group of people who
For Peer Review
practice plumbing could be formed by both male and female plumbers. This puts us before the
classic paradoxical dilemma in many studies that analyze the relationship between thought and
language. What comes first? There are not many female plumbers, so when people read los
plomeros [the plumbers.MASC] they skew their representations towards men exclusively –
much more than with los niños (the boys)–. Or, vice versa, not being able to name precisely
with a generic phrase people who practice plumbing regardless of gender, generate an
inadequate representation that there are only male plumbers, making invisible a part of this
group. In other words, if we began to use les plomeres [the plumbers.NB] as a generic form
that does not add ambiguity about the fact that the people that form that group do not all identify
with the male gender, could we begin to generate representations of female plumbers, enabling
the possibility of deconstructing and denaturing categorical stereotypes?
The data analyzed in this paper are in line with studies carried out in other languages
(KAUFMANN; BOHNER, 2014; LEAPER, 2014; SATO; GYGAX; GABRIEL, 2016;
SCZESNY; MOSER; WOOD, 2015; VIGLIOCCO et al., 2005) regarding the consistent and
stable biases that can be projected from the use of certain linguistic forms towards the mental
representations that we handle about the world and the relationships that exist in it. In this case,
the data in Spanish also indicate that the morphological variant known as generic masculine,
which in theory would be able to refer and generate representations of groups with non-uniform
gender, does not work strictly like that. Instead, it generates biases with respect to that reference
heavily dependent on gender stereotypes linked to role names. But, in addition, we were able
to show that non-binary morphological variants do not imply higher processing costs or
obstacles in comprehension. On the contrary, they result in more precise ways than the generic
masculine to name, refer and represent the diversity of genders that can be found within a group
of people.
Without wishing to close the question about what comes first with a categorical answer, our
data show that the use of non-binary forms can adequately make this diversity visible, while
showing that the barriers to their use do not come strictly from the system of language or the
cognitive mechanisms that underlie its processing.
BINÁRIO OU NÃO BINÁRIO? MORFOLOGIA DE GÊNERO EM ESPANHOL:
DIFERENÇAS DEPENDENTES DE TAREFAS
For Peer Review
RESUMO
Existem evidências empíricas em diferentes línguas sobre como a computação da morfologia
de gênero durante o processamento psicolingüístico afeta a conformação das representações do
sexo e gênero. Entretanto, não há evidências empíricas sobre o processamento de variantes
morfológicas não-binárias em espanhol (-x ou -e) em contraste com a variante genérica
masculina (-o). Para analisar este fenômeno, realizamos dois experimentos: uma tarefa de
julgamento de aceitabilidade e uma tarefa de compreensão de orações para analisar o
processamento online. Os resultados mostram diferenças dependentes das tarefas, ou seja, nos
processos subjacentes envolvidos em cada uma delas. Nos julgamentos de aceitabilidade, que
envolvem processos estratégicos mediados por crenças e normas linguísticas, o genérico
masculino é mais aceitável para se referir a grupos mistos. Na tarefa de compreensão de
orações, que investiga processos automáticos e representações implícitas, as formas não
binárias provocaram consistentemente uma referência a grupos mistos e os tempos de resposta
indicaram que estas variantes morfológicas não implicam um custo de processamento mais alto
do que o genérico masculino.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Psicolinguística. Gênero. Morfologia. Estereótipos de gênero.
REFERENCIAS
BAAYEN, H.; MILIN, P. Analyzing Reaction Times. International Journal of Psychological
Research, Medellín, v.3, n.2, p.12-28, 2010.
BARTÓN, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17. 2020. Available
on: <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn>. Consulted on: 23 nov. 2020.
BATES, D.; MAECHLER, M.; BOLKER, B.; WALKER, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects
Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, Los Angeles, v.67, n.1, p.1-48, 2015.
BRADLEY, E.D. The influence of linguistic and social attitudes on grammaticality judgments
of singular ‘they’. Language Sciences, Amsterdam, v.78, 101272, 2020. doi:
10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101272
BRAUN, F.; SCZESNY, S.; STAHLBERG, D. Cognitive effects of masculine generics in
German: An overview of empirical findings. Communications, Berlin, v.30, n.1, p.1-21, 2005.
CACCIARI, C.; PADOVANI, R. Further evidence of gender stereotype priming in language:
Semantic facilitation and inhibition in Italian role nouns. Applied Psycholinguistics,
Cambridge, v.28, p.277-293, 2007.
CORBETT, G. G. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
ENDERSEN, A.; JANDA, L. A. Five statistical models for Likert-type experimental data on
acceptability judgments. 2015. Available on: <https://ninum.uit.no/handle/10037/8007>.
Consulted on: 23 nov. 2020.
COUSINEAU, D.; CHARTIER, S. Outliers Detection and Treatment: A review. International
Journal of Psychological Research, Medellín, v.3, n.1, p.58-67, 2010.
For Peer Review
DIXON, J. The question of genres. In REID, I. (Ed). The place of genre in learning: Current
debates. Victoria: Typereader Publications, 1987, p.9-21.
EVERETT, G. Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains.
Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013.
FLAHERTY, M. How a language gender system creeps into perception. Cross-cultural
Psychology, New York, v.32, n.1, p.18-31, 2001.
GYGAX, P. M.; ELMINGER, D.; ZUFFEREY, S.; GARNHAN, A; SCZESNY, S.; VON
STOCKHAUSEN, L.; BRAUN, F.; OAKHILL, J. A language index of grammatical gender
dimensions to study the impact of grammatical gender on the way we perceive women and
men. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v.10, 1604, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01604
GYGAX, P.; GABRIEL, U. Can a group of musicians be composed of women? Generic
interpretation of French masculine role names in the absence and presence of feminine forms.
Swiss Journal of Psychology, Bern, v.67, n.3, p.143-151, 2008.
GYGAX, P.; GABRIEL, U.; SARRASIN, O.; OAKHILL, J.; GARNHAM, A. Generically
intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men.
Language and Cognitive Processes, Oxon, v.23, n.3, p.464-485, 2008.
IMAI, M.; SCHALK, L.; SAALBACH, H.; OKADA, H. All giraffes have female-specific
properties: Influence of grammatical gender on deductive reasoning about sex-specific
properties in German speakers. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Seattle,
v.38, p.514-536, 2014.
JIMÉNEZ RODRIGO, M.L.; ONSALO, M.L.; TRAVERSO CORTÉS, J. Lenguaje no sexista
y barreras a su utilización. Un estudio en el ámbito universitario. Revista de Investigación en
Educación, Vigo, v.9, n.2, p.174-183, 2011.
KAUFMANN, C.; BOHNER, G. Masculine generics and gender-aware alternatives in Spanish.
IZGOnZeit. Interdisziplinren Zentrums fr Geschlechterforschung (IZG), Bielefeld, p.8-
17, 2014.
KONISHI, T. The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, New York, v.22, p.519-534, 1993.
KUZNETSOVA, A.; BROCKHOFF, P. B.; CHRISTENSEN, R. H. B. “LmerTest Package:
Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models”. Journal of Statistical Software, Los Angeles, v.82,
n.13, p.1-26, 2017.
LEAPER, C. Gender similarities and differences in language. En HOLTGRAVES, T. M. (Ed).
The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.
LENTH, R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package
version 1.5.2-1. 2020. Available on: <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans>.
Consulted on: 23 nov. 2020.
For Peer Review
LUCY, J. A. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research.
In GUMPERZ, J. J.; LEVINSON, S. C. (Eds). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.37-69.
MACIUSZEK, J.; POLAK, M.; ŚWIĄTKOWSKA, N. Grammatical gender influences
semantic categorization and implicit cognition in Polish. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne,
v.10, 2208, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02208
MISERSKY, J.; MAJID, A.; SNIJDERS, T. M. Grammatical gender in German influences
how role-nouns are interpreted: Evidence from ERPs. Discourse Processes, New York, v.56,
n.8, p.643-654, 2019.
MORENO CABRERA, J.C. Gramáticos y academias. Para una sociología del conocimiento
de las lenguas. Arbor. Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura, Madrid, v. 731, 519-528, 2008.
PÉREZ, S.I.; MORAGAS, F. Lenguaje inclusivo: malestares y resistencias en el discurso
conservador. In KALINOWSKI, S.; GASPARI, J.; PÉREZ, S.I.; MORAGAS, F. Apuntes
sobre lenguaje no sexista e inclusivo. Rosario: UNR Editora, 2020, p.69-96.
PINKER, S. El instinto del lenguaje. Madrid: Alianza, 1999.
PRENTICE, D. A. Do language reforms change our way of thinking? Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, New York, v.13, n.1, p.3-19, 1994.
PREWITT-FREILINO, J.L.; CASWELL, T.A.; LAAKSO, E.K. The gendering of language: a
comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless
languages. Sex Roles, New York, v.66, p.268–281, 2012.
R CORE TEAM. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020. Available on: <https://www.R-project.org/>.
Consulted on: 23 nov. 2020.
RATCLIFF, R. Methods with Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers. Psychological Bulletin,
Washington, v.114, n.3, p.510-532, 1993.
SAALBACH, H.; IMAI, M.; SCHALK, L. Grammatical gender and inferences about
biological properties in German-speaking children. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, Seattle, v.36, p.1251-1267, 2012.
SAPIR, E. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921.
SATO, A.; GYGAX, P.; GABRIEL, U. Gauging the Impact of Gender Grammaticization in
Different Languages: Application of a Linguistic-Visual Paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology,
Lausanne, v.7, 140, 2016. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00140
SAYAGO, S. Apuntes sociolingüísticos sobre el lenguaje inclusivo. Revista científica de la
red de carreras de Comunicación Social, n.9, 2019. doi: 10.24215/24517836e015
For Peer Review
SCZESNY, S.; MOSER, F.; WOOD, W. Beyond Sexist Beliefs: How Do People Decide to
Use Gender-Inclusive Language? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, New York,
v.41, n.7, p.943-954, 2015.
SCOTTO, S.C.; PÉREZ, D.I. Relatividad lingüística, gramáticas de género y lenguaje
inclusivo: algunas consideraciones. Análisis Filosófico, Buenos Aires, v.40, n.1, p.5-39, 2020.
SEGEL, E.; BORODITSKY, L. Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v.1, 244,
2011. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00244
SERA, M.; ELIEF, C.; FORBES, J.; BURCH, M. C.; RODRIGUEZ, W.; DUBOIS, D. P.
When language affects cognition and when it does not: an analysis of grammatical gender and
classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Washington, v.131, p.377–
397, 2002.
SLOBIN, D. Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style.
Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v.1, n.1, p.7-25, 1991.
SLOBIN, D. From ‘Thought and Language’ to ‘Thinking for Speaking’. In LEVINSON, S. C.;
GUMPERZ, J. J. (Eds). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996, p.70-96.
STAHLBERG, D.; BRAUN, F.; IRMEN, L.; SCZESNY, S. Representation of the sexes in
language. In FIEDLER, K. (Ed). Frontiers of social psychology. Social communication. New
York: Psychology Press, 2007, p.163-187.
VIGLIOCCO, G.; VINSON, D.; PAGANELLI, F.; DWORZYNSKI, K. Grammatical Gender
Effects on Cognition: Implications for Language Learning and Language Use. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, Washington, v.134, p.501-520, 2005.
WHORF, B. L. Language, thought and reality. New York: The MIT Press, 1956.
ZEHR, J.; SCHWARZ, F. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). 2018. doi:
10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832
ZLATEV, J., & BLOMBERG, J. Language may indeed influence thought. Frontiers in
psychology, Lausanne, v.6, 1631, 2015. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01631
For Peer Review
