MAGLANA RESEARCH- Gender Fair Language in grade 8 high school modules.docx

Examining the use of Gender Fair Language in Grade 8 Modules in Lumbo Integrated
School
Veny Mae S. Maglana
MALE

Abstract
The study is entitled “Examining the use of Gender Fair Language in Grade 8 Modules In
Lumbo Integrated School”. It aimed to 1. Examine the system of language choice used in
the modules of Grade 8 students following the NCTE guidelines; 2. Describe possible
explanations for such choice of language; and 3. Determine if there is a relationship
between author’s sex/gender and language choice. The data were gathered modules
from first quarter to fourth quarter in the Grade 8 level in Lumbo Integrated School, there
were about 52 available modules that were used. The modules were analyzed on the
language used in all parts of the books, from preface, to body, discussion and even the
examples. The researcher use the guidelines set by the National Council of Teachers in
English (NCTE). Results showed Gender-bias language is still present among the
modules given from the DepEd. The common biases found were the following: a. generic
used of “he his and man” and gender stereotyping.
Keywords: Gender-bias language, Gender-fair language, Stereotyping, Instructional
Materials, Gender-nouns

INTRODUCTION
Over the years men have reliably been placed in a platform and women are considered
straightforward appendage even to the purpose for being non-existent. Gender equality
never genuinely was a thing in the past not until the eighteenth century. Women begin to
fight for their own spot in the general public. They needed to change the overall population
by having their own affiliation. They struggled for a wide extent of issues like property
freedoms, admittance to advanced education , equivalent compensation , testimonial and
a lot more which a large number of the present ladies are campaigning for.
In the quest for equality, women needed to destroy all types of separation and
generalizing particularly on the jobs they depict in the family or in the general public. They
have likewise needed to further develop the language utilized in depicting or
characterizing women and the utilization of words that trivializes women.
The role of language in regular discussion can't be dismissed. It is through language that
everyone can communicate, depict and clarify his/her own considerations. That is the
reason, the utilization of language should be taken cautiously in light of the fact that
language might connect hole however it can likewise burn relationship.
It is sad to say that biases in language are common and universal. This is what Hellinger
and Bumann (2001 2002, 2003),as stated by Sczesny et al ,( 2016), found out after
analyzing 30 different languages from different language families (e.g., Arabic, Chinese,
English, Finnish, Hindi, Turkish, Swahili). These languages use generic masculine. The
masculine forms refer to either gender while the feminine words are for women only.

According to ridgeway&correll (2004), the masculine are used to represent all human
beings; it is in accord with the traditional gender hierarchy, which grants men more power
and higher social status than women.
In this paper, I will tackle one measure of gender equality Grade 8 Modules of DepEd in
all subject areas that uses English as medium of instruction in Lumbo Integrated School.
Designing a module, especially this time of new normal, requires consideration of a
number of factors such as ethnicity, age, class, mental level, gender, purpose etc.
The aim of this study is to quantify that gender fair language by analyzing language and
the traditional associations of names with men and women in modules using the critical
discourse analysis.

Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
This chapter consists of a review of literature as it relates to the current study.
Gender-fair Language
Language is inherently dynamic as a product and an engine of human culture and ever-
evolving. Regarding the intersection of language, gender, and equity, the English
language has been in a period of active shift for several decades. That dynamism is
reflected in the evolution of NCTE’s position statements on gender and language through
the last forty years. In 1978, NCTE published the first predecessor of this statement with
the help of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Workplace. Originally titled
“Guidelines for Nonsexist Use of Language in NCTE Publications,” the document was
revised first in 1985, and again in 2002, when the Women in Literacy and Life Assembly
(WILLA) renamed it “Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language.” At that time, the
statement explored the ways in which language reflects and shapes understandings of
gender, and it offered examples of ways in which language might promote the fair
treatment of women and girls in early-childhood, elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary educational settings. The current document, “Statement on Gender and
Language” (2018), reflects NCTE’s ongoing commitment to gender equity in education,
and also builds on contemporary understandings of gender that include identities and
expressions beyond a woman/man binary. Rather than reinscribe the gender binary or
cisnormativity (the assumption that each person’s gender identity corresponds to the sex
they were assigned at birth), this document aims to support people of all genders. This

statement will discuss how gender differs from sex and sexuality; will explain what is
meant by the term gender binary; will recommend ways educators might use language to
reflect the reality of gender diversity and support gender diverse students; and will
highlight resources English language arts educators at any level may use to support more
nuanced and inclusive understandings and discussions of gender in classrooms, schools,
and broader communities.
Analysis Languages uses us as much as we use language. As much as our choice of
forms of expression is guided by the thoughts we want to express, to the same extent the
way we feel about the things in the real world governs the way we express ourselves
about these things. Two words can be synonymous in their denotative sense, but one will
be used in case a speaker feels favorably toward the object the word denotes, the other
if he is unfavorably disposed. Similar situations are legion, involving unexpectedness,
interest, and other emotional reactions on the part of the speaker to what he is talking
about. Thus, while two speakers may
Analysis on the relationship of gender and language are gaining momentum in the past
years. Language is so powerful that it helps to perpetrate and reproduce sexism and
gender discrimination.
According to Oxford Research Encyclopdie of Communication, gender bias and
sexism are embedded in the grammatical structure of most languages and therefore are
perceived to be normative (Ng, 2007).
However, in the seventies, the feminist movement questioned the use of a generic
masculine pronoun to refer to people in general (Moulton et al., 1978)

The literature describes two types of gender fair language: “balancing/feminization’ and
‘neutralization.’ Feminization implies the use of gender-appropriate forms, and is more
often used in languages with grammatical gender (e.g., German, French), for example by
adding feminine versions to masculine titles (e.g., Lehrer/Lehrerinnen for masculine and
feminine teachers; (Stahlberg et al., 2001, 2007)
Language is the most important means thought which sexism and gender discrimination
are perpetrated and reproduced it shapes the way we think, i.e., that it has a strong impact
on perceptions and cognition of people (Vainapel et al. 2015) is a commonly accepted
viewpoint. Our language and society reflect one another, so it is important for
communicators to recognize and respect change in the meaning and acceptability of
words. (WILLA, 2018) As both a product and an engine of human culture, language is
inherently dynamic and ever-evolving. Regarding the intersection of language, gender,
and equity, the English language has been in a period of active shift for several decades.
Verbal communication is one of the most powerful means through which sexism and
gender discrimination are perpetrated and reproduced. Why is that so? The answer is
twofold. First, the content of gender stereotypes, according to which women should
display communal/warmth traits (e.g., being nice, caring, and generous), and men should
display agentic/competence traits (e.g., being efficient, agentic, and assertive; Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, 2004; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000), are reproduced in the lexical
choices of everyday communication (Maass & Arcuri, 1996). However, the content of
gender stereotypes is not neutral, as it reflects the asymmetries of status and power in
favor of men, which are attached to the corresponding social roles (Eagly et al., 2000). In
turn, these asymmetries are subtly expressed in the words used to refer to men and

women, with men being described with more agentic-related words and women described
with more communal-related words (e.g., Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011; Madera, Hebl,
& Martin, 2009; Moscatelli, Ellemers, Menegatti, & Rubini, 2016). Given that language not
only reflects stereotypical beliefs but also affects recipients’ cognition and behavior, the
use of expressions consistent with gender stereotypes contributes to transmit and
reinforce such belief system and can produce actual discrimination against women.
Second, the hidden yet consensual norm according to which the prototypical human being
is male is reproduced in the structure of many languages (Silveira, 1980). To understand
how the sex is embedded in the grammatical and syntactical rules of different languages,
and therefore the extent to which a language contributes to perpetrate gender bias,
Stahlberg, Braun, Irmen, and Sczesny (2007) proposed a distinction between three
language types: genderless languages, natural gender languages, and grammatical
gender languages. All of them have lexical expressions of sex in words of the type
“women,” “sister,” “father,” or “man.” However, this is the only sex-marking for genderless
languages (e.g., Finnish, Turkish), that have neither grammatical gender for nouns nor
for personal pronouns. In natural gender languages (e.g., English, Scandinavian
languages) there is not grammatical marking of sex, such that most nouns and their
dependent linguistic forms (articles, adjectives, pronouns) can be used to refer to both
males and females, and personal pronouns are the major resource for expressing gender.
In grammatical gender languages (e.g., French, Italian, German) all nouns are assigned
feminine or masculine (or neutral) gender, and the dependent parts of speech carry
grammatical agreement to the gender of the corresponding noun. For instance, the sea
is masculine in Italian, il mare, and feminine in French, la mer. Moreover, in these

languages, grammatical and syntactical rules are built in a way that feminine nouns or
adjectives are often marked as they derive from the corresponding masculine form.
Similarly, masculine nouns and pronouns are often used with a generic function, that is,
to refer to both men and women.
Gender stereotypes are beliefs about the attributes of men and women and produce
expectations about what they are like and should be like. According to the social role
theory, gender stereotypes originate in the gender-typical social roles and thus reflect the
sexual division of labor and gender hierarchy of the society. Men and women have
historically held different social roles (Eagly et al., 2000): Men have been more likely to
engage in tasks that require speed, strength, and the possibility of being away from home
for long periods of time, whereas women have been more likely to stay home and engage
in family tasks, such as child-rearing. As a consequence, men are perceived as, and
expected to be, agentic, namely, active, independent, and resolute, whereas women are
perceived as, and expected to be, communal, namely, kind, helpful, and benevolent. In
other terms, the content of gender stereotypes has been established by the
characteristics and activities required by individuals of each sex in their sex-typical
occupations and family roles: Women are expected to engage in a feminine gender role
that reflects communal qualities but not agentic ones (Wood & Eagly, 2002).
More recent research has shown that masculine pronouns used to describe ideal
applicants for a vacant positions reduce women’ s motivation to apply as well as their
sense of belongingness and identification with the work context and the job (Stout &
Dasgupta, 2011).

Moreover, the perception of professions is affected by the form in which they are referred
to. Children’s and adolescents’ opinions about professions and their vocational interests
are strongly affected by linguistic forms. Professions presented to adolescents in the
masculine form led to perceive women as more successful in typically feminine and men
in typically masculine jobs. In contrast, when presented with word pairs, female and male
professionals are perceived as equally likely to succeed in both typically feminine and
masculine professions. Moreover, when professionals are described with masculine
forms, they are perceived as less warm in typically masculine jobs and warmer in typically
feminine jobs than those described with word pairs. In contrast, perception of competence
does not change (Vervecken & Hannover, 2015). Similarly, when professions were
presented with word pairs, children rated female job holders in typically masculine
professions as more successful and girls as more interested in these typically masculine
professions (Vervecken, Hannover, & Wolter, 2013). However, side effects of the use of
gender-fair forms in job titles also emerged. Children perceive typically masculine
professions presented with word pairs as less difficult and therefore more accessible, but
they also attribute to such professions less salary (Vervecken & Hannover, 2015).
The content of gender stereotypes is reflected in the lexical choices that people make in
everyday communication. It is well established that the category label used to refer to a
particular group automatically activates the traits stereotypically associated with the group
(Maass & Arcuri, 1996). This is also true for the communal and agentic traits that
characterize gender stereotypes. They emerge when individuals freely describe men and
women and when they are asked to evaluate the characteristics of individual men and
women seen in photographs (Feingold, 1998). Words consistent with gender stereotypes

have powerful effects also when presented at a subliminal level, whereby they lead
participants to classify gender pronouns more quickly into male and female categories.
In media texts, for instance, men are placed more frequently in the role of logical subject
and are described as more active, whereas women are placed more frequently in helpless
or victim roles, and are depicted as more passive and emotional (Kruse, Weimer, &
Wagner, 1988). Even the terminology used to compose obituaries of deceased male and
female managers reflects gender stereotypes (Kirchler, 1992). Men are described as
highly knowledgeable and intelligent experts, and women are described as adorable,
likable, and highly committed to their work.
Asymmetries in vocabulary of many languages also result in a lack of terms referring to
one sex. Due to gender stereotypes that want women to be pure and family oriented,
there is no male counterpart in current language use for terms such as virgin, working
mother, or career women (cf. Maass & Arcuri, 1996). Also in many languages there is no
male equivalent for Miss, suggesting that being married was (and sometimes is)
considered as relevant for the status of women but not of men. These lexical gaps are
particularly evident for work-related terms. Classic examples are all the English terms
ending with -man, such as businessman, chairman, anchorman, or policeman, for whom
the corresponding feminine term has been, coined only recently when women started to
enter male-dominated work fields. Importantly, efforts have been made to introduce
gender-neutral terms, such as anchor, flight attendant, chairperson, or health operator
(instead of nurse), in order to refer to men and women with one occupation term (Maass,
Suitner, & Merkel, 2013).

Gender stereotypes are based on the traditional division of labor (Bosak, Sczesny, &
Eagly, 2012; Eagly, 1987): Women tend to work in occupations that require caring and
cooperation and thus are perceived as more communal (e.g., warm, helpful), whereas
men tend to work in jobs requiring decisionmaking or strength and are perceived as more
agentic (e.g., ambitious, independent). “gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy
producing gender discrimination” (Heilman & Eagly, 2008, p. 393). Biased workplace
evaluations are caused by the mismatch between the communal stereotypes of women
and desirable work roles (Heilman, 2001). Managerial and executive-level jobs are
usually considered to be masculine, as they require agentic qualities, such as ambition,
aggressiveness, and achievement. Therefore, attitudes are often less positive toward
female than male leaders, and it is more difficult for women to become and succeed as
leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
On its part, language may reinforce women’s underrepresentation in traditionally male-
dominated occupations through the gendered wording used in job recruitment linguistic
materials. Content analyses of letters of recommendation for college (LaCroix, 1985) and
graduate schools (Watson, 1987) revealed the use of stereotypical gender-related words,
which describe female applicants as feminine and male applicants as masculine.
Moreover, letters of recommendation for male applicants who had been hired at an
American medical school contained more outstanding adjectives, such as superb,
outstanding, and remarkable, than those for female applicants, even though objective
criteria showed no gender differences in qualifications (Trix & Psenka, 2003). Letters for
male applicants also included more research-related adjectives, such as a reference to
“his research,” “his ability,” or “his career,” whereas letters for female applicants included

more reference to “her teaching,” or “her training.” Recently, Madera et al. (2009) found
that agentic and communal stereotypical characteristics are used in letters of
recommendation for faculty positions in a way that discriminates against female
applicants. Women are described by more communal adjectives, such as kind, helpful,
sympathetic, tactful, warm, agreeable, than men, who are described with more agentic
terms, such as dominant, forceful, independent, confident, outspoken, intellectual, and
ambitious. Moreover, letters written for women contain more social-communal-related
terms, such as husband, kids, wife, babies, family, colleagues, children, than letters for
men, which are composed of more agentic orientation-related terms, such as earn, gain,
insight, think, know, do. Interestingly, for female applicants, male writers use more agentic
orientation terms than female writers do. In a second study, Madera et al. (2009) found
that applicants who presented with letters composed of more communal-related terms
are less likely to be hired than those described with agentic-related terms and the number
of communal terms mediates the relationship between applicant gender and hireability
ratings. Furthermore, typically male occupations are often associated with greater power
and higher social status than typically female occupations (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
Although gender hierarchies and gender stereotyping have decreased over the last
decades, men continue to have more power than women do and gender stereotypes
persist, even if they take subtle forms and manifestations (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
The male-child preference still governs popularity over Filipino families. This gender
preference is associated with patriarchy culture that becomes the concepts of family,
kinship, and socialization in the Philippines. Patriarchy system gives males freedom,
supremacy, and privilege. This position however, addresses men with responsibility of

providing a living and protection over women (Fithriyah and Abida, 20117). Language can
be considered one of the subtle means. The content of gender stereotypes is reflected in
the lexical choices that people make in everyday communication. It is well established
that the category label used to refer to a particular group automatically activates the traits
stereotypically associated with the group (Maass & Arcuri, 1996). This is also true for the
communal and agentic traits that characterize gender stereotypes. They emerge when
individuals freely describe men and women and when they are asked to evaluate the
characteristics of individual men and women seen in photographs (Feingold, 1998).
Words consistent with gender stereotypes have powerful effects also when presented at
a subliminal level, whereby they lead participants to classify gender pronouns more
quickly into male and female categories (Banaji & Hardin, 1996). Moreover, participants
identify more quickly the gender of male or female first names that matches the primes’
gender than when presented with gender-unrelated words (Blair & Banaji, 1996).
Gender-sensitive language, gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language,
gender-free language and gender-fair language are terms used in English to refer to the
usage of a tactful and respectful selection of vocabulary devoid of unfounded, unfair and
discriminatory reference to women in contrast with men. (Darija Omrčen, 2016)
Gender-fair language minimizes unnecessary concern about gender in your subject
matter, allowing both you and your reader to focus on what people do rather than on
which sex they happen to be. Although the number of women enrolled in higher education
is steadily increasing, men and women sitting side-by-side in the classroom often have
very different educational experiences, women and men respond differently to specific
teaching methods, to classroom organization, to questions and to discussion. Gender-fair

is not only use as an expression of a society's commitment to the norm of gender equality
but that language is also a tool which influences thought (Hardin & Banaji, 1993; Semin,
2004; Whorf, 1956). Two principal strategies have been employed to make languages
gender-fair and to treat women and men symmetrically: neutralization and feminization.
Neutralization is achieved, for example, by replacing male-masculine forms (policeman)
with gender-unmarked forms (police officer), whereas feminization relies on the use of
feminine forms to make female referents visible (i.e., the applicant… he or she instead of
the applicant… he). By integrating research on (1) language structures, (2) language
policies, and (3) individual language behavior, we provide a critical review of how GFL
contributes to the reduction of gender stereotyping and discrimination.
According to Cameron (1998), research in this area was sparked off by feminist
movement in the 1960s when what they might contribute in linguistic sphere dawned on
its members. Feminist researchers' demand for a combination of reflection and practice
that they refer to as 'praxis' Freire (1970) and a need for experts in various areas of
language teaching to expose and transform social injustice through research and
pedagogical practices within classroom, schools, communities, and society at large
(Davis and Skilton-Sylvester, 2004, p. 398 cited in Mukundan and Nimehchisalem, 2008,
p. 156) were welcomed and taken up with attendant studies that abound in the literature.
Gender fairness in learning materials advocates for equal treatment and opportunities,
and representation of both sexes. It discountenances every form of gender stereotypes,
discrimination against any sex group in any form of invisibility and domination by the other
sex group. It seeks to present both female and male characters as complementary
members of society each capable of making meaningful contributions towards local and

national development. And the kind of biased representation reported in the literature
might directly or indirectly shape gender identities that will not augur well with the
educational goals of our contemporary society, especially the need for gender equality in
qualitative education and empowerment of women for social, economic and national
development. In addition, teachers' role (their talk around the text) in the classroom has
been brought under scrutiny as their part in entrenching the dominant culture (gender
unfairness) of society also contributes towards gender inequality (Harris, 1997).
Sex vs. Gender
Often, people unintentionally confuse gender with sex or sexuality. Gender is distinct from
sex assigned at birth, which may be designated with categories such as female, male, or
intersex. Sex is distinct from sexuality, which is about desire: to whom one is attracted
emotionally and/or physically. Gender, distinct from both sex and sexuality, is a socially
created and regularly reinforced cultural construct. As such, gender is vulnerable to social
inscriptions that sometimes perpetuate problematic and even discriminatory notions of
how people should look, sound, express, or behave (WILLA, 2018).
There are several terms that people might use when discussing gender. Some of the most
common ones include the following:
• Gender identity: an individual’s feeling about, relationship with, and understanding
of gender as it pertains to their sense of self. An individual’s gender identity may or may
not be related to the sex that individual was assigned at birth.

• Gender expression: external presentation of one’s gender identity, often through
behavior, clothing, haircut, or voice, which may or may not conform to socially defined
behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being either masculine or feminine.
• Gender binary: a conceptual framework that defines gender as consisting solely of
two categories (termed “woman” and “man”) that are biologically based (“female” and
“male”) and unchangeable, and that denies the existence of other nonbinary variations of
gender or anatomy.
• Cisgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the
sex they were assigned at birth.
• Transgender: of or relating to a person whose gender identity differs from the sex
they were assigned at birth. This umbrella term may refer to someone whose gender
identity is woman or man, or to someone whose gender identity is nonbinary.
• Nonbinary: of or relating to a person who does not identify, or identify solely, as
either a woman or a man. More specific nonbinary identifiers include but are not limited
to terms such as agender and gender fluid (see below).
• Gender fluid: of or relating to individuals whose identity shifts among genders. This
term overlaps with terms such as genderqueer and bigender, implying movement among
gender identities and/or presentations.
• Agender: of or relating to a person who does not identify with any gender, or who
identifies as neutral or genderless.

Language, which plays a central role in human cognition and behavior, is one of
the most common mechanisms by which gender is constructed and reinforced. The words
that people use to describe others or objects are often unintentionally but unquestionably
based in implicit cultural biases, including biases that privilege the gender binary. We can
see such bias reinforced in professional language use: in curriculum and pedagogy; in
papers and publications; in handouts and other materials used in presentations; and in
speaking in and beyond our classrooms. Studies of the interrelationship of gender and
sexuality reveal that heterosexuality’s as well as same-sex sexualities are discursively
constructed (as individuals construct masculinity as well as femininity). Much of the work
on masculinity considers how Individuals construct normative and non-normative
masculinities. Coates (2013b) demonstrates that speakers discursively produce "a range
of heterosexuality" in everyday talk (538). Furthermore, using Cameron and Kulick's
(2006: 165) concept of the "heteronormative hierarchy," Coates (2013b)
Boys and girls have jobs differentiation on the basis of sex. Girls have to deal with
domestic activities such as cooking, cleaning and caring the members of the family.
Suyoto (2010) in his Javanese textbook describes a young girl who was washing a
number of plates in the kitchen. This girl was not only washing her own, but the rest of
the family members. Clean a house also regarded as girls job. Manoto (2006) describes
a girl did a household chore from cleaning a table to making a bed. It is quite obvious that
girls had to handle domestic responsibilities. Division on adults’ labor is not far different
from the division on children labor. They are separated into definite groups; men and
women. Women play domestic roles, while men gain professional

work outside the house. Marnoto (2006), in his Indonesian textbook for 2nd grade,
separate male and female into two opposite sphere. Men work in the office while women
play the role as a housewife. Women are closely associated with domestic work;
educating and nurturing children. Lasmirin (2009) wrote in her Javanese textbook that
‘teacher occupation’ were consistently women while ‘doctors and police officers’ were all
men. This text book reinforce the stereotypical image that women’s main job was to
educate and look after children, whereas men’s job required bravery and firmness.
Besides being a teacher, women are also associated with food processing and cooking
activities. Purwati (2007) describes women doing a trade in a market, selling cakes,
vegetables, and various kitchen ingredients. Other domestic work is decorating a house;
arrange the flower vase and garden. In this case only girls or daughter who help a mother.
Boys are described bought some new cloths, while men were selling fish and broilers.
Nowadays gender belongs to a set of social constructs which takes into account
conventions, roles, behaviors and relationships that emerge and exist between men and
women (Krieger 2001). Although the relation between gender in language and gender
equality in the respective language community has been suggested for many years.
Grammatical aspect of gender fair language
The grammatical aspect of language to which Vygotsky referred is grammatical gender,
which is an inherent property of nouns and whose functions are mainly syntactic and
morphological (Chomsky, 1965; Martinet, 1960). In many languages grammatical gender
distinguishes nouns in two or more classes according to the morphological modifications

they require in words syntactically associated with them. It has been described as a
nominal agreement class, and it is strictly related to inflectional paradigms. As a syntactic
phenomenon, it is independent from meaning, but its relationship with semantic
information is very intricate: To put it in a nutshell, “grammatical gender is neither
completely arbitrary nor completely motivated” (Cubelli, 2011)
English speakers and writers have traditionally been taught to use masculine nouns and
pronouns in situations where the gender of their subject(s) is unclear or variable, or when
a group to which they are referring contains members of both sexes. For example, the
US Declaration of Independence states that " . . . all men are created equal . . ." and most
of us were taught in elementary school to understand the word "men" in that context
includes both male and female Americans. In recent decades, however, as women have
become increasingly involved in the public sphere of American life, writers have
reconsidered the way they express gender identities and relationships. Because most
English language readers no longer understand the word "man" to be synonymous with
"people," writers today must think more carefully about the ways they express gender in
order to convey their ideas clearly and accurately to their readers (Harris, 1997).
Femininity and masculinity are variable, complex constructs, but as ((Carey, 2017) said,
they have a huge effect on social roles and relations. We grow up believing that boys
should be tough and self-reliant, women supportive and empathetic – and not vice versa.
But these restrictive norms are culturally created and personally performed, so they can
also be refashioned into something more healthy and equitable. Recent years have seen
greater recognition of how fluid gender is, and how limiting the traditional binary can be.
The effects of sexist language are not negligible. Language enables us to order and

categorize the world. If our language is biased, our ordering and categories will be
inaccurate. And because it’s ubiquitous, its subtler distortions can fly under the radar, and
we overlook them because we’re so immersed in them. Children thus inherit the same
harmful biases. Awareness is the first step: action is the second. Language is not neutral
or used in a vacuum: it incorporates personal assumptions, social norms, and cultural
ideologies. This is why it’s important to consider language critically as a social and political
tool and to watch for biases in usage. Language reflects the world it’s used in, but it’s also
active in maintaining or redesigning that world. It can be a tool of discrimination or one of
empowerment. We can use it to foster sexism, even unintentionally, or we can use it to
help make a fairer world.
The goal of uncovering the role of language in maintaining gender inequality is evident in
the field’s foundation text, one of the first to call attention to gender differences in ways of
speaking, as cited in Lakoffs (1975) Language and Woman’s place. Tannen (2014)
demonstrates that understanding women's and men's differing conversational rituals,
growing out of their divergent conversational goals, can result in dominance in family
interaction. Ochs and Taylor (1992) identify a ritual that typifies dinner-table conversation
in many American families: individuals tell what happened to them during the day. He
further demonstrated on the inextricability of difference and dominance in her analysis of
workplace communication, where she demonstrates that language strategies used by
those in positions of authority are not simply ways of exercising power but are ways of
balancing the simultaneous but potentially conflicting needs for status and connection _
ways she identifies, following Goffman (1977),as "sex-class" linked, that is, associated
with the class of women and the class of men, where "class" derives from Bertrand

Russell's notion of logical types. A related theoretical perspective is provided by Ochs
(1992), who argues that gender related ways of speaking do not directly express gender
but rather "index" gender by creating stances that are associated in a given culture with
women or with men. In other words, the relationship between language and gender is
indirect and indexically mediated: linguistic features directly communicate acts in certain
contexts (e.g., the act of telling someone what to do) and simultaneously constitute
stances (e.g., depending on how the directive is worded, uncertainty). The performance
of these acts in ways that create stances associated with sociocultural expectations and
beliefs about gender thereby help constitute a speaker's gendered identity. Individuals,
moreover, will speak very differently given the stances occasioned by particular contexts.
Thus Kendall (1999, forthcoming) observed, in an ethnographic analysis of a woman's
self-recorded discourse at home and at work, that the woman issued directives differently
in the two contexts. The directives she issued to subordinates in her role as manager at
work tended to be indirect
(Carey, 2017) English had Mr but no Ms, just Mrs and Miss, reflecting women’s perceived
status as men’s property or potential property through marriage. Man is still commonly
used to refer to all people as well as to men exclusively, and the pronouns he, his, and
him do similar duty. Except they don’t really – they exclude half the human population
and perpetuate the idea that male is the norm, female the anomaly. If you’re referring to
someone whose gender is unknown or irrelevant, don’t default to “he”. Instead, use
singular they, or counterbalance with she. They are especially useful – not only does it
avoid awkward and distracting combinations (he or she can ask himself or herself), it’s
also more inclusive: not everyone identifies as male or female and they transcend this

binary. Linguistically, pronouns are words that refers to people by replacing proper nouns,
like names. A pronoun can refer to either a person talking or a person who is being talked
about. The English language does not have a gender-neutral third-person singular
personal pronoun, but in recent years they have gained considerable traction in this role.
Stereotypes of what men and women can or should do remain deeply embedded in
language and culture. Almost half of farmers in developing countries are women, but
farming is still widely considered men’s work – a perception that can have legal
consequences.
As cited from (Kolln, 2nd ed), Gender influences thought, but wider effects still unknown.
Assigning grammatical genders to objects and abstract concepts brings with it some
rather obvious effects. Categorizing everything in terms of masculine, feminine (and
neuter) will no doubt leave a lasting impression on how you see the world – an effect that
has also been successfully proven
While it can be argued that it is not the objects themselves that get the gender assigned
to them, rather than simply the words – it is not the table itself that’s masculine, simply
the word der Tisch – this, unfortunately, does not hold up to scrutiny. Logically speaking,
it is easy to see how tables, chairs, and walls themselves have no genders, but allocating
one nonetheless seems to lead to same very observable real-world consequences.
(Cubelli, 2011) In many gendered languages, the link between grammatical gender and
word meaning appears to be completely unpredictable. Consider, for example, the term
for sun that is masculine in Spanish (sol), feminine in German (Sonne), and neuter in
Czech(slunce), or the term for boat that is feminine in Italian (barca),masculine in French

(bateau), and neuter in German (Boot). Even if the words within each triplet are
phonologically similar and refer to the same concept, in each language these nouns have
different grammatical gender. Furthermore, within the same language, nouns of different
gender may refer to the same object: Consider, for instance, the Italian noun pairs sasso
(masculine) and pietra(feminine) for stone,uscio (masculine) and porta (feminine) for
door, and schiaffo (masculine) and sberla (feminine) for slap. Gender appears to be
functionally independent from conceptual structure (Aronoff, 1994) and is assumed to be
stored at a representational level that is different from that specifying semantic information
(Caramazza, 1997; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999).Nevertheless, in several cases,
gender classification systems seem to be based on relevant semantic properties of the
nouns’ referents, for example, biological sex or intimacy (Corbett, 1991; Lakoff, 1987).
Further, if the effect is conceptual in nature, it should persist even when lexical processing
is prevented (for instance, when concurrent articulatory suppression is required); in
contrast, if the effect originates at the lexical level, it should disappear under articulatory
suppression. According to Brandimonte and Gerbino(1993), articulatory suppression
suppresses not only sub vocal articulation but also the generation of the name of a visually
presented object. That articulatory suppression prevents naming is still disputed.
However, as Logie (1995) argued, articulatory suppression may “discourage the use of
object names when attempting to retain information about a visually presented stimulus”;
that is, it may encourage participants to “adopt a strategy that is not based on naming”
(p. 40).Grammatical gender is expected to influence semantic judgments: In the former,
the effect should be due to the structure of the conceptual representation that has
incorporated grammatical gen-der as a distinctive property; in the latter, the effect should

reflect the high level of activation of grammatical gender, which speeds up the processing
of lexical–semantic information. The categorization judgment task therefore appears to
be suitable to investigate the presumed effect of gender on meaning and to disentangle
whether it is conceptual or linguistic in nature (for a discussion, seeKousta et al., 2008).
Gendered nouns
For native English-speakers, it can be surprising to encounter gendered words in other
languages but this is, actually, a rather common phenomenon. Although there are
disagreements over how many languages exist on the planet, it is estimated that around
a quarter in existence make use of grammatical genders. It’s a very common way of
classifying nouns in parts of the world – most Indo-European languages make use of
grammatical genders, as do others, common in the Middle East and Africa. German,
Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Hebrew, among others, all have varying numbers of
grammatical genders. Interestingly, there are also regions with very few gendered
languages – mostly in Asia and among the native languages in North America. Even Old-
English, the predecessor of the modern day version, had a complex system of
grammatical gender. While contemporary English has done away with most of it, some
remnants still stick around. The most obvious are, of course, the personal pronouns (“he”,
“she”, “it”) but there are even a few words still in use that have distinct male-female forms.
Consider “steward – stewardess”, “waiter-waitress”, “god-goddess”, and you’ll see how
grammatical gender still influences how we speak.
According to (Frazer, 2017) Sexism manifests itself in a myriad of ways. It affects men,
women and androgynous people alike. Sometimes sexism is more blatant; the notion that
the colour pink is for girls; the belief that men don’t cry; the idea that women don’t like

football. However, it is often far more subtle and, in many cases, unconscious. This is
because it is embedded in our language. Catcalling is an unpleasant experience. In
general, society agrees that it is rude, degrading and sometimes threatening. However,
most people overlook the effect that the more ‘friendly’ terms can have. As a young
woman, it is common to be spoken down to or called names. Sometimes they are based
on looks, such as being called ‘beautiful’ or ‘gorgeous’, or being asked to smile. Other
times they are just general diminutives, such as ‘love’, ‘darling’ or ‘doll’. It is not always as
obvious why this is harmful and many people would try to suggest that it is endearing or
affectionate.
The problem is that these terms do not promote or suggest equality in any way. People
do not call towering men ‘doll’. They treat them with respect. These diminutives place the
women as being of lower standing and more fragile. They insinuate that a woman would
not understand the complex matters the man is working on. When this gets moved into
the office, it enforces a clear hierarchy in which the man is more respectable. It makes
the man seem more trustworthy to handle a case. So once again, we see that women are
always defined in terms of the men to whom they are related, and hence the worst thing
that can happen to a woman is not to have a man in this relationship - that is, to be a
spinster, a woman with neither husband nor lover, dead or alive.
Gender is a common way of classifying nouns but with little agreement between
languages. Even among languages that are very closely related to each other, differences
in word genders are common, and the divergence only grows between less connected
languages. While masculine and feminine are only one way of creating noun classes, it
seems to be one of the most popular options, with some languages adding the neuter

gender. Of course, more extreme examples exist of languages with more than a dozen
genders. In most European languages, two or three genders do the trick, however.
These days, the differences between masculine and feminine words may seem arbitrary,
but there must have been a good reason for such systems to develop. One theory is that
categorising nouns in such a way helps people to keep track of the subject in a long and
complex sentence since the adjectives and determiners would take on the typical gender
inflections. Or words could simply have been grouped together based on some other
characteristic that was obvious to our forefathers but has since died out.
Textbook’s language
In this time of pandemic, modules are mostly used in DepEd school as the best access
to education especially in remote areas. Modular teaching is concerned for each student
as an individual with his/her own special aptitude and interest, goal of helping each
student to think for himself, and allowing the individuality to each learner. In response to
this, the Department of Education (DepEd) will provide Self-Learning Modules (SLMs)
with the alternative learning delivery modalities to be offered for various types of learners
across the Philippines.
The integration of SLMs with the alternative learning delivery modalities (modular,
television-based, radio-based instruction, blended, and online) will help DepEd ensure
that all learners have access to quality basic education for SY 2020-2021 with face-to-
face classes still prohibited due to the public health situation.

“The SLMs and the other alternative learning delivery modalities are in place to address
the needs, situations, and resources of each and every learner and will cover all the bases
in ensuring that basic education will be accessible amid the present crisis posed by
COVID-19,” DepEd Secretary Leonor Briones said.
The role that modules play in educating learners has attracted the attention of other
scholars. For example, Stromquist, Lee and Brock-Utne (2020) noted that educational
institutions are powerful ideological institutions that transmit dominant values, and
function as mechanisms of social control. Schools transmit values that not only reproduce
social class but also main gender structures, the formal school system contributes to the
reproduction of gender inequalities through such mechanisms as selective access to
schooling, the content of what is being taught and what is not and how it is taught and the
kinds of knowledge men and women (and boys and girls) get (p. 83).
Module writers need to consciously address gender concerns so that the knowledge
domain constructed in different disciplines reflects gender justice, equity and equality.
There was always an inherent comparison with the male counterpart.
Module analysis from a gender perspective can take initiative to promote gender fairness
especially in the world of academe, why can’t we even in the times of pandemic.
While there are different ways languages assign genders (Lunsford, 1991)– including
semantic and morphological, it does definitely seem that in most cases grammatical
gender gets assigned rather arbitrarily. But even when there might not be a cohesive
theory and intent behind how nouns get classified, there are some very real
consequences to assigning genders in language.

Even without such obvious examples, grammatical genders seem to have an effect on
how people view the world. While they’re only supposed to be a way of classifying nouns,
dividing words into feminine and masculine will undoubtedly create a connection to real-
world females and males. When Russian speakers (a language with grammatical
genders) were asked to imagine days of the week as people, the subjects consistently
imagined grammatically masculine days as male and grammatically feminine days as
female, without giving an explanation as to how they came up with their characterization.
Other studies have also linked the use of grammatical genders in languages to greater
gender inequality. Surprisingly, however, it is completely gender-neutral languages which
don’t even have different gender pronouns (“he”, “she”), that correlate to greatest gender
inequality.
Thus, using genderless pronouns often conjures to mind a male person but, naturally,
that theory is rather difficult to prove or disprove. It is, of course, important to remember
that correlation does not equal causation, and one study is hardly a stable basis for
anything. Nonetheless, keeping in mind all that we previously went through, the results
are not as surprising as they could be.
With gender issues rising to more prominence, it’s then not surprising that grammatical
genders in languages are also seeing closer scrutiny.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to examine the language used in writing new articles, based
on a gender lens. Specifically, it has the following objectives:

1. Evaluate the system of language choice used in the Grade 8 Modules following
the NCTE guidelines;
2. Describe possible explanations for such choice of language; and
3. Determine if there is a relationship between author’s sex/gender and language
choice.

Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
Research design
The study used qualitative lens in analyzing the linguistics and non-linguistic
aspects of Grade 8 modules. Specifically, the study involved critical discourse analysis
as the study needs to be evaluated through understanding the written words, phrases or
sentences. The intricacies involved with assessing and investigating the language choice
and even the structure of language are vital in this exploration study.
Data collection procedures
The researcher will use the grade 8 modules in Lumbo Integrated School for the
first quarter. The researcher will modules from all the subjects’ areas and evaluate all the
parts of the modules.
Data analysis
First is the analysis on the language used in all parts of the books, from preface,
to body, discussion and even the examples. The guide used during this stage is the
guidelines set by the National Council of Teachers in English (NCTE) inthe use of gender-
fair language. Sentences or statements which are considered biased are copied along
with the title of the module, author, part of the IM where the insensitive language is found,
and determine whether the IMs are still being used or not. After gathering the samples,

these were re-evaluated and categorize them into different types of gender-biases based
on language.

Chapter IV
RESULTS AND RESULTS

MAGLANA RESEARCH- Gender Fair Language in grade 8 high school modules.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MAGLANA RESEARCH- Gender Fair Language in grade 8 high school modules.docx

Similar to MAGLANA RESEARCH- Gender Fair Language in grade 8 high school modules.docx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MAGLANA RESEARCH- Gender Fair Language in grade 8 high school modules.docx