No genericity in sight: An exploration of the semantics of masculine generics in German

Dominic Schmitz, Viktoria Schneider, Janina Esser
{"title":"No genericity in sight: An exploration of the semantics of masculine generics in German","authors":"Dominic Schmitz, Viktoria Schneider, Janina Esser","doi":"10.5070/g6011192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Findings of previous behavioural studies suggest that the semantic nature of what is known as the ‘masculine generic’ in Modern Standard German is indeed not generic but biased towards a masculine reading. Such findings are the cause of debates within and outside linguistic research, as they run counter to the grammarian assumption that the masculine generic form is gender-neutral. The present paper aims to explore the semantics of masculine generics, relating them to  those  of  masculine  and  feminine  explicit  counterparts.  To  achieve  this  aim,  an  approach  novel  to  this  area  of  linguistic  research  is  made  use  of:  discriminative  learning.  Analysing  semantic  vectors  obtained  via  naive  discriminative  learning,  semantic  measures  calculated  via  linear  discriminative  learning,  and  taking  into  account  the  stereotypicality  of  the  words  under investigation, it is found that masculine generics are semantically much more similar to masculine explicits than to feminine explicits. The results presented in this paper thus support the notion of a masculine bias in masculine generics. Further, new insights into the semantic representations of masculine generics are provided and it is shown that stereotypicality does not modulate the masculine bias.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g6011192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Findings of previous behavioural studies suggest that the semantic nature of what is known as the ‘masculine generic’ in Modern Standard German is indeed not generic but biased towards a masculine reading. Such findings are the cause of debates within and outside linguistic research, as they run counter to the grammarian assumption that the masculine generic form is gender-neutral. The present paper aims to explore the semantics of masculine generics, relating them to  those  of  masculine  and  feminine  explicit  counterparts.  To  achieve  this  aim,  an  approach  novel  to  this  area  of  linguistic  research  is  made  use  of:  discriminative  learning.  Analysing  semantic  vectors  obtained  via  naive  discriminative  learning,  semantic  measures  calculated  via  linear  discriminative  learning,  and  taking  into  account  the  stereotypicality  of  the  words  under investigation, it is found that masculine generics are semantically much more similar to masculine explicits than to feminine explicits. The results presented in this paper thus support the notion of a masculine bias in masculine generics. Further, new insights into the semantic representations of masculine generics are provided and it is shown that stereotypicality does not modulate the masculine bias.
看不到通用性:德语中男性泛指语义的探索
以往的行为学研究结果表明,现代标准德语中所谓的 "男性通称 "的语义性质确实不是通称,而是偏向于男性解读。这些发现引起了语言学研究内外的争论,因为它们违背了语法学家关于男性通称形式不分性别的假设。本文旨在探讨阳性属词的语义,并将其与阳性和阴性显性属词的语义联系起来。 为了实现这一目标,本文采用了这一语言学研究领域的一种新方法:辨别学习法。 通过分析天真判别学习获得的语义向量、线性判别学习计算出的语义量,并考虑到所研究词语的定型性,结果发现阳性泛义词在语义上与阳性明义词的相似度远远高于阴性明义词。因此,本文的研究结果支持了 "阳性泛义中的男性偏向 "这一概念。此外,本文还对男性泛指的语义表征提出了新的见解,并证明刻板印象不会调节男性偏向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信