Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 97–110

Gender-mismatching pronouns in context

The interpretation of possessive pronouns in Dutch and Limburgian

 | Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University
 | Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Gender-(mis)matching pronouns have been studied extensively in experiments. However, a phenomenon common to various languages has thus far been overlooked: the systemic use of non-feminine pronouns when referring to female individuals. The present study is the first to provide experimental insights into the interpretation of such a pronoun: Limburgian zien ‘his/its’ and Dutch zijn ‘his/its’ are grammatically ambiguous between masculine and neuter, but while Limburgian zien can refer to women, the Dutch equivalent zijn cannot. Employing an acceptability judgment task, we presented speakers of Limburgian (N = 51) with recordings of sentences in Limburgian featuring zien, and speakers of Dutch (N = 52) with Dutch translations of these sentences featuring zijn. All sentences featured a potential male or female antecedent embedded in a stereotypically male or female context. We found that ratings were higher for sentences in which the pronoun could refer back to the antecedent. For Limburgians, this extended to sentences mentioning female individuals. Context further modulated sentence appreciation. Possible mechanisms regarding the interpretation of zien as coreferential with a female individual will be discussed.
Keywords: possessive pronoun, gender, stereotypes, Dutch, Limburgian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and design
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Analysis
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Limburgian zien ‘his/its’ can refer to women
    • 4.2Exploring the effect of stereotype context
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00007.pie
References (30)
References
Audacity Team. 2017. Audacity(R): Free Audio Editor and Recorder [Computer program]. Version 2.2.1, retrieved from [URL].
Audring, Jenny. 2006. “Pronominal Gender in Spoken Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18 (2): 85–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef C. J., Hans J. Bennis, Gunther De Vogelaer, Magda Devos & Margreet H. van der Ham. 2006. Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND). Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. [URL].
Bakker, Frens. 1992. “Wie me euver vrouwluuj sprik. Zeej of het, die of det .” Veldeke 67 (1): 10–15.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. “Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.” Journal of Memory and Language, 68 (3): 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2017. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.36, retrieved 11 November 2017 from [URL].
Braun, Friederike & Geoffrey Haig. 2010. “When are German ‘girls’ feminine? How the semantics of age influences the grammar of gender agreement.” Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in global, medial and gendered uses, ed. by M. Bieswanger, H. Motschenbacher and S. Mühleisen, 69–85. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Carreiras, Manuel, Alan Garnham, Jane Oakhill & Kate Cain. 1996. “The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 49A (3): 639–663. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2013. “Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region.” Language and space: Dutch. An international handbook of linguistic variation, ed. by F. Hinskens and J. Taeldeman, 378–399. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Roeland van Hout & Mieke Steegs. 2010. “Evaluating Regional Accent Variation in Standard Dutch.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(1), 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennison, Shelia M. & Jessie L. Trofe. 2003. “Comprehending pronouns: A role for word-specific gender stereotype information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(3): 355–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nederlandse Voornamenbank. n.d. Retrieved from [URL]
Nieuwland, Mante S. 2014. “‘Who’s he?’ Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns.” Journal of Memory and Language 761: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S. & Jos J. A. van Berkum. 2006. “Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs.” Brain Research 1118 (1): 155–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2015. “Between feminine and neuter, between semantic and pragmatic gender: Hybrid names in German dialects and in Luxembourgish.” Agreement from a diachronic perspective, ed. by J. Fleischer, E. Rieken and P. Widmer, 235–266. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc. 2012, February 18th. “Marie z’n fiets is kapot” [Blog post]. Retrieved from [URL] on January 19th, 2018.
Osterhout, Lee & Linda A. Mobley. 1995. “Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree.” Journal of Memory and Language 34 (6): 739–773. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qualtrics. 2018. Qualtrics [Software]. Provo, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
Quené, Hugo & Huub van den Bergh. 2004. “On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial.” Speech Communication 43 (1–2): 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Schmitt, Bernadette M., Monique Lamers & Thomas F. Münte. 2002. “Electrophysiological estimates of biological and syntactic gender violation during pronoun processing.” Cognitive Brain Research 141: 333–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse. 2013. “Judgment data.” Research methods in linguistics, ed. by R. J. Podesva and D. Sharma, 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sirin, Selcuk R., Donald R. McCreary & James R. Mahalik. 2004. “Differential reactions to men and women’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions of social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 12 (2): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Sijs, Nicoline, ed. 2011. Dialectatlas van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Subbarao, K. V. & B. Lalitha Murthy. 2011. “Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Telugu.” Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology, ed. by B. C. Lust, K. Wali, J. W. Gair and K. V. Subbarao, 217–274. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther. 2007. “De Nederlandse en Friese subjectsmarkeerders: geografie, typologie en diachronie.” Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. A. 1966. Nederlandse Dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Zaręba, Alfred. (1984–5). “Osobliwa zmiana rodzaju naturalnego w dialektach polskich.” Zbornik Matice Srpske za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 17–18: 243–247.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Corbett, Greville G.
2023. The Agreement Hierarchy and (generalized) semantic agreement. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
Piepers, Joske, Ad Backus & Jos Swanenberg
2023. Is ‘he’ still here?. Linguistics in the Netherlands 40 ► pp. 194 ff. DOI logo
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan, Theresa Redl, Sebastian Collin, Rozanne Versendaal, Peter De Swart & Helen De Hoop
2022. Processing mismatching gendered possessive pronouns in L1 Dutch and L2 French. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.