Hebrew speakers cannot address directly individuals within a group. This derives from the prevalent use of the second person plural masculine form, which abandons individuals’ identity. The use of masculine form as a default makes it especially difficult for females. These psycho logical characteristics of Hebrew require individual listeners within a group to process an instantaneous correction: males, from plural form to singular and females, from plural to singular and from masculine to female. Two reaction time (RT) experiments were purported to examine cognitive implications of these characteristics for speakers of Hebrew as L1. Each participant was required to respond promptly to a series of 60 nouns in Hebrew, equally divided between second person singular and second person plural male form. In Experiment 1 it took longer for each of the 57 adults (30 men, 27 women) to respond to the second person plural masculine form. Women’s RT in such conditions was longer. Experiment 2 found a similar trend, with greater RT, in 5 - 6-year-old children (15 boys and 15 girls). A new sub-field of cognitive research, which can be called “Psycho logical incompatibility” or “Corrective language processing”, is suggested, depending on future support for the present findings.
References
[1]
Ariel, M., & Giora, R. (1998). A Self versus Other Point of View in Language: Redefining Femininity and Masculinity. International Journal of Society of Language, 129, 59-86. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1998.129.59
[2]
Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000(. The Rapid Use of Gender Information: Evidence of the Time Course for Pronoun Resolution from Eye Tracking. Cognition, 76, 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1
[3]
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4]
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[5]
Baranowski, M. (2002). Current Usage of the Epicene Pronoun in Written English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6, 378-395.
[6]
Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. M. (1988). The Contribution of Mother-Infant Mutual Influence to the Origins of Self- and Object Representations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5, 305-337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.5.4.305
[7]
Blackmer, E. R., & Mitton, J. L. (1991). Theories of Monitoring and the Timing of Repairs in Spontaneous Speech. Cognition, 39, 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90052-6
[8]
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-Experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houston Mifflin.
[9]
Chomsky, N. (1965). Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory. Journal of linguistics, 1, 97-138.
[10]
Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: A Study in Conversationally Conveyed Requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80006-5
[11]
Doherty, A., & Conklin, K. (2017). How Gender-Expectancy Affects the Processing of “Them”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 718-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1154582
[12]
Foertsch, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). In Search of Gender Neutrality: Is Singular They a Cognitively Efficient Substitute for Generic He? Psychological Science, 8, 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00691.x
[13]
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language Identification in the Limit. Information and Control, 10, 447-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5
[14]
Grice, H. M. (1967). The Logic of Conversation. William James Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
[15]
Jarvikivi, J., van Gompel, R. P. G., Hyona, J., & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous Pronoun resolution: Contrasting the First-Mention and Subject-Preference Accounts. Psychology Science, 16, 260-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x
[16]
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203146255
[17]
Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and Language: The Case of Cultural Dimensions and Personal Pronoun Use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198293005
[18]
Kasl, S. V., & Mahl, G. E. (1987). Speech Disturbances and Experimentally Induced Anxiety. In G. F. Mahl (Ed.), Exploration in Nonverbal and Vocal Behavior (pp. 203-213). New York: Psychology Press.
[19]
Kelly, J. R. (2007). Mundane Realism. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (p. 329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[20]
Kerr, J. S., & Underwood, G. (1984). Fixation Time on Anaphoric Pronouns Decreases with Contiguity of Reference. In A. G. Gale, & E. Johnson (Eds.), Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research (pp. 195-202). Amsterdam: North Holland.
[21]
Kraut, R. E. (1973). Effects of Social Labeling on Giving to Charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90037-1
[22]
MacDonald, M. C., & MacWhinney, B. (1990). Measuring Inhibition and Facilitation from Pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 469-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90067-A
[23]
McLeod, S. A. (2017) The Milgram Shock Experiment: Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
[24]
Meyers, M. W. (1990). Current Generic Pronoun Usage: An Empirical Study. American Speech, 65, 228-237. https://doi.org/10.2307/455911
[25]
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
[26]
Na, J., & Choi, I. (2009). Culture and First-Person Pronouns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1492-1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209343810
[27]
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006(. Individual Differences and Contextual Bias in Pronoun Resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.022
[28]
Radford, A. (1990). The Syntax of Nominal Argument in Early Child English. Language Acquisition, 1, 195-223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0103_1
[29]
Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2010). Shallow Processing and Attention Capture in Written and Spoken Discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2
[30]
Sanford, A. J., & Filik, R. (2007). ‘‘They’’ as a Gender Unspecified Singular Pronoun: Eye-Tracking Reveals a Processing Cost. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600973390
[31]
Schmitt, B. M., Lamers, M., & Munte, T. F. (2002). Electrophysiological Estimates of Biological and Syntactic Gender Violation during Pronoun Processing. Cognition and Brain Research, 14, 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00136-2
[32]
Searle, J. R. (1965). What Is a Speech Act? In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221-240). London: Allen and Unwin.
[33]
Stern, D. N. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.
[34]
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The Theory of Planned Behavior: Self-Identity, Social Identity, and Group Norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149
[35]
Tobin, Y. (2001). Gender Switch in Modern Hebrew. In M. Hellinger, & H. Busmann (Eds.), Gender across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men (Vol. 1, pp. 177-199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.13tob
[36]
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2006). Relevance Theory. In R. N. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-633). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
[37]
Winnicott, W. D. (1960). The Theory of the Parent-Infant Relationship. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 585-595.
[38]
Ziller, R. C. (1973). The Social Self. New York: Pergamon.
