The true impact of gender-inclusive language on text length and complexity
As a seasoned expert in the world of holiday decor and artificial Christmas trees, I’m often asked about the practical implications of using gender-inclusive language. This topic has been the subject of much debate, with some arguing that gender-inclusive texts are overly long, complicated, and burdensome. However, a recent corpus-based study provides valuable empirical insights that challenge these common assumptions.
The study, published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, examined a large sample of German press texts to quantify the actual impact of gender-inclusive language. The researchers manually annotated over 120,000 tokens (word units) across a variety of news sources, including the influential German Press Agency (DPA) and popular magazines like Brigitte, Zeit Wissen, and Psychologie Heute.
The findings reveal that, on average, less than 1% of all tokens would need to be changed to make the texts gender-inclusive. This small proportion calls into question whether gender-inclusive German truly presents a substantial barrier to understanding or learning the language, as some have claimed.
“The low proportion of textual material affected by gender-inclusive language can also be approached from another perspective, namely by counting the amount of explicit gender-inclusive forms in press texts that generally use such language,” explains Carolin Müller-Spitzer, one of the study’s authors. “In Germany, the newspaper taz is a prime example. Although it has no internal guidelines on gender-inclusive language, it is considered a ‘pioneer’ in its use and is the only daily newspaper to use new strategies such as gender symbols (Lehrer*innen, Lehrer:innen) in a significant way. However, the proportion of these forms in the whole text is only 0.2%.”
The researchers attribute this low impact to the fact that gender-inclusive language primarily affects nouns, for which there are already numerous strategies of implementing unobtrusive variants that do not significantly increase text length or complexity.
“Many lexemes in German can be neutralized (e.g., by replacing the masculine generic Lehrer (‘teacher’) with the neutralizing Lehrkraft (‘teaching staff’)). With this strategy, the length or complexity of the texts does not increase,” says Müller-Spitzer.
The role of masculine generics and the male bias
The study also provides insights into the use of masculine generics in German, which have been a focal point of the gender-inclusive language debate. Masculine generics are the use of masculine forms (e.g., Wissenschaftler, ‘scientists’) to refer to a group of people of mixed or unknown gender.
The researchers found that in their corpus, masculine generics were the most common form that would need to be changed to make the texts gender-inclusive, accounting for 25% of the affected personal nouns. This underscores the central role of masculine generics in the gender-inclusive language discussion.
“The use of masculine generics to denote all genders is subject to controversial societal and academic debates,” the authors explain. “Proponents of gender-inclusive language usually do not accept it as a gender-neutral way of person reference, as various psycho- and neurolinguistic studies find that the so-called masculine generic is not always understood neutrally but rather activates a male bias.”
This male bias is an important consideration, as it suggests that the apparent neutrality of masculine generics may be an illusion, potentially rendering them less inclusive than alternative gender-neutral formulations.
Implications for language learning and comprehension
The study’s findings also have important implications for the often-cited claims that gender-inclusive language makes texts more difficult to read, especially for language learners.
“Such effects are only likely if gender-inclusive texts are very different from those that are not gender-inclusive,” the authors argue. “Our data provides the first empirical quantitative basis of how much textual material would actually have to be changed if non-gender-inclusive German texts were rewritten to be gender-inclusive. The small proportion calls into question whether gender-inclusive German presents a substantial barrier to understanding and learning the language.”
Furthermore, the researchers suggest that the perceived “omnipresence” of gender-inclusive language may stem from a conflation of the actual proportions involved. In a conference talk, for example, most of the audience thought that 10% of tokens in press texts would need to be changed, significantly higher than the 0.95% found in the study.
“It could be the case here that people correctly guessed the amount of person reference in texts, and then assumed that all of these tokens would need to be changed; or they correctly assumed the share of person references that would be affected instead of the share of all tokens,” the authors note.
Conclusion: A small but impactful change
The insights from this study challenge the notion that gender-inclusive language fundamentally alters the nature of German texts, making them harder to read or learn. The data shows that the actual impact on text length and complexity is minimal, with less than 1% of words needing to be changed.
This finding underscores the importance of basing the debate around gender-inclusive language on empirical evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims. As the authors conclude, “The low proportion of textual material affected by gender-inclusive language can also be approached from another perspective, namely by counting the amount of explicit gender-inclusive forms in press texts that generally use such language.”
By understanding the true impact of gender-inclusive language, we can have a more informed and productive discussion about its role in promoting equality and representation in the German language. This research provides a valuable starting point for further exploration and analysis in this important area.
For artificial Christmas tree enthusiasts and holiday decor aficionados, the implications of this study extend beyond the realm of language. It serves as a reminder that sometimes, small changes can have a significant impact. Just as a thoughtfully placed ornament or strategic lighting can transform the look and feel of a Christmas tree, embracing gender-inclusive language can subtly yet powerfully shape the inclusivity and representation within our communication.
So as you deck the halls and trim the tree this holiday season, consider how you can incorporate small but meaningful adjustments to your language, like using gender-neutral terms or exploring alternative forms. These subtle shifts can go a long way in creating a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all. After all, the true spirit of the holidays is about bringing people together, and that starts with the words we use.
