Language and Gender Representation in Textbooks

-A comparative analysis-

Program: Master of Research in Sociology, 2nd year

Academic Year: 2014/2015
Course: Advanced Sociological Research
Student: Ghinea Gabriela Nouella

Introduction:
Teaching materials can be perceived not only as vehicles for transmitting social culture,
but also as a culture in themselves (Yi 200: 10). Their role goes way beyond that of
transmitting information and serving as a means of learning. The manner in which textbooks are
developed, their content and imagery may foster, especially in young-aged pupils positive or
negative attitudes about self, race, religion, regions, sex, ethnic and social class groups,
occupations, life expectations and life chances (Britton & Lumpkin: 40). Through a process of
continual reinforcement we cannot help but adopt, unconsciously, the values and norms they
envision.
Gender biased textbooks are in no way a new issue. It is a near-universal, remarkably
uniform (globally), quite persistent (Blumberg, 2008, 345) problem that still blocks the way
towards gender equity in education. Since the 1960s studies in the US on the subject have been
popping up, and in each generational wave we can acknowledge some improvement. If in the
early 70s women in textbooks were invisible altogether, in the late 1980s (2nd generation
research) they steadily appeared, but did not seem to have any career goals, aspirations or
independence (Taylor 2003: 302).
One of the problems to address was the gendered-biased language, meaning the usage of
generic male constructs, when referring to both genders. Guidelines for eradicating sexist
language were put into place such as the APA Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language
(Warren 1986), that seemed to work slowly but surely. In Romania such guidelines made their
way into the curriculum somewhat late, in the end of the 1990s. In this light the main focus of
the paper is to underline the relationship between language and gender representation in
textbooks. It aims to investigate whether gender dynamics in educational resources are affected
by the language used in them. The importance of language, in this sense, is going to be
understood in two ways: the difference in language makes the two manuals serve different
scopes and to have different teaching styles, and secondly Romanian and English have two very
different language registers, and we are going to see how well/fair they cope with gender. The
comparative analysis is going to be based on two textbooks, a Romanian Language and
Literature textbook, Pene publishing house and the Set Sail pupils book from Express
Publishing. Three theoretical concepts are going to be followed namely: the visibility of
2

femininity and masculinity, the biased language or better yet male centered language and gender
segregation. Conceptualization and measurement scales are going to be discussed in the
methodology chapter.

Literature review:
Language allows people to make sense of the world around them. A big part of the
process of socialization is learning how to read and write, mainly because it is a link through
which culture is transmitted from one generation to another. While children develop their reading
skills, they are susceptible to the cultural representations in the reading material. This gives
manuals a heightened importance, given that statistics show that students spend as much as 80
to 95% of classroom time using textbooks and the teachers make a majority of their instructional
decisions based on textbooks(Sadker & Zittleman 2007: 144). Statistics in the case of Romania
do not exist, but there is no reason for us to assume that the situation differs significantly.
The discussion about language and gender was inflamed by the feminist movement in
the early 1970s. For example Lakoff(1975), claimed that language embodies gender inequity
(Foroutan 2012: 772), meaning that the inequity between men and women, socially speaking, is
mirrored within our language. The marginality of women can be sensed both in their way of
speaking and in the way they are being spoken of (Lakoff 1975). Studies pertaining to the gender
dimension of language show that gender bias in written texts tends to induce mischievous effects
in female students such as feeling alienated and devaluated, and as consequence developing
lowered self-expectations (Gharbavi & Mousavi 2012: 43). This was one of the reasons why,
starting with US, countries have started creating guidelines to reduce sexist language. For
example, one of the first was developed by Scott, Foresman and Co. (1972) and it encompassed
firstly a guide for text and illustrations and secondly recommendations for developing a no-sexist
vocabulary. The European Parliament has also quite recently drawn (2008) a common corpus of
rules as to assure a language as neutral as possible in meetings and in reports.
The lowered self-expectations that biased language may produce can be coupled very
well with how women are portrayed in connection to work places. Most studies show how the
range for occupational roles for women in textbooks are very restricted. Studies from all over the
world bring to light the stereotyped portrait of femininity and employment. Either they are moms
3

and homemakers, thus unemployed, either they work in traditional womanized jobs such as
secretary or maid. The example of the book New interchange Introduction, used in Canadian
multicultural schools are a positive sign that things can be done differently. In this textbook the
roles women and men play are easily interchangeable, and women may occupy security guy
functions judges and firefighters (Hamdan 2010: 23).
When it comes to how leisure time is spent females are almost exclusively indoors, doing
lady-like rather static activities like watching TV or reading, while the males partake in all the
action (Hall 2014: 255).
Another gender bias that is manifested through language is the masculine generic
construction, or simply put, the usage of masculine nouns/pronouns when discussing about
people in general (e.g. No one should live his things like this). Most of the times it is unclear if
the formulation includes both sexes and studies show that people almost never envision women
when these constructs are used (Lee & Collins: 357). Since the feminist critiques started raising
awareness on the issue, strategies were looked for as to minimize the bias. As a result the usage
of the generic they has widely spread.

Hypothesis and Methodology:

The present paper is going to make use of both the method of manifest and latent content
analysis. As stated in the introduction it is based on two manuals: Romanian Language and
Literature from the Penes Publishing House and the Set Sail English textbook. If the first
textbook was chosen randomly, for the second I did some netnographic research on some
Mommy and me blogs, where the manual had received good reviews and it was highly
recommended. The textbook is published in the United Kingdom

The unit of analysis is

considered to be the lesson together with its following exercises. The analysis follows three
separate dimensions, namely: the visibility of femininity and masculinity, the gendered language
or better yet male centered language and gender segregation.
Visibility of femininity and masculinity: In the past great number of studies have
illuminated the obscene quantitative imbalance in the display of women and men, with the latter
being significantly better represented, thus of a greater importance (Britton and Lumpkin 1977).
The omission of women sent the implicit message is that women's accomplishments, or that
4

they themselves as human beings, are not important enough to be included. (Porreca 1984: 710)
The ratio women to men in illustrations went sometimes as high as 1:1.77 (713). Recent studies
have shown that the situation is slowly starting to equalize. The issue of gender disparity in
school curriculum became also a discussion point in Romania, but quite substantially later that in
most Western states. For this reason I expect that:
H1: The gender disparity to be much larger in the Romanian textbook rather than
in the English one, be that in images or name ratio.
Gender segregation: Most studies, as we have seen in the literature review, showed
males in a variety of jobs, prevalent on the labor market while females stick to a few traditional
jobs such as nurses or librarians. In the same manner when discussing how a person enjoyed
his/her free time, women were always found in indoor and static activities like reading or
watching T.V. Recently, studies in Western countries show that this situation has also suffered
changes. This is why I expect:
H2: The frequency and range of occupations female related to be much larger in
the English textbook rather than in the Romanian one.
H2: The female characters in the English textbook will be much more active in
their spare time when compared to those in the Romanian one.
Gendered language (generic masculine constructions): gender bias in language is
usually manifested through the usage of masculine pronouns and nouns. The guidelines
developed as to find solutions, managed to slowly put a neutral twist to the English official
vocabulary. Guidelines have been developed in Romania also, but much more recent and this is
why :
H3: I expect that the register in the English textbook to be of neutral nature in
respect to gender, while the Romanian one to be male centered.
The measurements of the theoretical dimensions can be found in Table 1:

Table 1: Dimensions

-sex ratio of human characters in images

The visibility of masculinity and femininity

-sex ratio of human names*

-frequency and range of occupations

(Images+text)

Gender segregation

-distribution of spare time/leisure activities

(Images+text)
-when it was unclear that the term includes
both genders ore male only (e.g.: s-i

Gendered Language (masculine generic

determinati pe colegi s citeasc i ei) (Pene

constructions)

2005)**
- usage of men associated generic nouns
(policeman, postman)

Additional measurement rules: *Counted a name just once as it appeared in a story, no matter how many
times it was repeated. The names of the authors were also counted
**I did not count the instances of using the word human even if it is in
some ways gender biased. It was extremely much used in the Romanian textbook. And it would have tripled
the frequency of masculine constructions, and exaggerate the result.

Results:
Visibility of femininity and masculinity: The hypothesis is easily confirmed in the case of
femininity and masculinity represented in images and with proper nouns. While in the Romanian
textbook images have the woman/girl to male/boy ratio of 1:1.5, the case of the English one it is
almost a ratio of 1:1. Proper nouns have again a gender ratio of 1:1 for the foreign manual and an
astounding disparity of 1:3.3 woman/girl to male/boy for the local one. This high difference
taken together with the previously mentioned ratio leads us to one observation. Many female
characters appearing in the images are second rate citizens in the tales the textbooks put
forward. Their names are unimportant for the storylines, and in many cases they are in the
background of the heroes which, as we can see, are the majority of the times played by a male
6

character. A conclusion one might draw is that the writer of the manual (in this case a woman),
may hold the opinion that females cannot play central roles in their societies, and they are
excluded from the mainstream. If we were to extend some clemency towards the female author
we might assume that she was just oblivious to the matter. The manual has been approved to be
thought in schools including the school year 2014/2015. On the other hand the English textbook
is doing a great job of giving both genders an equal representation image and name wise.
Romanian textbook

English Textbook

Girls\Women

Boys\Men

Girls\Women

Boys\Men

114

170

188

177

(40%)

(60%)

(51%)

(49%)

40

133

79

73

(23%)

(77%)

(52%)

(48%)

Images

Proper names

Table 2: Visibility of femininity and masculinity

Gender segregation: It seems that the second assumption (H2) was wrong. Both manuals
present very little instances of women employed and, more than that, those that are working hold
traditional stereotypical jobs such as librarian, nurse or teacher. The fact to notice here is the
disparity between the frequencies of occupations assigned to men in comparison to women in
both groups. In the Romanian case we have a ratio of 1:6.6, meaning that for every time an
employed woman was mentioned or envisioned in the textbook, almost seven working men were
presented. The manual excels at presenting male success stories In the second case the ratio is
1:1.8, which is still high. It seems that in this respect not even the western manual could keep
track with the international trends. For example, in the UK (where the manual is made) 67% of
the women are working, be them wives or mother, and the numbers are on an ascendant trend.
Out of all the men of a working age 76% of them are employed, while the trends are decreasing.
Also between the ages of 25-29, 45% of the top ten earners are women (Office for National
Statistics UK 2013).
7

Romanian Textbook
Girls\Women

Librarian (X2)
Violinist
Teacher(X2)

English Textbook

Boys\Men

Girls\Women

Writer
Teacher(X4)
Ruler(X4)
Salesperson
Soldier
Composer
Poet
Hunter
Police Officer
Violinist
Conductor
Spokesperson
Guard
Inventor
Shepherd(X2)
Wale fishers
Seal hunter
Sailor(X2)
Clown
Tamer
Adviser

Boys\Men
Mover

Nanny

Conductor
Farmer(X3)

Teacher(X3)

Photographer

Cafeteria server

Mechanic

Singer

Postal Worker
Clown
Royal Guard
Entertainer

Table 3: Gender segregation

H2 finds correspondence in the data but not in the way I would have expected. It is true
that female characters in the English textbook are much more animated when compared to the
Romanian ones, but I believe that this difference cannot be attributed to the gender dimension,
but rather to the style in which the textbook was written. Both female/girls and males/boys in the
Romanian textbook do not do much of anything. All the action in the manual can be resulted to a
few instances of running, drawing and sledding. From this point of view the English textbook
makes a good job of challenging stereotypes, showing that even a girl can kick a ball, ride a bike
and climb a tree.
Gendered Language (masculine generic constructions): The female authors of the
English textbook did an amazing job with using a neutral language. The only slip was in the
usage of a men associated generic noun: postman (Dooley & Evans 2003: 61). Thus the first
8

part of the third hypothesis can easily be confirmed, meaning that the register in the English
textbook is of a neutral nature. Its second part seems to be confirmed also. I found 48 instances
of masculine generic constructions most of them within the exercises following the lessons, thus
they are the authors direct work. I also found three attempts of using gender correct policies,
ironically immediately followed by a generic male construction. This shows that in some way the
female author is conscious of the gender issues, but does not in any way follow through. (e.g.:
Realizai un dialog cu colegul/colega de banc. n prima parte a dialogului, unul dintre voi va
folosi pronumele personal de politee, iar in a doua parte cellalt (Pene 2004: 58)).

Discussion:
The present study has tried to do two things. Firstly it looked into the contrasts between
two different textbook styles. The expected outcome was that the western type textbook was
going to be more gender aware. And indeed it was, an almost 50%-50% distribution of men a
women, a much better occupations ratio (1:1.8) and more active, interesting and complex female
characters. Secondly it looked into the issue of how fair the Romanian and English language
registers cope with gender. The winner was incontestable.
I brought into discussion in the literature review, and not only, some of the first
generation studies that were conducted on the issue of gender and textbooks. Second generation
studies performed at the beginning of the 90s in the US, have shown that the magnitude of
gender bias had subtly decreased and the most egregious and blatant examples of sexism seem
to have disappeared or been muted (Blumberg, 2008: 17). The third generation studies have
brought word of a normalization of the situation and the analysis on the Set Sail manual seems
to also confirm this assumption. On the basis of the analysis I performed and the literature
revised, I would argue that Romania follows to some extents the Western model of coping with
gender imbalances. The only problem is that we seem to be one wave behind. We are in clear
process of developing the guidelines to help the development of a more neutral, gender aware
lexicon.

Bibliography:

Blumberg, R. L. (2008). The invisible obstacle to educational equality: Gender bias in textbooks.
Prospects, 38(3), 345-361.
Britton, G. E., & Lumpkin, M. C. (1977). For sale: Subliminal bias in textbooks. The Reading
Teacher, 40-45.
Dooley, J., Evans, V.(2003). Set Sail! 3, Express Publishing
Foroutan, Y. (2012). Gender representation in school textbooks in Iran: The place of languages.
Current Sociology, 60(6), 771-787.
Gharbavi, A., & Mousavi, S. A. (2012). A content analysis of textbooks: Investigating gender
bias as a social prominence in Iranian High School English textbooks. English Linguistics
Research, 1(1). 42-49
Hall, M. (2014). Gender Representation in Current EFL Textbooks in Iranian Secondary
Schools. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 253-261.
Hamdan, S. (2010). English-language textbooks reflect gender bias: A case study in Jordan.
Advances in Gender and Education, 2, 22-26.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and womans place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lee, J. F., & Collins, P. (2009). Australian Englishlanguage textbooks: the gender issues.
Gender and Education, 21(4), 353-370.
Office for National Statistics UK (2013). Women in the Labor Market. Retrieved at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf
Parlamentul European (2008). Limbajul neutru din punct de vedere al genului (nonsexist),
Retreaved at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/transl_es/RO/terminologie/buletin011.htm
Pene, M.(2004). Limba i Literatura Roman, manual clasa a III-a, editura Pene
Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL Textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 705-724
Sadker, D., Zittleman K. (2007). Gender Bias from Colonial America to Todays Classrooms.
in Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, edited by James A. Banks and Cherry A.
McGee Banks. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 135-169.
Taylor, F. (2003). Content analysis and gender stereotypes in children's books. Teaching
Sociology, 300-311.

10

Warren, V.L. (1986). Guidelines for the Nonsexist Use of Language, Proceedings and Addresses
of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 471-484
Yi, W.(2003). From Dutiful Wife and Good Mother to Professional Woman?, Chinese
Education & Society, 36:3, pp. 10-18

11