The Importance of Gender Agreement in Syntax

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

When we learn a phrase like that teacher in our brain, we're not marking it for gender because it could refer to either gender. That also was met with fairly good grammatical acceptability judgment. But then you get a sample sentence where you have a definite antecedent but where the gender might be unknown or not marked in some way. So that would be something like that teacher drinks their coffee slowly. The least grammatically acceptable was when we used a singular pronoun with the singular they with a proper name that typically was marked for gender in our syntax.

Paranoid about the “ums” and “uhs” that pepper your presentations? Bewildered by “hella” or the meteoric rise of “so”? Can the word “dude” help people bond across social divides? Why are we always trying to make our intensifiers ever more intense? Are these language tics, habits, and developments in our speech a sign of cultural and linguistic degeneration? Fridland weaves together history, psychology, science, and laugh-out-loud anecdotes to explain why we speak the way we do today, and how that impacts what our kids may be saying tomorrow.

Shermer and Fridland discuss: Okay, Boomer language • accents • ChatGPT • gender pronouns • gender differences in language use • forensic language analysis • evolution of language • why children learn language naturally but must be taught to read and write • literature, film, and TV’s influence on language use • cancel culture and taboo language • language and identity politics • y’all, contractions, and other language shortcuts • tracking human migrations by language, and vice versa • Fargo, and more.

Valerie Fridland is a professor of linguistics in the English Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. She writes a popular language blog on Psychology Today called “Language in the Wild,” and is also a professor for The Great Courses series.