https://i.redd.it/hhi5hkerakge1.jpeg
created by 69Pumpkin_Eater on 01/02/2025 at 17:23 UTC
162 upvotes, 21 top-level comments (showing 21)
Comment by metricwoodenruler at 01/02/2025 at 17:33 UTC
231 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Yeah this type of research is rife with inconsistencies. I doubt people would use stereotypically femenine traits to describe a "soga" (feminine noun, "rope"). I'd use words like strong, wide, tense. Likewise, I'd go for words like delicate, beautiful, stylish to describe a "florero" (masculine, "flower pot").
The researchers may have cherrypicked the target words to get the results they wanted.
Comment by Qoubah79 at 01/02/2025 at 17:32 UTC
112 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It is - afaik this study is always cited, but never has been published fully.
Comment by z_s_k at 01/02/2025 at 18:02 UTC
40 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Pavlidou & Alvanoudi (2013)[1] is the cite at the end of the para which criticises that study and is available to read online
1: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/31865/1/31865_Alvanoudi_Pavlidou_2013.pdf
Comment by falkkiwiben at 01/02/2025 at 17:30 UTC
45 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I speak Swedish and English at home. I remember that before I knew anything about grammar or linguistics I thought Swedish distinction between en/ett was the same kind of thing as english a/an. It's something native speakers really don't think about unless taught
Comment by Firespark7 at 01/02/2025 at 19:53 UTC
28 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Dutch here (gendered language)
Also speak German and French
Also a linguist
Grammatical gender is distinctly seperate from natural gender, but grammatical gender *can* lead to certain associations with natural gendered properties.
So the varied results and the contestedness is very understandable.
TL;DR: It's definitely not (entirely) true, but it's not 100% bs either.
Comment by halfajack at 01/02/2025 at 19:00 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I enjoyed this[1] video which does a fair bit of criticism of the bridge/key study and its author, among other things
1: https://youtu.be/1q1qp4ioknI?si=rhhmIG_ReTxEEnQd
Comment by Most_Neat7770 at 01/02/2025 at 18:17 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The amount of times I've heard this is insane, and yes, it is bullshit
In Spanish we say beautiful for bridges as well
Comment by edgyguuuuuurl at 01/02/2025 at 19:50 UTC
8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There is a Tom Scott video where he says that this theory has been disproven because of failure of replication or something like that
Comment by bash5tar at 01/02/2025 at 17:30 UTC
34 upvotes, 1 direct replies
German here, I don't think so. For example taxes are feminine. Nobody says paying tax is beautiful. Disease, Punishment is also feminine in German.
Comment by rexcasei at 01/02/2025 at 20:50 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Asking French speakers to describe « la bite » :
Belle, élégante, jolie, mince
Et « le vagin » :
Grand, dangereux, fort, robuste
Comment by CatL1f3 at 01/02/2025 at 23:50 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
To prove it's bullshit, consider that there can be multiple synonyms meaning the same object with different grammatical genders, e.g French vélo (m) vs bicyclette (f).
What gender is the bike? None, bikes don't have genders, words do. So if you show them a picture of a bike, would they use "feminine" adjectives or "masculine" adjectives?
More importantly, what's a "feminine" adjective and what's a "masculine" adjective? I don't remember which adjective it was, but one of the studies used the same adjective as both "proof they consider it feminine" and "proof they consider it masculine". Very unreliable
Comment by Dblarr at 01/02/2025 at 19:40 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
German here. Makes sense to me, though thats just Kiki-Bouba: Gender edition
Comment by ZAWS20XX at 01/02/2025 at 22:53 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
it is bullshit
Comment by Sociolx at 01/02/2025 at 23:02 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The idea that certain adjectives have inherently feminine or masculine associations across cultures requires some intriguingly circular logic, it does.
Comment by trashpanda_9999 at 01/02/2025 at 19:01 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It's even more bullshit, that I am using: whatever sounds better, except I remember the gender. If I can't decide, always masculine.
Comment by Miinimum at 01/02/2025 at 20:56 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm a native Spanish speaker and "puente" is a weird word because its gender can also be feminine in some dialects ("la puente"), as it used to be in medieval Spanish sometimes. That is to say it probably wasn't the best decision to choose it. Also, "puente peligroso" ('dangerous bridge') doesn't really make much sense.
Comment by jakobkiefer at 01/02/2025 at 19:12 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
nonsense. grammatical gender has no bearing on sex or gender, rather, it is a grammar rule. these studies are plagued with numerous issues.
Comment by NeilJosephRyan at 02/02/2025 at 08:39 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It's spot on. When I'm speaking German, I tend to think of girls as being gender neutral.
Comment by FrontPsychological76 at 02/02/2025 at 13:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Can absolutely confirm. Who doesn’t use “beautiful, elegant, pretty and slender” when talking about p0lla and “big, dangerous, strong, and sturdy” when talking about c0ño ??
Comment by Shrek_Nietszche at 03/02/2025 at 08:13 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I saw a lots of people talking about that, but when I check the source they give, it's a document that say that from an other source that I didn't find and apparently nobody does. So if someone have it I'm interested. Until them I do not consider this data reliable.
Comment by ResearcherCapable171 at 01/02/2025 at 17:41 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
this is the theory* of language determinism. the sapir-whorf hypothesis isn’t accepted by every linguist, and there are different degrees of belief in the concept
