Selected PUBLICATIONS

Abstract: 

This study examines how several gender-encoding strategies in Spanish and social factors influence gender perception, reinforcing or mitigating a sexist male bias. Using an experimental design, we tested four linguistic conditions in a job recruitment context: masculine forms (theoretically generic), gender-splits, epicenes, and non-binary neomorpheme “-e”. After reading a profile in one of these conditions, 837 participants (52% women) selected an image of a woman or man. Results show that masculine forms lead to the lowest selection of female candidates, manifesting a male bias. In contrast, gender-fair language (GFL) strategies, particularly the neomorpheme (les candidates), elicited the highest selection of female images. Importantly, not only did linguistic factors and participants’ gender identity influence results —with male participants selecting significantly more men in the masculine condition—, but affinity with feminist and LGBTQIA+ movements or positive attitudes towards GFL also modulated responses —increasing female selections in GFL, but reinforcing male selections in the masculine—. Additionally, no extra cognitive cost was found for GFL strategies compared to masculine expressions. These findings highlight the importance, not only of linguistic forms, but of social and attitudinal factors in shaping gender perception, with implications for reducing gender biases in language use and broader efforts toward social equity. 

Keywords: Male bias; gender-fair language; masculine generics; Spanish; non-binary neomorphemes; gender splits; sexism; feminism; attitudes. 

You can find it here

Abstract:

The use of so-called Gender-Fair Language (GFL) strategies has increased in light of a heated and complex theoretical, social and political debate. In this paper, we identify three types of theories underlying those arguments in favour of GFL: linguistic relativity, invisibility theories and social change theories. We critically examinate the arguments presented both in favour and against GFL, focusing on the case of Spanish. We comprehensively analyse the empirical evidence presented so far in favour and against these different approaches to GFL. Finally, we claim that, even though the use of GFL only might not warrant the change towards an equal society, it can be one (of many) vehicles towards social change and equity.

Key words: Gender-Fair Language, masculine generics, male bias, Linguistic Relativity, Spanish

Link here

Resumen:

La tesis de que los hablantes de distintas lenguas presentan diferencias cognitivas ha sido defendida por lingüistas, psicólogos y filósofos. Muchos resultados dan a entender que existe una correlación entre lenguaje y pensamiento, pero no hay una explicación teórica precisa sobre cómo influye el lenguaje a la cognición. El objetivo de estas páginas es estudiar qué mecanismos son más explicativos de los resultados empíricos. Para ello, se analizan algunos estudios empíricos y se extraen cinco requisitos que la explicación teórica del fenómeno debe cumplir. Se analizan cinco explicaciones y se argumenta a favor de la tesis de la re-representación.

Abstract:

The thesis that speakers of different languages show cognitive differences has been supported by linguistics, psychologist and philosophers. Many results suggest that there is a correlation between language and thought, but there is not a precise theoretical explanation of how language influences cognition. The aim of this paper is to analyze which explanatory mechanisms give an account of the results. First, I will analyze some empirical studies. Second, I will sketch five possible theoretical explanations. I argue for the theory of re-representation.

Full-text available here 

Abstract:

Copredication is the phenomenon whereby two or more predicates seem to require that their argument denotes different things. The denotation of words that copredicate has been broadly discussed. In this paper I investigate the metaphysics behind this question. Thus, mereological theories of dot objects propose that these nouns denote complex entities. On the contrary, others have proposed that they denote bare particulars and the Activation Package theory proposes that they stand for multiple denotations. Following an Activation-Package theory, My aim is to psychologize the idea of complex objects. Thus, copredicative nouns do not denote complex entities, but they stand for complex knowledge structures and each sense has its own denotation. I claim that this theory contribute to the understanding of copredication and solves some of the metaphyisical question that arises from it.

Keywords: polysemy, copredication, denotation, truth-conditions, mereological theories, activation packages.

You can find it here

Abstract:

It is still an open question how senses of inherent polysemous words are represented and interpreted. Empirical results are not conclusive about the representation of polysemy. Therefore, different representation models try to give an answer about the puzzle of representation of polysemous words in general and of inherent polysemous words in particular. Inherent polysemous words are those that have several related senses that allow copredication, which occurs when one polysemous word is used to express simultaneously two (or more) related senses in a sentence. Ortega-Andrés and Vicente (2019) propose a rich semantic approach that explains the interpretation of copredicative sentences. This chapter has three goals: (1) I discuss and classify underspecification approaches about the representation of polysemous words; (2) I analyze some empirical results and their contributions to the debate about the representation of polysemy and inherent polysemy; and (3) I argue that the rich account that Ortega-Andrés and Vicente give a plausible explanation about the representation of inherent polysemous words.

Keywords: copredication, polysemy, underspecification, sense, meaning, activation packages.

You can find the book here

Abstract:

Many word forms in natural language are polysemous, but only some of them allow for co-predication, that is, they allow for simultaneous predications selecting for two different meanings or senses of a nominal in a sentence. In this paper, we try to explain (i) why some groups of senses allow co-predication and others do not, and (ii) how we interpret co-predicative sentences. The paper focuses on those groups of senses that allow co-predication in an especially robust and stable way. We argue, using these cases, but focusing particularly on the multiply polysemous word school, that the senses involved in co-predication form especially robust activation packages, which allow hearers and readers to access all the different senses in interpretation.

Keywords: polysemy , co-predication , co-activation , lexical semantics , representation , activation packages 

Full-text available here