Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T23:18:20.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantifying transitivity: Uncovering relations of gender and power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2024

Jessi Elana Aaron*
Affiliation:
Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transitivity has come to be recognized as a promising heuristic tool for uncovering implicit ideologies in a wide range of areas. Though it has been used to explore worldviews in several kinds of discourse, nearly all have relied solely on qualitative analyses. Statistical analysis can offer a fuller understanding of past societies. This study applies a gradient, discourse-based understanding of transitivity, which lends itself nicely to corpus-based analysis, to data from 16th-century New Spain. In colonial Mexico, female behaviors were often strictly circumscribed. This paper uses a quantitative, corpus-based framework to examine how gender inequality is reflected in patterns of transitivity. It is found that female subjects are significantly associated with imperfective contexts, nonfinite constructions, akinesis, and low affectedness of the object—all markers of lower transitivity. Thus, for the most part, in these data, women are represented as inactive, inert, and powerless.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of individuation and non-individuation (from Hopper & Thompson 1980:253)

Figure 1

Table 2. Examples of the measures coded for quantitative analysis

Figure 2

Table 3. Raw and relative frequencies of third-person referents in DLNE by gender (p < .0000)

Figure 3

Table 4. Grammatical role by referent gender (for A, p = .0021; DO, p = .0038; all others, p > .05)

Figure 4

Figure 1. Percentage of grammatical role by referent gender (for A and DO, p < .05; all others, n.s.).

Figure 5

Table 5. Aspect among subjects by subject gender (imperfective, p = .0000; perfect, p = .0027; unmarked, p = .0163; perfective, n.s.)

Figure 6

Figure 2. Percentage of aspect among subjects by subject gender (for imperfective, perfect, and unmarked, p < .05; perfective, n.s.).

Figure 7

Table 6. Aspect among objects by object gender (imperfective, p = .0193; all others, n.s.)

Figure 8

Figure 3. Percentage of mood among subjects by subject gender (for realis and nonfinite, p < .05; irrealis, n.s.).

Figure 9

Table 7. Mood by subject gender (for realis, p = .0065; nonfinite, p = .0004; irrealis, n.s.)

Figure 10

Figure 4. Percentage of affectedness of object by agent gender (p = .0093).

Figure 11

Table 8. Affectedness of O by A gender (for not affected, p = .0092; somewhat affected, p = .0125; highly affected, n.s.)

Figure 12

Table 9. Affectedness of O by O gender (or highly affected, p = .0310; all others, n.s.)

Figure 13

Table 10. Kinesis by subject gender (p = .0353)

Figure 14

Figure 5. Percentage of kinesis by subject gender (p = .0353).

Figure 15

Table 11. Individuated O by A gender (p > .05)

Figure 16

Table 12. Punctuality by subject gender (p > .05)

Figure 17

Table 13. Volitionality by subject gender (p > .05)

Figure 18

Table 14. Polarity by subject gender (p > .05)

Figure 19

Table 15. Female referents’ grammatical role by writer/speaker sex (p > .05 for all measures)

Figure 20

Figure 6. Percentage of female referents’ grammatical role by writer/speaker sex (p > .05).

Figure 21

Table 16. Referents’ grammatical role by gender in male-produced texts (for A, p = .0015; for S, n.s.; for DO, p = .0026; for IO, n.s.; for gen, n.s. [p = .0860]; for obl, n.s. [p = .0811]; for other, n.s.)

Figure 22

Figure 7. Percentage of grammatical role by referent gender in male-authored texts.

Figure 23

Table 17. Association of measures of higher transitivity by subject gender