{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023871527777777776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006076388888888889, 'mean_word_length': 5.456582633053221, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
22-Twenty-Two Young Indiana Writers: Winners of the National Council of Teachers of English 1978 Achievement Awards ed. by Howard K. Nixon (review)

Sexism-in-language studies currently face a danger: that of alienating nonfeminists and hence creating polarization rather than increased awareness and communication. It is undeniably true that many persons perceive the feminist linguist as an enraged being, deranged by an ungodly mélange of Whorfianism and consciousness-raising, attempting to make a meteorologist call a tropical disturbance a himicane. Yet, starting with Mary Key Ritchie's 1970 MLA paper on the topic, the implicit characterization of sex role in language has attracted much principled semantic study and interested such established investigators as R. Lakoff (1975). Hence the importance of essays, such as several of those in Sexism and Language, that impressively demonstrate the possibility of doing carefully-elaborated work in this controversial area. Alleen Pace Nilsen's "Sexism in the Language of Marriage" is an accessible but substantive presentation. Her corpus is exceptionally wellselected, limited to current usage among educated speakers (it seems singularly pointless to castigate past generations for calling women frail blossoms). Particularly worthwhile is the identification of expressions that presuppose only women aspire to marriage or concern themselves with family. The essay goes beyond its inquiry into sex role to augment the reader's overall awareness of semantic phenomena. Nilsen's "Sexism as Shown through the English Vocabulary" and Julia P. Stanley's paper on gender-marking touch upon the sorest issues in this area of studies, particularly the problematical existence of the generic person in English. Some readers will remain convinced that masculine forms can also function as forms unmarked for gender, but they will have to admit that the opposing proposition can be supported with rational arguments. It should be mentioned that not all essays included are equally worthwhile. For instance, an examination of the oratory of opponents of women's suffrage exhibits such (justifiable) outrage that analysis suffers. However, the presence of conscientious and insightful presentations more than compensates for the weaker portions of the volume.