Vol. 62 No. 1 (2014)
Research Article

Unisex Names for Babies Born in Pennsylvania 1990–2010

PDF
  • Herbert Barry III,
  • Aylene S. Harper
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/0027773813Z.00000000060

Published 2014-03-01

Keywords

  • Convincing Ground,
  • polysemy,
  • onomastic palimpsest,
  • historiography,
  • whaling,
  • Aboriginal massacre site
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2014 Maney Publishing

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Abstract

Most first names are exclusively popular for females or males. A minority of first names are unisex, defined as being given with substantial frequency to both genders in the same population in the same year. First-name frequencies for births in Pennsylvania in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 provided information on babies given unisex names. Children of a White mother were compared with children of a Black mother. The unisex names were divided into two types of gender preference or consistency, from 1990 to 2010. Change usually was from a small majority of males to a large majority of females. Consistency generally was a preference for males. Females more often than males therefore were given a name that was consistently more popular for the opposite gender. Great diversity of names given in Pennsylvania contributed to the occurrence of unisex names.

PDF

References

  1. Barry, Herbert, III, and Harper Aylene S.. 1982. “Evolution of Unisex Names.” Names 30: 15–22.
  2. Barry, Herbert, III, and Harper Aylene S.. 1993. “Feminization of Unisex Names.” Names 4: 228–238.
  3. Barry, Herbert, III, and Harper Aylene S.. 2010. “Racial and Gender Differences in Diversity of First Names.” Names 58: 47–54.
  4. Barry, Herbert, III, and Harper Aylene S.. 2013. “National Differences in Personality and Predictability of Gender from Personal Names.” Cross-Cultural Research 47: 363–371.
  5. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mikelson. Kelly S. 1995. “Distinctive African American Names: An Experimental, Historical, and Linguistic Analysis of Innovation.” American Sociological Review 60: 928–946.
  6. Lieberson, Stanley, Susan Dumais, and Shyron Baumann. 2000. “The Instability of Androgynous Names: The Symbolic Maintenance of Gender Boundaries.” American Journal of Sociology 105: 1249–1287.
  7. Norusis, Marija J. 2009. PASW Statistics 18 Statistical Procedures Companion. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  8. Pennsylvania. 1992. Pennsylvania Vital Statistics Annual Report, 1990. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Health Data Center.
  9. Tucker, D. Kenneth. 2009. “Increased Competition and Reduced Popularity: US Given Name Trends of the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries.” Names 57: 52–62.