37.1391, Reviews: Language, Gender and Pregnancy Loss: Beth Malory (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1391. Sun Apr 12 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.1391, Reviews: Language, Gender and Pregnancy Loss: Beth Malory (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 12-Apr-2026
From: Mateja Lasnik [mateja.lasnik3 at gmail.com]
Subject: Beth Malory (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-3568

Title: Language, Gender and Pregnancy Loss
Series Title: Elements in Language, Gender and Sexuality
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/languages-linguistics/sociolinguistics/language-gender-and-pregnancy-loss?format=PB&isbn=9781009633895

Author(s): Beth Malory

Reviewer: Mateja Lasnik

SUMMARY
The Cambridge Element Language, Gender and Pregnancy Loss by Beth
Malory explores how language describes and shapes experiences of
pregnancy loss in healthcare contexts in the UK. The book analyzes how
terminology reflects pregnancy loss and how the language used affects
individuals experiencing clinical pregnancy loss. It also discusses
the negative impacts of certain pregnancy loss terms, as well as the
ideologies surrounding reproductive norms. The analysis draws on data
from 42 UK residents. The volume is divided into six chapters,
beginning with an introduction, followed by an overview of calls for
linguistic reforms, a chapter on data and methodology, chapters
addressing ‘good motherhood’ and the ‘gender pain gap’ in relation to
pregnancy loss language, and a conclusion.
Chapter One (Introduction) provides a general overview of the book,
discussing the project’s goals and key findings. It examines the
possibility of embedded sexism in language and considers a potential
causal link between language and thought, drawing on the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. The chapter cites Deborah Cameron (2023), who raises an
important question: “Do biases in language just reflect pre-existing
societal prejudices, or do they actively influence our perceptions,
thoughts and actions without us being aware of it?” (p. 14). It also
highlights the importance of discourses in shaping perceptions of the
world (Coffey-Glover, 2020), the need to change beliefs before
changing language (Cameron, 2023), and the ideologies of ‘compulsory
motherhood’ and ‘good motherhood’ (Ellece, 2012). The chapter
concludes with a brief overview of the subsequent chapters.
Chapter Two reviews previous linguistic efforts and reforms related to
diagnostic terminology for pregnancy loss. It includes examples of
successful language changes, such as the UK shift from “abortion” to
“miscarriage” (Malory, 2022), and explores why some reforms succeeded
while others did not. The chapter also questions whether the term
“miscarriage” is appropriate, suggesting that individuals experiencing
pregnancy loss might internalize blame for “miscarrying” and that the
term “pregnancy loss” may be more suitable (Gorfinkel, 2015).
Following this, it discusses glossary substitutions for pregnancy loss
terminology and reviews studies on language use in this context. The
chapter emphasizes that terminology with negative connotations can
harm individuals and reinforce prejudices, including bias and stigma
(Malory, 2025).
Chapter Three describes the study’s data and methodology. Ten virtual
focus group sessions were conducted with 42 UK-based participants in
May 2024, including 32 individuals who had experienced clinical
pregnancy loss (“lived experience cohort”) and 10 healthcare
professionals involved in supporting individuals during or after
pregnancy loss (“healthcare professional cohort”). Participants in the
lived experience cohort were asked about the terminology used by
clinicians, how it made them feel, and their preferred language.
Healthcare professionals were asked about the language they use with
patients and colleagues, and the reasoning behind their choices. Most
participants identified as White, with minorities identifying as
Asian/Asian British, Black, Mixed, or other ethnicities. Data analysis
included qualitative thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s
(2021) six-step framework and qualitative discourse analysis to
examine how gendered identities are constructed.
Chapter Four presents the findings in relation to cultural
expectations of ‘good motherhood’. Participants reported that language
could negatively affect them and contribute to self-blame. While the
lived experience cohort associated medical terms such as
“miscarriage,” “weakened/incompetent cervix,” and “termination” with
self-blame, healthcare professionals only associated “incompetent
cervix” and “feticide” with culpability. The chapter highlights how
notions of ‘self-sacrificing’ good motherhood (Miller, 2023) and
‘compulsory motherhood’ (Ellece, 2012) can exacerbate guilt and
self-blame in response to terminology such as “failure” or
“miscarriage.”
Chapter Five has two sections: Hierarchies of Grief and Medical
Misogyny. The first section discusses how a hierarchy of grief is
reflected in terminology, with “miscarriage” applied before 24 weeks
of pregnancy and “stillbirth” after, following UK legislation.
Participants who experienced pregnancy loss in the second trimester
often rejected the term “miscarriage” as it implies blame and fails to
reflect the experience of losing a baby. The second section addresses
medical misogyny, explaining that terminology can dismiss women’s
pain. For example, the term “chemical pregnancy” made some
participants feel their experience was not real, reflecting the gender
pain gap evident in healthcare contexts.
Chapter Six concludes by emphasizing the importance of diagnostic
terminology that reflects issues in the healthcare system and society
within the context of gender inequality. The chapter considers how
linguistic reforms could reduce social inequalities and improve
healthcare discourse. Terms like “miscarriage,” “pregnancy failure,”
and “incompetent cervix” are often perceived negatively because they
imply personal blame. The chapter also suggests avenues for future
research, including the role of healthcare professionals and
cross-cultural differences in language use around pregnancy loss.
EVALUATION
The Element Gender and Pregnancy Loss by Beth Malory is part of the
Cambridge Elements in Language, Gender, and Sexuality series. The book
aims to show how terminology related to pregnancy loss reflects the
lived experiences of individuals who have gone through it, as well as
those of healthcare professionals. The book includes reported
experiences from participants, who describe how the terminology used
for pregnancy loss affected them. The author also offers suggestions
for changes in terminology and language use.
First of all, I consider this a highly important and relevant topic,
and it is commendable that the author has devoted her time and effort
to this project. The study has the potential to bring about meaningful
change by addressing terminology that can unnecessarily harm women who
have experienced pregnancy loss, as illustrated through numerous
participant accounts. Furthermore, more empathetic medical terminology
could improve communication and relationships between healthcare
professionals and patients.
This book would be particularly valuable for readers interested in
language policy and linguistic reform. It provides a clear overview of
past language reforms as well as suggestions for future changes. It
would also appeal to those studying or interested in gender, language,
and sexuality. More broadly, the book is relevant for students and
researchers across different linguistic fields, as it may inspire them
and serve, through both its structure and content, as a useful example
of a systematic linguistic study addressing an important life issue.
In addition, it would be useful for professionals in medical fields,
particularly those working with pregnancy and pregnancy loss, as it
raises awareness of the terminology they use and how it may affect
patients.
The author presents numerous participants’ experiences of how medical
terminology negatively affected them. Based on these reports, she
identifies terms that could benefit from reform in order to improve
the well-being of individuals experiencing pregnancy loss and to
enhance communication with healthcare professionals. While the book
briefly acknowledges that language can also have positive effects, it
does not provide detailed examples of such cases. This suggests a few
minor limitations. An appendix with selected transcripts from
participant discussions would strengthen the analysis, as it would
give readers a clearer sense of how these experiences were expressed.
Another useful addition would be an overview of the most frequently
mentioned terms perceived as inappropriate, as well as those that
received more mixed reactions. The book does not indicate degrees of
urgency regarding which terms should be changed first. For example,
the term “chemical pregnancy” is presented as negative by some
participants, as it may suggest that the pregnancy was not real;
however, for others, such terminology might lessen emotional pain by
framing the experience differently.
Another limitation, also noted by the author, is that most
participants identified as white, with fewer participants from
minority backgrounds. More data from underrepresented groups would
strengthen the study. In addition, it is not clearly stated whether
all participants were native speakers of English. While there was
likely some form of screening, the details are not specified. This is
relevant, as language proficiency may influence how individuals
perceive and emotionally respond to specific terms. Those with lower
proficiency may not react to terminology in the same way as native or
highly fluent speakers.
Overall, this work represents an important contribution to society, as
it has the potential to improve people’s well-being. The analyses are
insightful and convincingly link linguistic patterns to cultural
expectations of “good motherhood,” as well as to concepts such as
medical misogyny and the gender pain gap. This book is highly
recommended for anyone interested in language, gender, and healthcare.
It demonstrates how the words we use around pregnancy loss can deeply
affect people’s wellbeing and emotions, highlighting the urgent need
for careful and thoughtful language.
REFERENCES
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide.
London: SAGE.
Cameron, D. (2023). Language, Sexism and Misogyny. Oxen: Routledge.
Coffey-Glover, L. (2020). ‘The boob diaries: Discourses of
breastfeeding in “exclusive pumping” blogs’, Discourse, Context &
Media, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100446.
Ellece, S. E. (2012). ‘The “placenta” of the nation’, Gender and
Language, 6(1), pp. 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v6i1.79.
Gorfinkel, I. (2015). ‘It’s time to stop calling pregnancy loss
“miscarriage”’, The Globe and Mail, 15 October.
www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fit
ness/health/its-time-to-stop-calling-pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/art
icle26823539/.
Malory, B. (2022). ‘The transition from abortion to miscarriage to
describe early pregnancy loss in British medical journals: A
prescribed or natural lexical change?’ Medical Humanities, 48(4), pp.
489–496. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/medhum-2021-012373.
Malory, B. (2025). ‘Language guidelines as the frontier of
anti-prejudicial prescriptivism’, in J. Setter, S. Dovchin, and V.
Ramjattan (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Language and Prejudice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 623–643.
Miller, T. (2023). Motherhood: Contemporary Transitions and
Generational Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Mateja Lasnik earned her PhD in Linguistics from National Taiwan
University. She is currently an Assistant Professor at Providence
University. Her research focuses on language and gender, emotions,
metaphor, and sexuality. She has published in Cognitive Linguistic
Studies (2023) and the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Cognitive Linguistics
(forthcoming).
______________
Note: A limited AI tool was used for minor grammar and style
suggestions; all content and opinions are the author’s own.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-1391
----------------------------------------------------------