Feminist Linguistics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Feminist Linguistics is a social science discipline that language and language use among feminist analyzes aspects and assessed. As with women's studies, its origins lie in the English-speaking area. In the second half of the 20th century, in the wake of the feminist movement in the USA, there was an increased scientific interest in the different language used by the sexes. Leading the way were Language and Women's Place (1973) by Robin Lakoff , Male / Female Language (1975) by Mary Richie Key (1924-2003) and Language and Sex (1975) by Nancy Henley (1934-2016). Unlike Linguistics ( Linguistics ), the Feminist linguistics understands itself not only as a descriptive ( descriptive ) , but also as an intervening science, and thus as part of a political and social movement , speech and language based on sociological and political criteria criticized. This is why it is often not perceived as a sub-discipline in linguistics, but viewed as a feminist language criticism (compare language criticism ).

Since the mid-1980s, two main topics of feminist linguistics have emerged: Feminist language analysis (the analysis of language use and the structures and value systems conveyed by language ) and Feminist conversation analysis (the analysis of gender-specific forms of communication and language norms ).

Feminist analysis of the German language

Depending on the existing possibilities of each language system ( langue ) , the Feminist linguistics tends regarding the use of language ( parole ) either longer visible natural biological / sex of persons ( sex ) or more to the neutralization (invisibility). Because in German the movement of masculine personal names with the feminine word ending -in is very productive and generally possible (teacher → teacher) , the visualization in the German-speaking area consists of the complete naming of masculine and feminine form (teachers) or abbreviated spellings with Slash or gender symbol (teachers, teachers) . Neutral forms are, for example, teachers or teaching staff .

Important authors for the feminist analysis of the German language are Senta Trömel-Plötz and Luise F. Pusch as well as Deborah Tannen for the feminist conversation analysis. Together with Pusch, Trömel-Plötz is considered to be the founder of German feminist linguistics. Her text Linguistics and Women's Language from 1978 and her “sensational inaugural lecture” as a professor at the University of Konstanz on February 5, 1979, were groundbreaking. Both women then organized the “Feminist Linguistics Working Group” within the German Society for Linguistics , which met with enormous interest and was very popular. Women came to the annual meetings in Regensburg and Passau not only from linguistics, but from all areas that dealt with language: writers, journalists, teachers, theologians, politicians and lawyers.

Identical form of generic and specific masculine - unclear gender-sex relationship

Feminist linguistics is directed against the use of the generic masculine in the German language. The forms of nouns and the associated personal and possessive pronouns in German for the generic masculine are identical to those of the specific masculine (the designation for individual boys or men or for groups that consist exclusively of boys or men). This leads to the need to make complicated paraphrases if one wants to make it clear that a certain person designation only refers to males. According to the analysis around 1980, however, these transformations would only seldom be made in real language use; thus it remains unclear whether a grammatically masculine person name is meant as a generic or as a specific masculine. This mixture of generic and specific masculine in the use of language has been proven on the basis of many empirical studies. An overview can be found in Trömel-Plötz: Women's language: language of change.

According to the authors of these studies, women are systematically "made invisible" through the dual function of grammatically masculine person names. While men are always meant when using masculine personal names, it is unclear with such names whether women are included or not. This creates a so-called male bias , which leads to the constant mental involvement of men, but not women. The existence of this male bias became for the Anglo-Saxon-speaking area - even if the gender-sex debate on the English language only to a limited extent, i. H. is applicable to dealing with pronouns - empirically proven many times. Empirical studies for the German-speaking area were able to confirm the results from the Anglo-Saxon area.

Discrimination against women with and in language

Many authors of feminist linguistics see latent discrimination against women within the German language system in various areas . Where women are not made invisible, they would be portrayed as secondary or systematically devalued.

In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, feminists advocated the non-use of the word “ Fräulein ”, because this would remove an asymmetry that consists in the fact that there is no male counterpart to the diminutive and, in this respect, derogatory form of address “Fräulein”. Women are also devalued by the fact that a woman who likes to talk a lot is referred to as a "gossip aunt", while a man with the same characteristics is considered to be "communicative", which is rated more positively. Other derogatory terms for women, for whom there are no male counterparts, are “blonde”, “quota woman” or “washerwoman”.

Outdated role clichés are reproduced through metaphors and idioms. The Germanist Michael Hausherr-Mälzer considers the saying to be a “playground of historical and current sexisms”, which in “an even more conspicuous, because direct way, than linguistic structures, provides an unmistakable testimony to a sexist society.” While idioms like “She is a whole guy " Mean an increase in status for women, the association of a man with feminine characteristics - such as " You behave like a girl " - is a degradation. For Marlis Hellinger, metaphors such as “standing by her husband” are examples “of the patriarchal rule according to which the feminine is a secondary category”. The saying "Gentlemen are wonderful, ladies are stupid" associates women with the adjective stupid, although "stupid" in Low German "dämelen", i.e. H. out of his mind, goes back and has nothing to do with the etymology of "lady".

Personal address is also sexist. While women are addressed with the same word ("woman"), which also serves as a term for their biological gender, a social title ("Mr.") is used for men. Names for women and men reflect the historically unequal status of the sexes. The word "girl" is derived from "maiden" or "maid", while "boy" and "boy" can be traced back to "junker" and "squire", who had a higher social status than the maid.

Feminist linguistics also asks whether women are recognizable “in spoken and written texts as independent, equal and equal human beings”. Recommendations for an expression are presented.

One recommendation is to avoid wording "depicting women in stereotypical roles and behaviors ...". Example: The salutation "Miss" must be deleted without replacement. Or “tennis ladies” can also be called “tennis players”.

Guidelines for gender-sensitive language use

Feminist linguistics aims not only at the description and criticism of language systems and language norms, but also at socio-political changes. At the beginning of the 1980s, feminist linguists first formulated guidelines for gender-sensitive language use, which were distributed to educational and other institutions. The recommendations listed there include the following points:

  • The grammatical gender (gender) of personal designations should be formulated according to the gender of the intended person (sex). As an alternative, gender-neutral substitute formulations (e.g. "teacher") or nouns of adjectives or participles in the plural (e.g. "students") are available.
  • Women should be mentioned explicitly and in the first place where they appear. Gender indefinite terms should be formulated bisexual.
  • Feminine endings should also be formed where this leads to new word creations.
  • The salutations “ lady ” and “ miss ” should be deleted without replacement.
  • Formulations in which women are defined over men ("Mr. Müller and wife", "Hans Müller family") should be avoided.
  • To simplify written double forms, the use of the Binnen-I is recommended around 1980 .

In addition, Friederike Braun, the author of a guideline for the Schleswig-Holstein state government, recommends avoiding asymmetries such as "Weber, Schmidt, Fr. Freitag, Fr. Richter" and the word "man".

Many of these guidelines have been used in the German-speaking area since the 1980s. There are now new job titles for both women and men that take into account the biological gender of the named person: “Nurse” became “Nurse”, etc. The internal I, which is also controversial among feminists, for cases in which Men and women are meant, is used more frequently in Switzerland and Austria. In Germany, on the other hand, it is currently common to use slashes in connection with job titles, sometimes also in brackets, and in other cases the full name.

The guidelines relate mainly to the written language and accordingly the effects on oral speech apart from direct addressing have so far been comparatively minor, especially if political speeches, because they are pre-formulated, are viewed as oral in the media but conceptually in writing.

The linguist Luise Pusch also rejects a sentence like: "Girls are the better students", since the girls are subsumed under the generic masculine here. This grammatical form should be completely abolished through a desired language change. Bettina Jobin describes the consistent non-use of the generic masculine as a “feminist imperative”: “Never designate a woman, including yourself, with a grammatical masculine.” If “gender neutrality” is consistently applied, the above-mentioned. Sentences are: "Girls are better pupils than boys are pupils.", "Girls are the better pupils.", "Girls are the better pupils." Or also (if we are not talking about adolescents from the age of 14) "Girls are the better schoolchildren." If, however, emphasis is placed on language aesthetics and a language sensitivity is sought that does justice to all genders without highlighting any of them, phrases such as "Girls do better at school than boys" or "Girls are better." in school. ”appropriate.

Feminist conversation analysis

In conversation analysis , the conversation behavior of groups or people is examined more closely. Feminist Conversational Analysis focuses on the differences in communication between men and women. Much of the early research in this area came from the United States. Studies from Europe, Germany and Switzerland very often relate to the university and the public sector (public discussions, television). The main conclusions of the studies in this area are - although a certain development can of course be observed - mostly roughly the same: women and men have significantly different conversation registers.

The following result patterns can be roughly summarized:

  • Women more often than men choose formulations that weaken their statements. This happens on the one hand through the more frequent use of diminutive , on the other hand through relativizing sentence beginnings or ends.
  • Women formulate their statements more often than men in question form.
  • Women use self-invalidating formulations more often than men.
  • Women use indirect and “mediating” expressions more often than men, that is, expressions related to the interlocutor.
  • In groups, women are more likely than men to leave it to their interlocutors to decide whether or not to take up a topic and continue it.
  • Women curse less often than men. The terms chosen are usually milder.
  • Overall, women use a different vocabulary than men. They tend to have a richer and more precise vocabulary in traditionally female areas, while in traditionally male areas they can only express themselves imprecisely.
  • Women let themselves be interrupted more often than men.
  • Women respond to the arguments of the other person more often than men.
  • Women interrupt their conversation partner less often than men.

In certain cases, men also use a “female” and women a “male” conversation register. This can be observed above all in discussion groups with a strong power imbalance: a “female” register tends to be used for a superior, a “male” for a subordinate.

Up to now there are no scientifically proven explanations for the different communication behavior of women and men. Feminist linguistics tries to explain communication behavior on the one hand via gender-typical socialization, on the other hand via the “deficient social situation” of women, according to which women are assigned a weak position in society and men a strong position (Trömel-Plötz).

Social Effects of Feminist Linguistics

The statements and results of feminist linguistics could, as intended, at times receive a large public response. 20 years after the publication of the suggestions made in the "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Language Use", many of the criticized formulations are hardly used anymore (for example, the word "Fräulein" is now "out of date" or "out of date" according to "Duden" ).

The Duden , for example, has recognized that splitting forms are often not used properly and gives tips on how to use these forms correctly. He still rates the Binnen-I as “spelling wrong”. Instead, it is recommended to look for formulations in the generic neuter. The aim is to use a spelling that allows both the masculine and the feminine to take a back seat in favor of gender-neutral grammar (e.g. “the college” as a substitute for “the teachers”).

criticism

Criticism of the basic assumptions of feminist language criticism

The thesis of feminist language criticism that changes in language would lead to social changes is viewed by various linguists as untenable. Margarete Jäger criticized in 2000 that the assumption of such an automatism was more reminiscent of “linguistic magical ideas of bygone times, the relics of which can still be observed today in curses and incantations”. In 2008 Gisela Klann-Delius is of the opinion that language is neither responsible for social problems, nor can it solve them. Wolfgang Klein sees it similarly, objecting that the role of language is "a little overestimated" in this context.

Discrimination against women and language

The literary critic Ulrich Greiner said in 2018 that comparative linguistic studies did not provide any reliable evidence that there were actually causal connections between language on the one hand and sexism and discrimination against women on the other. Many languages, such as Hungarian or Turkish , have no grammatical means at all to indicate a gender difference, and yet women are disadvantaged in the societies in which these languages ​​are spoken. The linguists Josef Bayer and Wolfgang Klein come to the same conclusion in their analyzes.

Discourse analytical positions

In the discourse-analytical criticism of feminist linguistics, the sensitization to social power relations is welcomed. But the connection between language and society is seen more comprehensively in discourse analysis. Idealistic language concepts of feminist language criticism are rejected. In the opinion of critics, the associated language-theoretical assumptions also lead to errors in the analysis and thus to a “dead end” in the attempt to achieve the liberation of women and other social changes through language criticism .

Criticism of an idealistic conception of language

Discourse-analytical positions, such as those represented by the linguist Margarete Jäger in 2000, criticize the idealistic understanding of language in traditional feminist language criticism . What is meant is the linguistic notion that language determines social conditions. Given this premise, feminist language criticism is based on the conviction that society changes when language changes. Applicable phenomena such as the fact that language can be a means of oppression and violence would be correctly analyzed by feminist linguistics. For an analysis of the effect of power through linguistic means, however, the social discourse is decisive, which shapes the individuals ( subjects ) in such a way that they are endowed with a "power effect". In contrast to an ideological understanding of language, language criticism that criticizes talking about women for its power effect must also criticize the discourses that are determined by social reality and that determine this reality at the same time. Jäger sums up: “These feminist linguists address the relationship between language and reality in such a way that reality is what actually needs to be changed. But they ultimately twist this relationship by already seeing a different use of language as a change in the reality criticized. "

Language norm and language system

The discourse analysis side also loudly criticizes the frequent use of language norms and language systems in feminist linguistics. According to Margarete Jäger, only a clear separation shows the different requirements for a change: “Changes in the language standard can be brought about by changes in behavior from the base, since the rules of the language standard are not very fixed. Changes in the language system mean changes in the language as such and thus represent a challenge for the entire so-called language community. "

Social power structure

Compared to traditional forms of feminist linguistics, the discourse analysis points out the importance of the interaction of several power effects that contribute to the social reality and action position of the individual man and woman. Accordingly, according to Margarete Jäger, "there is not only dominance between men and women [...] but also between different classes , between generations, between sick and healthy people and between members of different groups of origin, so-called ethnic groups."

See also
Current collection of materialsfPortal women: gender language  - current materials

literature

Feminist Linguistics

  • Marlis Hellinger: Contrastive Feminist Linguistics: Mechanisms of Linguistic Discrimination in German and English . Hueber, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-19-006605-1 .
  • Gisela Klann-Delius: Language and Gender: An Introduction . Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 2005, ISBN 3-476-10349-8 .
  • Sara Mills: Language and Sexism . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008 (English).
  • Gisela Schoenthal (Ed.): Feminist Linguistics - Linguistic Gender Research: Results, Consequences, Perspectives . Olms, Hildesheim u. a. 1998, ISBN 3-487-10636-1 .
  • Ingrid Samel: Introduction to Feminist Linguistics . 2nd revised and expanded edition. Schmidt, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-503-04978-9 .
  • Susanne Schmidt-Knaebel: Women and Language . In: Oldenburg University Speeches . No. 23 . Oldenburg 1988, ISBN 3-8142-1023-9 .
  • Elise Kramer: Feminist Linguistics and linguistic Feminism. In: Ellen Lewin, Leni M. Silverstein (Eds.): Mapping Feminist Anthropology in the Twenty-First Century. Rutgers University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-8135-7428-8 , pp. 41-64 (English; JSTOR view )

Feminist language analysis

  • Marlis Hellinger, Hadumod Bußmann : Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men . 3 volumes. Benjamin, Amsterdam, Philadelphia 2001 (English).
  • Luise F. Pusch : German as a men's language . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 1984, ISBN 3-518-11217-1 .
  • Luise F. Pusch: All people become sisters: Feminist language criticism . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 1990, ISBN 3-518-11565-0 .
  • Deborah Cameron (Ed.): The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. Routledge, London / New York 1990, ISBN 978-0-415-04259-8 (English).
  • Luise F. Pusch: The woman is not worth mentioning: essays, speeches and glosses . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 1999, ISBN 3-518-39421-5 .
  • Senta Trömel-Plötz : father tongue, mother country . 2nd, revised edition. Women's offensive, 1993, ISBN 3-88104-219-9 .
  • Maria Pober : Gender symmetry : considerations on the gender symmetrical structure of a gender dictionary in German . Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2007.

Meetings

Major works of feminist communication analysis

  • Senta Trömel-Plötz (ed.): Violence through language: The rape of women in conversations . New edition edition. Fischer TB, 1997, ISBN 3-596-23745-9 (first edition: 1984).
  • Senta Trömel-Plötz: women's language: language of change . New edition edition. Fischer TB, 1992, ISBN 3-596-23725-4 .
  • Senta Trömel-Plötz: Women's Talks: Language of Understanding . New edition edition. Fischer TB, 1996, ISBN 3-596-13161-8 .
  • Deborah Tannen : You just can't understand me . 1st edition. Kabel, Hamburg 1986, ISBN 3-442-15301-8 (new edition by Goldmann 2004).

Web links

Critique of Feminist Linguistics:

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Bernard Tranel: In memoriam Mary Richie Key, Professor of Linguistics . The University of California.
  2. ^ Daniela Wawra : Men and women in a job interview. An evolutionary psychological study of their language use in English (series: Contributions to English language and culture, vol. 1), LIT Verlag 2004, ISBN 3-8258-7283-1 , p. 2.
  3. ^ Coordinators of the "Platform against Violence in the Family", Federal Ministry for Social Security and Generations : Tatort Medien. The media construction of violence. In: Kids United! Association to support youth and cultural activities. No. 4, 2002, p. 12.
  4. ↑ Senta Trömel-Plötz : Linguistics and women's language. In: Linguistic Reports. Volume 57, 1978, pp. 49-68.
  5. ↑ Annual overview: Chronicle of the New Women's Movement: 1979. ( Memento from May 30, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) In: FrauenMediaTurm.de. 2011, accessed June 7, 2020.
  6. ↑ Senta Trömel-Plötz: Father language, mother country: observations on language and politics. Frauenoffensive, Munich 1992, ISBN 3-88104-219-9 , p. 23: Chapter The exclusion of women from the university .
  7. ↑ Dagmar Stahlberg & Sabine Sczesny: Effects of the generic masculine and alternative forms of language on the mental inclusion of women. In: Psychological Rundschau. Volume 52, No. 3, September 1, 2001, pp. 131–140 ( doi: 10.1026 // 0033-3042.52.3.131 ; PDF: 284 kB, 9 pages on journalistinnen.de ( Memento from September 8, 2008 in the Internet Archive )).
  8. ↑ a b Georg Stötzel , Martin Wengeler (ed.): Controversial terms: history of public language use in the Federal Republic of Germany . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-11-014106-X , p. 527 ( google.de ).
  9. ↑ Michael Hausherr-Mälzer: The language of the patriarchy: language as an image and tool of male society . Peter Lang, Frankfurt / M. 1990, ISBN 3-631-43088-4 , pp. 36 .
  10. ^ Marlis Hellinger: Contrastive Feminist Linguistics: Mechanisms of Linguistic Discrimination in English and German . M. Hueber, Ismaning 1990, ISBN 3-19-006605-1 , p. 70 .
  11. ^ Luise F. Pusch : German as a male language . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1984, ISBN 3-518-11217-1 , pp. 31 .
  12. ^ Ingrid Samel: Introduction to Feminist Linguistics . 2nd Edition. E. Schmidt, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-503-04978-9 , pp. 139 .
  13. ↑ Gisela Klann-Delius: Language and Gender: An Introduction . Metzler, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-476-10349-8 , pp. 17 .
  14. ↑ Karl Lenz, Maria Adler: Gender Relations: Introduction to the Social Scientific Gender Research . Juventa, Weinheim 2010, ISBN 978-3-7799-2301-5 , p. 100 ( google.de ).
  15. ↑ Susanna Häberlin, Rachel Schmid, Eva Lia Wyss: Practice makes perfect. Advice on non-sexist language use . Munich 1992, p. 104 .
  16. ↑ Margarete Jäger: Violence against women - through language? ( diss-duisburg.de ).
  17. ↑ Ministry of Justice, Women, Youth and Family of the State of Schleswig-Holstein: Guide to gender-equitable formulation: More women in language. Kiel December 2000, p. 11 ( PDF: 628 kB, 32 pages ( Memento from March 31, 2010 in the Internet Archive )).
  18. ↑ Bettina Jobin: Genus im Wandel . Dissertation, Stockholm 2004, p. 63.
  19. ^ Ingrid Thurner: Choreography of special characters ( Memento from February 9, 2015 in the Internet Archive ). In: Wiener Zeitung , January 31, 2015.
  20. ↑ Ingrid Thurner: Against sex in sentence structure In: Die Presse , July 17, 2014.
  21. ↑ a b c d e Margarete Jäger : Violence against women - through language? Unpublished lecture manuscript, edited by the Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research 2000, as of September 25, 2006, accessed on June 9, 2020.
  22. ^ Ulrich Dewald: Controversy: Feminist Linguistics. In: Wissenschaft.de . January 16, 2008, accessed June 9, 2020.
  23. ↑ a b Wolfgang Klein : Gender equitable speaking: “One should leave the language like that”. In: LN-online.de . February 4, 2019, accessed June 9, 2020.
  24. ↑ Ulrich Greiner : Gendern: Are we threatened by language censorship? Yes! In: The time . May 29, 2018, accessed June 9, 2020 (behind a paywall ).
  25. ^ Josef Bayer : Languages ​​always change - but never in the direction of nonsense. In: NZZ.ch . April 10, 2019, accessed June 9, 2020.