Feminist language reform
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Part of a series on|
Feminist language reform or feminist language planning refers to the effort, often of political and grassroots movements, to change how language is used to gender people, activities and ideas on an individual and societal level. This initiative has been adopted in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Australia, and has been tentatively linked to higher gender equality.
Linguistic activism and feminist authorship stemming from second wave feminism in the 1960s and 70s began to draw attention to gender bias in language, including "the uncovering of the gendered nature of many linguistic rules and norms". Scholarship such as Dennis Baron's "Grammar and Gender" and Anne Bodine's "Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar" uncovered historical male regulation to promote male-centric language such as the use of "he" as a generic pronoun.
Exposition and analysis of sexism in language through a grassroots feminist linguistics movement continued throughout the 80's and 90's, including study across languages and speech communities such as Germany and France. Study and documentation of gendered language has since spread to cover over 30 languages.
Sweden have made strides towards shifting their language to fit a less misogynistic society. In the Swedish language, there has never been a word for the female genitalia or even a translation of the word “vagina”, even though the word snopp translates to “penis” and has been used as such since the 1960s. Through history, there have been many slang terms used for the woman’s genitalia, including words such as fitta translated to “cunt”, där nere translated to “down-there”, and even mus translated to “mouse”. In the 1990s, Swedish media started to bring the absence of such a word to light. It wasn’t until the early 2000s did the feminists and activists start using the word snippa to be identified with the female genitalia. Snippa’s origins can be traced back to many different Swedish dialects. It’s popular definition “refers to something small and/or narrow, for example a small pike or a narrow boat”. In regards to genitalia, “it might have been used to refer to female genitalia of cows and pigs in the early twentieth century”. Since the popularization of using the word Snippa, the Swedish Academy added the word to the 2006 Swedish Language Dictionary.
Some language reformers directly work with identifying and changing sexist undertones and patriarchal vocabulary through a method called “linguistic disruption”. An example: In the United States, the word “herstory” became popularized “to refer to history which is not only about men”. Sweden has also showed efforts in language planning regarding changing misogynistic undertones in their vocabulary. The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education has promoted the word slidkrans to replace the word for “hymen”, mödomshinna. “The new word, slidkrans, is made up of the two parts slid, translating to “vaginal” and krans, translating to “garland”. It lacks the connotations of the ideology of virginity and honour attached to mödomshinna.”
Additionally, Sweden has also shown efforts in accepting more of a non-gender binary identity by creating the gender-neutral pronoun hen, which has been used by feminists and the LGBT community. Feminist language reform regarding gender is not of recent efforts. Early feminist language reformists have been fighting the male-dominant approach to language and raising awareness to the public about the gendered structure of the society’s language.
Australia has been identified as a nation that officially promotes the feminist influence to its public bureaucracy by implementing feminist language reform across many institutions. Since this planned social shift, Australia has seen changes in political and government leadership that aim to interfere with this reform, such as a shift towards a conservative-leaning government. There are shifts that come from such movements that support them as well, such as the gender-neutral pronoun “they” being more widely accepted.
The ongoing feminist movement acknowledges language as a “powerful instrument of patriarchy”. The goals set for linguistic reform aim to achieve linguistic equality of the sexes. A study of Australian newspapers from 1992 and 1996 found that the word “chairman” was used to describe all people holding the position, including women. This is an example of a linguistic issue that feminist’s seek to reform. Occupational nomenclature reflects gender bias when “professional nomenclature used in employment-related contexts displays bias in favour of men leading to women’s invisibility in this area.” The invisibility of women is a linguistic feminist issue because when encountering sentences predominantly using male pronouns, listeners are more likely to think of men before women and therefore women get overlooked. Positions are gendered to be male and the “continuing, frequent use reflects the fact that far more men than women continue to occupy this position.” This study further investigated and found instances of female professionals being specified as women while men would just be titled with the profession itself, for example “female judge,” “woman engineer,” and “woman politician.”
Switzerland has attempted to implement feminist language reform both formally and informally. However, changes in Switzerland have proven to be complicated due to the fact that Switzerland is a multilingual country (with the major languages being German, French, and Italian). The Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (Swiss Bulletin of Applied Linguistics) addressed this issue in 2000 when it created a special issue dedicated to the feminization of language in Switzerland. The bulletin attempted to critique language in Switzerland by creating a composite image of all the languages in Switzerland and how they interact with gender.
The most commonly spoken language in Switzerland is German. German is a gendered language. This has concerned some language activists due to the fact that many important societal position such as judge and professor possess the gender of male and are often referred to as he/him. Activists worry that the gendering of those words discourage women from entering those fields. This facet of the German language is particularly important in Switzerland because it was historically used as a justification to restrict women’s right to vote and pass the bar.
Various attempts to implement feminist language reform have been undertaken in German speaking Switzerland. The government and other organizations have attempted to implement language feminization in the realms of policy making, teaching, advertising, etc. Language feminization refers to when in writing or talking traditional male words are feminized by either using the feminine variant of the word or adding a feminine suffix. However, these attempts have had only limited success. For example, private Swiss radio and television broadcasts still generally use the generic-masculine form of words.
The second most commonly spoken language in Switzerland is French which is also a gendered language. The French language raises similar concerns to that of the German language. This is because many nouns (especially those of professions) are gendered. To address these concerns, the Swiss government has created a guide on the non-sexist use of the French language. However, these attempts at change have been met with little success. This is due to the fact that Switzerland has limited influence over the French language. Meanwhile, France and specifically the government backed Académie Française (French Academy) (the French council for matters relating to the French language) has resisted feminist language reform.
The main focus of Feminist Language Reform is to acknowledge the often unconscious ways that language both silences and emphasizes gender in negative ways. In some languages it is clear with gendered nouns how some words are gendered to associate those words with maleness of femaleness. Feminist Philosophers argue that English, a non gendered language, still has the need for Language Reform.
Previous language reform attempts to avoid sexist words or phrases were addressed in a symptomatic manner. Often in the workplace, employees were given pamphlets with lists of words to avoid or preferred words to use. Many modern day feminists argue that this is ineffective because it does not address the root of the problem or make the large scale changes to the language that they feel are necessary.
A major part of the theory focuses on when words or phrases make one gender, typically women, subjugated or invisible compared to the other. The most popular examples are the pronoun “he” or the word “man”. Feminist Language Philosophers argue that these words participate in making women invisible by having them being used to refer to men and also women. The fact that the pronouns or words for the male gender can be also used to refer to the female gender shows how maleness is dominant and femaleness is subjugated.
Feminist Language Theory also focuses on when words or phrases emphasize a break in gender norms. Clear examples of this are words like Lady Doctor or Manageress. These are positions of power that are typically held by men. Therefore, when a woman holds them, they need a new title to emphasize their break of social norm. It also goes both ways, with terms like male nurse referring to a man in a typically feminine role. Feminist Language Reform seeks to remove words like this because they help to sustain unhealthy gender norms.
Some modern feminists, like Sergio Bolaños Cuellar, argue that feminist language reforms needs to reverse the generic masculine forms and create a generic feminine form with words like he or man being replaced with she or woman.
Cases of feminist language planning have taken a largely sociolinguistic approach in which the goal is to enact social change through the reform of language and language use. This approach to language planning is divided into four stages:
- Fact-finding in which language issues are identified and reported.
- Planning in which solutions to the issue are proposed.
- Implementation in which agreed upon methods are tested and the final solution implemented.
- Evaluation and Feedback in which the results of the plan are assessed for effectiveness and the overall affects of the plan are evaluated.
- Binnen-I, a convention for gender-neutral language in German
- Gender-neutral language
- Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender
- Gender-neutral pronoun
- Lavender linguistics
- Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). "Feminist language planning". Current Issues in Language Planning. 12 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1080/14664208.2011.548314.
- Milles, K. (2011). "Feminist Language Planning in Sweden". Current Issues in Language Planning. 12 (1): 21–33. doi:10.1080/14664208.2011.541388.
- Wyss, E. L. (1997). ""Feminist" Language Change: Some Reflections on the Situation in Switzerland". Sprachspiegel. 53 (3): 85–92.
- Prewitt-Freilino, J.; Caswell, T. A.; Laakso, E. K. (2012). "The Gendering of Language: A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages". Sex Roles. 66 (3): 268–281. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5.
- Pauwels, Anne (1993). "Language planning, language reform and the sexes in australia". Australian Review of Applied Linguistics.
- Pauwels, Anne (2003). "Linguistic Sexism and Feminist Linguistic Activism". The Handbook and Language of Gender.
- Baron, Dennis (1987). Grammar and Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Bodine, Anne (1975). "Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: singular ‘they’, sex-indefinite ‘he’, and ‘he or she’". Language in Society. doi:10.1017/s0047404500004607.
- Leue, Elisabeth (2000). "Gender and Language in Germany". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe.
- Fleischman, S. (1997). "The battle of feminism and bon usage: instituting nonsexist usage in French". French Review.
- Hellinger, M.; Bußmann, H. (2001). Gender across languages The linguistic representation of women and men. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamin's Publishing Company. pp. Preface.
- Pauwels, Anne (1999-11-14). "Feminist Language Planning: Has it been worthwhile?". Linguistik Online (in German). 2 (1). ISSN 1615-3014.
- Motschenbacher, Heiko (2012). An interdisciplinary bibliography on language, gender, and sexuality. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 294. ISBN 9789027273154.
- Winter, Jo (December 23, 2010). "'Trajectories of Agency' and Discursive Identities in Education: A Critical Site in Feminist Language Planning". Current Issues in Language Planning: 171–198 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
- Saul, Jennifer; Diaz-Leon, Esa (2017). Zalta, Edward N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Mucchi-Faina, Angelica (March 1, 2005). "Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality". Social Science Information. 44: 10 – via Sage.
- Fiedler, Klaus (2011-03-15). Social Communication. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781136872426.
- Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 2016-01-15. ISBN 9783110379082.
- Fleischman, Suzanne (1997). "The Battle of Feminism and Bon Usage: Instituting Nonsexist Usage in French". The French Review. 70 (6): 834–844. JSTOR 398544.
- "Nonsexist language reform and 'political correctness.': Discovery Service for Loyola Marymount Univ". eds.b.ebscohost.com. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
- Bolaños Cuéllar, Sergio (2006-06-01). "Women's language: a struggle to overcome inequality". Forma y Función.
- Majstorovic, Danijela; Lassen, Inger (2011). Living with Patriarchy : Discursive Constructions of Gendered Subjects across Cultures. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 74. ISBN 9789027206367.
- Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of language and gender (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons.