Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T17:17:39.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Susan Ehrlich  and
Ruth King
Susan Ehrlich
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3
Ruth King
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In arguing for the necessity of gender-based language reform, feminist theorists have generally assumed that language is not a neutral and transparent means of representing reality. Rather, language is assumed to codify an androcentric worldview. While sexist language clearly reflects sexist social practices, the continuing existence of such practices throws into question the possibility of successful language reform. Because linguistic meanings are, to a large extent, socially constructed and constituted, terms initially introduced to be nonsexist and neutral may lose their neutrality in the mouths of a sexist speech community and/or culture. In this article we first examine the way in which nonsexist innovations have been appropriated by a sexist speech community. More specifically, we examine uses of neutral generics such as chairperson, spokesperson; singular they; he or she; and neutral titles such as Ms.; and we demonstrate that these terms are often not used nor interpreted in their intended (neutral) way. Rather, they are used in ways that maintain sexist stereotypes and distinctions. Then we examine the use of feminist linguistic innovations as they appear in the print media. We demonstrate the extent to which such terms get redefined and depoliticized by a speech community that is not predominantly feminist and is often sexist. (Language and gender, language and race, nonsexist language, gender-based language reform, neutral generics, discourse analysis)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 59 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, Donna (1987). Names and titles: Maiden name retention and the use of Ms. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 9: 56–83.Google Scholar
Bern, Sandra & Bern, Darryl (1973). Does sex-based advertising “ aid and abet” sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 3:6–18.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborach (1990a). Demythologizing sociolinguistics. In Joseph, John & Taylor, Talbot (eds.), Ideologies of language, 79–93. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborach (1990b). Why is language a feminist issue? In Cameron, Deborah (ed.), The feminist critique of language, 1–28. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou, & Crouch, Isabel (1987). Linguistic disruption: he/she, s/he, he or she, he-she. In Penfield, Joyce (ed.), Women and language in transition, 28–35. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1994). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, & King, Ruth (1992). Gender-based language reform and the social construction of meaning. Discourse & Society 3:151–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger (1985). Power. In van Dijk, Teun (ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis, vol.4, 61–82. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frank, Francine, & Treichler, Paula A. (1989). Language, gender and professional writing. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan (1991). Between speech and silence: The problematics of research on language and gender. In Leonardo, Michelle di (ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge, 175–203. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graddol, David, & Swann, Joan (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herman, Edward & Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Khosroshahi, Fatemeh (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Language in Society 18:505–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther, & Hodge, Robert (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1989). The sexual (re)production of meaning. In Frank, Francine & Treichler, Paula (eds.), Language, gender and professional writing, 35–50. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Miller, Casey, & Swift, Kate (1976). Words and women. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Penelope, Julia (1990). Speaking freely: Unlearning the lies of the fathers' tongues. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Seidel, Gill (1985). Political discourse analysis. In van Dijk, Teun (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 4, 4360. New York: AcademicGoogle Scholar
Seidel, Gill (1988). The British new right's “enemy within”: The antiracists. In Smitherman-Donaldson, Geneva & van Dijk, Teun (eds.), Discourse and discrimination, 131–43. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1985). Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In Mertz, Elizabeth & Parmentier, Richard J. (eds.), Semiotic mediation, 219–59. New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinem, Gloria (1983). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Sunderland, Jane (1991). The decline of man. Journal of Pragmatics 16:505–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treichler, Paula (1990). Feminism, medicine and the meaning of childbirth. In Jacobus, Mary et al. (eds.), Body/politics: Women and the discourses of science, 113–38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda (1982). Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica 38:299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, Susan L. (1992). Step forward: Sexual harassment in the workplace. New York: MasterMedia.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul (1992). The fog of political correctness. Tikkun 7:53–96.Google Scholar
Boot, William (1992). The Clarence Thomas hearings. Columbia Journalism Review, 02, pp. 25–9.Google Scholar
Castro, Janice (1992). Sexual harassment: A guide. Time, 01. 20, p. 37.Google Scholar
Hurst, Linda (1991). “Politically correct”? Think before you speak. The Toronto Star, 06 2.Google Scholar
Letwin, Shirley (1991). Law and the unreasonable woman. National Review, 11 18, pp. 34–6.Google Scholar
Minogue, Kenneth (1991). The goddess that failed. National Review, 11 18, pp. 46–8.Google Scholar
Morgenson, Gretchen (1991). May I have the pleasure ⃛ National Review, 11 18, pp.36–41.Google Scholar
Taki, (1991). On manners. National Review, 11 18, pp. 58–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, John (1991). Are you politically correct? New York, 01 21, pp. 32–40.Google Scholar