The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
Ask-A-Linguist Message Details
|Subject:||To what extent can grammar be sexist?|
|Question:||Marie Darrieussecq, the French novelist, said recently on BBC Radio that the freedom of women in France is very much a matter of words and iit is related to the language: you have to add an e for the feminine form as if being a woman was an accident as opposed tp the universal masculine normality. Grammatically, one man rules over any number of women and if, for example, you want to say five million women and a dog, you have to use the masculine because dog is masculine. She added that when a young girl at school, she learnt that the masculine rules over the feminine and that the language says something about the society. To what extent is this argument valid? I have always understood noun gender as a way of dividing nouns into classes rather than a reflection of human gender differences (famously, the German for girl is neuter) and the Bantu languages, less confusingly, use instead the term noun classes, of which there are many. Is this really a case of projecting society's historic characteristics onto grammar rather than grammar refledting society or is it a two-way process?|
|Reply:||It is certainly true that in French, a group that includes at least one masculine member is referred to in the aggregate by the masculine gender, no matter how many items of feminine gender might be included. This is a fact about French as she is used nowadays; it doesn't say anything about how French may be used 100, 200, or 500 years from now. If the community of French-speakers decide they want to change this, not even the Academy can stop them. My impression, based on discussion with some French feminists, is that this issue is VERY far down their list of priorities; there are a WHOLE LOT OF OTHER things that, in their opinion, are more important to deal with. It is also true that there is no evidence that the grammar of a particular language *forces* the speakers of that language to think a certain way. In particular, it is true that most European languages have a gender system based on sexual metaphors; other languages -- e.g., Turkish, Bantu, Chinese -- don't; they have gender systems based on quite different metaphors. But that doesn't make the *societies using those languages* any less sexist. So, yes, to be brief, it's much more a matter of projecting a society's charateristics onto the grammar of the language used by that society than the other way around. And the language will change in ways that the community using that language want it to change.|
|Reply From:||Steven Schaufele click here to access email|