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 by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2017 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:||As my colleagues have indicated, many non-linguists tend to over-estimate the impact of pure grammar on the culture. If you want more examples, modern Persian (aka Farsi) as spoken in modern Iran has actually LOST its grammatical gender, but the culture still has not equalized the legal status of men and women. On the other hand, some research suggests that there can be more subtle impacts such as the "rule" that one male dog overrides 50 million women in grammatical agreement. However, grammars and expressions can change to fit new social realities. In American English, it was once considered ridiculous to use terms like "Congresswoman", but now its perfectly legitimate as is the gender-neutral term "Representative". It should be noted that social language engineering has its limits. Too much, too soon can lead to derision from speakers if it does not match their social realities. For example, the proposed "Congressperson" never did become common, partly for reasons of prosody I think. Pinker has a good discussion on the changing terms for Americans of African heritage over the decades. His comment is that the goal of changing the term is to remove the derogatory nature of the previous term. However, he notes that the terms won't stop changing until true social equality between the races is achieved and the CONCEPT of coming from an African heritage is considered as positive as having a European heritage in the U.S. In other words, thoughts drive language in most cases. It's good to be aware of the bias in your language, but it's harder to flip that switch across all speakers.|
|Reply From:||Elizabeth J Pyatt click here to access email|