Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
This is just a general thought that keeps coming back to me and was provoked again by the most recent thing I happened to read. I apologise if this issue has already been brought up here and you're all tired of talking about it. What I just read is an article by Pius ten Hacken*, and the part of it that has provoked me is a discussion of present-day variations in the treatment of gender in German, with one variety being described as "originally motivated and adopted only by feminist linguists... [but] now often encountered also in official and popular publications and speech". Expressed in my own terms (rather than those of ten Hacken, who incidentally cites others in his purely descriptive comment on the issue; none of what follows is his fault!), traditional German usage "neutralizes" gender distinctions, and does so by generalizing the masculine, in cases such as the following (ten Hacken's glosses where he gives one, and elsewhere I follow his style): a. Hans und Monika sind Ingenieure. 'Hans and Monika are male-engineers' b. Monika ist ein guter Ingenieur. 'Monika is a good male-engineer' In what I shall slightly facetiously refer to as feminist German (ten H. calls it "German B"), says ten Hacken, both of these sentences are starred. In (b) the word _Ingenieurin_ 'female-engineer' must be used in this variety. The following sentence has different meanings in the two varieties (his example, my glosses): c. Wegen Krankheit mussten drei Ingenieure ersetzt werden. In traditional German: "Three engineers had to be replaced because of illness." In feminist German: "Three male engineers had to be replaced because of illness." To express the meaning of the first of these two glosses, the closest that feminist German can come is (d): d. Wegen Krankheit mussten drei Ingenieurinnen und Ingenieure ersetzt werden. "Three female engineers and male engineers had to be replaced..." So much for German, via ten Hacken. In Spanish similar things are happening (perhaps the Spanish feminists copied their German colleagues?). Whereas traditional Spanish uses the masculine in a "neutral" sense, like German, so that _alumnos_ can refer to male students or to students of either sex (_alumnas_ means "female students"), the "feminist Spanish" preferred form where a mixed-sex group is intended would be _alumnas y alumnos_", which in writing is quite often abbreviated to _alumnas/os_. Owing to the recurrence of these suffixes due to agreement phenomena, there can result written texts that are virtually unpronounceable, e.g. e. todas/os las/os otras/os alumnas/os implicadas/os "all the other students involved" Very rarely, I have seen an orthographic usage (presumably with no spoken equivalent) consisting of employing the characterMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueto represent a/o, so (e) would be spelt as in (e'): e'. tod
s l
s otr
s alumn
s implicad
s I don't know if anyone has looked into the grammatical implications of this convention, but it certainly looks... well, politically correct. Now comes my question. I have a native language (English) in which the main (if not quite the only) linguistic difficulty for feminists and pro-feminists (among whom I think I wish to include myself) is the handling of third-person singular pronouns, which is troublesome enough, as anyone who has tried to write in a consistently "non-sexist" way knows for her/himself. So we're very lucky that, in English, engineers are engineers and students are students, irrespective of sex. Indeed, if we could only somehow eliminate the gender distinction from that one darned pronominal contrast, it would be almost plain sailing. Secondly, I live and work in a language, Basque, that makes virtually no gender distinctions; your interlocutor can talk away for hours about her friend without your being able to discover the sex of the latter other than by asking outright. Wonderful! It seems to me that the most obvious route to making languages like German, Spanish and English less "sexist" is via the elimination of grammaticalized sex-related gender markers, rather than multiplying them. Yet the multiplication of such markers, and the insistence on a "no neutralization" policy, are what I observe in the "feminist" varieties of German and Spanish referred to above. Surely the best solution to the German _Ingenieur_ problem is to *avoid* any unnecessary use of the marked derivative _Ingenieurin_, and if a change can be made and is possible, this should be to extend the meaning of _Ingenieur_ in the direction of further neutralization; this would also seem to be easier to achieve. (English _chairman_ versus _chairwoman_ is a harder one, but _chairperson_ seems to be making satisfactory headway.) It should not be to make the gender distinction more obligatory than it presently is and insist on *reducing* the applicability of the linguistically least marked term, _Ingenieur_, to make it mean "male only". If gender distinctions in these languages are a nuisance, the solution, it seems to me, might be found by looking in the direction of genderless languages like Basque (and many others) rather than by going in the opposite direction. Ten Hacken also cites Rothstein** on the example of Russian, where it seems there is a similar development to that described for German, with the difference that there is also a third variety "where the feminine variant is avoided altogether". Doesn't that make much more sense? Any appearance of political incorrectness in the above is purely coincidental. REFERENCES * Pius ten Hacken, _A principled approach to paradigms_ (Technical Report 95-6), URZ + IFI, University of Basel, 1995. ** Robert A. Rothstein, 'Sex, Gender, and the October Revolution', in S.R. Anderson & P Kiparsky (eds), _A Festschrift for Morris Halle_, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, p. 460-466, 1973. Alan R. King Zarautz Gipuzkoa, Basque Country mccay
jet.es
I am interested in knowing if any research has been done on the effect of acronyms on processing time of sentences. This was brought up on a different mail-list, when one list-member contended that acronyms slow down the processing time, because they have to be "unpacked" and the component parts have to be accessed individually. My hypothesis is that most acronyms would be stored in the lexicon as a single entry, and that they would not differ significantly in access time from other lexical entries. Does anyone know whether this has been tested, and if so, what the findings were? TIA, Ken Hyde Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kennyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuestrauss.udel.edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me
Dear linguists I'm trying to collect all the information about catalan linguistic resources, such as word lists, dictionaries, any kind of texts or corpora (catalan, bilingual...), and other data available in an electronic suport (web pages, ftp sites, cd-rom, etc). I need your collabration...any idea, suggestions, addresses, etc? I'll post a summary if i get enough data! Thanks in advance, Eulalia de Bobes .______________________.____________________________________. | | Eul`alia de Bobes | | | Lab. de Ling"u'istica Inform`atica | | e.bobesMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueoasis.uab.es | Univ. Aut`onoma de Barcelona | | ilfe2
cc.uab.es | (Dept. Filologia Espanyola) | "----------------------"------------------------------------"