Sex und Gender - drei Sichtweisen und Gemeinsamkeiten (German Edition)

The industry needed to recruit a new audience.

Friese, Annika [WorldCat Identities]

They started making films about taboos of society. Their main audience, young single adults or couples. Another factor is poverty; they could not afford to go to the cinema. Britain started working with international film industries; they needed the American market to help cover film costs. British Lion had served as a permissive catch-all for independent film makers and that it had backed some adventurous projects.

Sue Harper, , pg As films became more hedonistic, they dealt with issues such as permissiveness, infidelity and abortion. This required the censorship laws to be revised. Film used social and political issues, becoming apparent in Britain. This gave them more freedom in film content.

Alfie dealt with issues in London that encircled his life and followed him throughout the film. The political issue of Abortion is raised in the film. It shows us how women were treated by men and the gender roles and difference. John Hill, , pg Alfie does exaggerate, he is an individual, he does not represent the whole era.

The most influential issue of the film is abortion. The Abortion Act was. Technically the law did not legalise abortions, but rather provided a legal defence for those carrying them out. Abortions can legally be performed under certain conditions - the first is that continuing with the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination.

The woman's "actual or reasonably foreseeable future environment" may be taken into account. Abortion up to 24 weeks is also allowed if there is a substantial risk that the child when born would suffer "such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped". An abortion must be agreed by two doctors or one in an emergency and carried out by a doctor in a government-approved hospital or clinic.

Working class women could still not get a legal abortion, so committed the crime of an illegal abortion. Alfie demeans women and treats them like objects for his pleasure. Women could not support themselves or a family without a man. Women were paid a lesser wage.

She now has financial stability for her and her child with Alfie, who refused to marry her. The character Ruby is a rich American woman; he says he would settle down with. He then knew how it felt, and he could not carry on his hedonistic lifestyle. Also more recent psycholinguistic or neurolinguistic studies on the subject are integrated in this chapter. In chapter four, grammar-theoretical discussions on gender are re-evaluated crit- ically.

The time-frame was chosen to represent earliest works up to the beginnings the previous century. Important research questions in this chapter will be: How did early grammarians view grammatical gender? How is the early debate on the semantic content of grammatical gender depicted and how did it influence the work of early feminist linguists. In chapter five more recent grammar-theoretical approaches will be evaluated. These includes diachronic approaches to the discussion on grammatical gender.

The critical evaluation with the above framework shows that feminist language critique is now part of different fields of study, even if grammar theorists often do not recognize the work of feminist linguistics. An empirical study forms the second part of this thesis. Metaphors more exactly personifications are analyzed according to their degree of conventional- ization.

The idea is that metaphors especially hint at more or less schematized language structures. The study asks if the semantic content of grammatical gen- der is transferred onto things or items and if so, if traditional gender dichotomy is reproduced and constructed in this way. It is expected that there is a tendency to personify unanimated entities, as for example institutions, by using grammatical gender as an indicator for the perceived gender of the target metaphor.

Chapter 6, thus presents the methodology used in this study. Combined methods from computer and corpus-linguistics were implemented in order to create useful data. In chapter seven, the resulting database is presented. A few examples from the data contained in this database illustrate its possible uses and preliminary interpretation of this data is provided.

A comparable study was conducted by Jobin in Nomina referring to institutions were checked according to their nominal predicates and if those were using the feminine gender in accordance with the gender of the noun. Theoretical framework In this chapter a post-structural approach to language and grammar is developed, which forms the basis of this study. First, the idea of a preliminary language sys- tem is investigated. The usage of the terms grammatical gender and biological gender in this study is established. Subsequently, an overview on conceptual metaphor theory and its relation to the notion of embodiment is given.

Furthermore, the relation of such a constructivist viewpoint to the theory of Linguistic Relativ- ity is discussed. Post-structuralist approaches to language and grammar This study incorporates a somewhat different view of grammar and, more pre- cisely, the category grammatical gender based on the substantial work Die spr- achliche Benennung von Personen aus konstruktivistischer Sicht by Lann Horn- scheidt ; Hornscheidt , and the pragmatic approach of Sophia Mar- maridou ; Marmaridou ; Marmaridou b.

Femi- nist language criticism has been divided into two branches so far: For the German language, system-critique has centered on the so-called generic masculine or else the default gender cf. The theoretical framework in this study is applied to feminist language criticism and grammar theory approaches by embodying a con- structivist perspective which no longer supports the strict differentiation between the language system and language usage in order to show that the very ideological debate pursued so far is based on this strict division or, more particular, on the idea that such a division is necessary.

The main idea of a post-structural approach is that grammar and gender in particular cannot be understood without regard to language use. Grammar, in particular gender, not only entails some kind of meaning but is a grammatical tool that triggers and produces meanings. Theoretical framework This is one of the key assumptions of the recently developing field of cognitive linguistics, too.

It can no longer be assumed that anyone is able to view the concept of grammar objectively and separated from the parole. Furthermore, all descriptions of grammar are themselves language uses and thus actively contribute to the reinforcement of certain linguistic practices. Structural linguistics, also its feminist branch, has been viewing language as mirroring reality, especially when it comes to the topic of language and gender. This, first of all, presupposes that there is such a thing as extra-linguistic reality which is disconnected from language and precedes language and thus grammatical gender.

Secondly, it also presupposes that there are precisely two genders in the world, man and woman, and nothing else. According to Hornscheidt the first point entails the idea that one systematically can change language. Hence, it is suggested by Hornscheidt to shift focus from the language system to language use and to view use as being at the core of language.

It is further insisted on the relevance of language as an instrument to construct our realities. Those media which use and convey language, according to Hornscheidt, play an important role as they often have normative effects. Consequently, it is not inherently language that is discriminating but it is how speakers are used to speak.

Alfie-Industry. Gender and Sex in 1960’s London

But also what we call the language system partially defines and normalizes and legitimizes how we are used to speak. The investigation of language hence is shifted towards a pragmatic direction. According to Marmaridou, later approaches then either focused on the hearer or on the speaker and devel- oped two-way models of communication. More recent views are based on a different view of language. One, the so-called cognitivist framework sees language as being a prod- uct of mental activity.

Theoretical framework Marmaridou similarly explains the objectivist paradigm as such that it assumes that language mirrors an external reality. Words, phrases and expressions are therefore theoretically able to correctly express an item or content and they can be true or false. This objective approach does not link human cognition and existence in any way or even sees them as being related. Thus, there is a certain way in which the world actually is, independently of how people think, interpret, believe or perceive the world.

Objectivist viewpoints of word meaning need to presuppose two types of knowl- edge: This means, it is pre- sumed that language users know which features constitute an entity on the one hand and on the other that the users know about features that can be optional in an entity. In this way, objectivist semantics can distinguish between what is in the language definitional knowledge and what is not encyclopedic knowledge.

Such as- pects are then interpreted as being beyond the power of language because they are part of the existing world. This is also the reason why abstract concepts such as emotions etc. The above is also entailed in the discussion on whether or not there actually is meaning in the grammatical category gender.

Hornscheidt suggests to present a new model of analyzing reference. The term reference in accordance with the constructivist viewpoint is called personal appellation. Studies so far were focussing on portraying the relationship between grammatical gender and human gender. Especially, studies of German still focus on separating genus from sexus without taking into account that the notion of sexus has fundamentally changed: Gender is a constructivist 1 cf.

Theoretical framework view of a social category and the constructivist viewpoint doubts that linguistic structures are preceding language use. This view of language has severe conse- quences for what meaning and grammar signify and which status is attributed to grammar and grammatical gender respectively. Meaning thus is dependent on conceptualization and it is viewed as something dynamic and situational — it is not just there. A very simplified summarization of this view could be: Meaning does not exist until you mean something.

In terms of research she suggests a change of terminology that goes from static concepts to a more dynamic, process-oriented terminology. Furthermore, some forms of language use are viewed as strongly standardized or normalized. Because they are functioning in such a way, they obtain the status of a system: If we assume that the category grammatical gender at least includes some se- mantic residue, then it cannot be studied by grammar theory alone.

Theoretical framework According to Marmaridou , thus, social meaning is directly related to structures of thinking instead of being a mental image of something that exists in an external reality. The metaphor of knowledge as being engraved in the brain, as something that determines how we act and what we say has become obsolete. Rather our gray matter is flexible and changeable and so social meaning is not something that is constant but rather processual.

An important point in these approaches is that they conceive of language as being motivated by cognitive structure as well as interacting with it. What is interesting, and does not go very well with the described the construc- tivist view are the terms cognitive structure and brain structure do not suggest synaptic plasticity and processuality. Of course, brain plasticity has to be taken into account when regarding the interaction between language users and brain structure. This means that the interaction is not only influencing the way we speak but also our experience with language could theoretically change the way our brain is formed.

Such a view could in general be described as an internalist view of language in opposition to the structuralist view, which always distinguishes between language and external reality. Embodiment of thinking Clark accurately describes models that separate between an internal and external or real world as isolationalist views of the mind. Theoretical framework the mind functions by sending-receiving input or as he puts it: Also most approaches to grammar and grammatical gender can be classified as isolationalist, as they distinguish between the linguistic and the extra-linguistic, between language and the real world.

In such approaches the mind is viewed as an entity by itself that is independent of the body by which it is carried.

Passwort vergessen?

But what exactly is meant by the term embodiment in internalist approaches? In cognitive science, as Ziemke puts it: According to Wilson , what has become known today as embodied cognition has its starting point in earlier theories that assumed that there is no thinking without vision. Cognition is situated 2. Cognition is time pressured 3. We off-load cognitive work onto the environment 4.

The environment is part of the cognitive system 5. Cognition is for action 6. Off-line cognition is body based. The first view on embodiment states that cognition is situated which means that thinking is related to tasks. Point two means that there are sometimes situations in which the cognizer needs to react quickly to a situation.

That this time pressure is the im- portant factor in human cognition is denied by Wilson, as according to her, time pressure is not always included in human action. The third type of theory pre- sumes that we try to use less memory in situations i. This saves energy, for example, when we turn our- selves in a direction while explaining the way to someone. Theoretical framework only involving the mind but also includes the body and environment—situation and cognizer are one system.

The fifth approach views cognition, especially the function of memory, as having developed for moving through a three-dimensional space. Memory thus developed for action. Wilson though criticizes this view for assuming a too direct link to action. The basic idea of the last approach to embodiment of cognition is that: Wilson here lists as example mental imagery: The most important definition of embodiment for linguistics probably comes from Lakoff and Johnson , who claim that thinking is not happening outside the body and that the body is also more than just a vessel carrying the mind.

They further state that: The notion that our thinking is embodied hence implies that it is in some way associated with our sensory-motor system. For example, if someone suffers from Agoraphobia, the fear of spiders, simply imagining a spider can lead to symptoms of fear like rapid pulse, increasing per- spiration and so on. The brain thus cannot distinguish between a thing being there and seeing it or just imagining it. Gallese and Lakoff explain this with the following example: Gallese and Lakoff call their theory an interactionist theory of meaning. What does this concept of embodiment thus mean for the study of the rela- tionship between grammatical gender and gender?

If we use grammatical patterns like the generic masculine thus, this results in two problems: If we think about people it is a social imperative to divide them into females and males5. For the study of gram- matical gender this means that what is often downplayed as semantic residue in grammar cannot be ignored. Most studies do not actually deny that there is some often vague connection between grammatical gender and gender. Often though this connection is viewed as minor and thus ignored in studies on grammatical gender.

But more recent studies from cognitive linguistics focus on exactly how this connection functions and see it as central to the study of grammatical gender. Also grammar is viewed as being embodied and from that it follows that it must carry meanings that relate to our bodily experience. As Wilson puts it: In this view the embodied knowledge of the physical world forms the connection between syntax and semantics.

From this follows, if language is embodied it is 5 see also page 83; there is a social imperative to categorize people in binary gender opposition Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, , p.

Pusch 7 for a review Wilson suggests: Theoretical framework also engendered because it is a primary imperative in our daily lives to distinguish between men and women. This means that language has formed along the lines of language usage and not that language usage is just some sort of side-product of language structure. If language and thi- nking respectively lie in the human body, the question is, how this functions and how our bodily experiences are organized? Metaphors as embodied thinking One possible answer to this question may be provided by conceptual metaphor theory, also first introduced by Lakoff and Johnson Lakoff and Johnson have claimed that our brain organizes such experiences in conceptual metaphors and idealized cognitive models.

Metaphors in conceptual metaphor theory are seen as major constituents of both natural language and thought. It is assumed that metaphors indicate underlying thought patterns Deignan, , p. Deignan lists as the most important tenets of conceptual metaphor theory the following: Lakoff and Johnson argue that knowledge is linked to language by what they call conceptual metaphors.

Conceptual metaphors are defined as semantic areas or categories which help organizing our knowledge of the world. These conceptual metaphors are then realized through language in the form of linguistic metaphors. In this sense the conceptual metaphor approach could be classified as a rationalistic approach as it assumes underlying ideas and concepts that humans derive from their experience of the world. At the same time metaphors are also used to structure new knowledge. Deignan exemplifies this aspect by relating it to our knowledge of a relatively new semantic domain: One could therefore maybe speak of the embodiment of language, because even different languages which are not related in their structure often share the same conceptual metaphors: Thus, below actual metaphoric expressions lie conceptual metaphors that structure our thinking, also structuring our gendered thinking.

An example for this would be the following9: Theoretical framework Behind this maybe lies an appellation to the status of the named company as a joint-stock cooperation, in German die AG, a feminine word which the noun implicitly could refer to. From a point of view of conceptual metaphor theory one could say that it is very common to cognitively structure abstract entities such as corporate enterprises as human.

This conceptual metaphor that we perceive of enterprises as people even has found entrance into laws, as we conceive of the status of such enterprises as juristic person or artificial person. According to Lakoff and Johnson such conceptual metaphors are structured by so-called idealized cognitive models. Idealized cognitive models Idealized cognitive models hereafter referred to as ICM are categorizations that are represented in the mind or frames of thinking that we have They correspond roughly with prototypes but they also are cognitive or pre-linguistic.

This means that only a comparison of a cognitive model with a concrete situation enables a decision on which words to choose when trying to express a concept. Lakoff and Johnson refer to the very popular example of the word Bachelor cf. Often, thus, more than one ICM is at work at the same time, which have to be balanced. Not all of these categories have to apply constantly or with every mother. The important point is that we as speakers usually are aware of all four of these categories.

ICMs are also very closely related to prototypes. Prototypes are the most typical representative of a concept — so in the above case the prototypical mother would integrate all four of these categories. Lakoff and Johnson thus do not define language as being an instrument of mirroring or picturing some external reality but rather as language being structured in so-called mappings.

Metaphorical mapping Wildgen lists the following further functions of conceptual metaphors: For example, if we ask the question to what extend we need to personify abstract entities to be able to speak about them? ICMs usually are not reflected and for the most part never questioned within a society. According to Hornscheidt ICMs also are better suited than semantics to explain attributions of meanings as they show asymmetries. As in the example above, Lakoff and Johnson seem to take gender for granted and is not questioned.

Further criticism on Lakoff and Johnson is that their model is a one-way street, i. The idea that there is an interdependency between speaking and thinking though has been taken up again more recently in cognitive linguistics as well. Thus, meaning is discursive and is only produced in contexts, in accordance with Hornscheidt, , p. In summary, cognitive linguistics no longer assumes that language simply entails meaning but rather that it also triggers meaning. Meaning is not some external reality that exists independently of speaking. Hence, there is an interdependency between speaking and thinking.

With this point one has ask in which direction this interdependency goes. Is language influencing thinking or is it the other way around? Approaches which assume some influence of thinking on speaking are often subsumed under the label linguistic relativity. Linguistic relativity The principle of linguistic relativity was formulated by Benjamin Lee Whorf and was, for a short period, followed with interest. After the topic was dropped by linguistics, especially formal linguistics showed no more interest in it. Only recently this principle has gained new interest cf.

Werlen , Marmaridou A very useful definition of how the principle linguistic relativity is viewed today is provided by Werlen Werlen and others esp. Hornscheidt , Levinson particularly criticize the generative understanding of language as it favors the system over the parole. This, according to Werlen , is problematic empirically as languages are only accessible through the parole. Hornscheidt goes even further in her critique of generative approaches that are especially promi- nent in the U. For her it is problematic that the focus of research was for too long on language competence, and in an extreme: Also Levinson stresses the point that the actual speaking is, by some advocates of generative approaches, felt as noise produced by the biological ba- sis.

Levinson cites numerous recent studies, which have brought forward evidence for a relation between language and thought. Some studies on color coding, for example, have shown that not all people distinguish the same colors Similar studies tested spatial directions in different languages. Speakers of such languages were found to be much more accurate in their senses of direction compared to speakers with egocentric or viewpoint spatial systems.

Thus, as Werlen puts it: This results in different lan- guages having different pictures of the world Werlen, , pp. Grammatical gender, in the discussion about linguistic relativity, was discussed quite frequently. The argument of feminist linguistics that women are not visible in language because of the generic masculine form and that for this reason they are simply forgotten is, according to Werlen , a classical language relative argument: From this point of view it comes evident that traditional linguists, especially formalist and generative linguistics, tend to negate the ideas of feminist linguis- tics.

Also Rothmund and Scheele agree with Werlen in that a language psychological view of the situation of dis- crimination through the generic masculine necessarily returns to the principle of linguistic relativity Rothmund and Scheele, , p. Transferred onto the study of gender this suggests that if a language is able to signal gender through a grammatical gender system, like in German personal appellation, then speakers will also make this distinction and find it central for their communication.

Theoretical framework To summarize, in opposition to the cognitive linguistic view developed by Lakoff and Johnson , cognitive linguistics today no longer speak of a onesided influence of the body on language thinking. Rather, language influences how we think AND our body influences how we speak—the influence is reciprocal in its nature. For her the processual nature of language and thinking are not represented well in this approach. She suggests that it may be better explained by a constructivist approach.

Language and grammar from a constructivist point of view In post-structural theory language is defined in the framework of a constructivist understanding in the following way. Lang- uage is thus understood as means of actively creating a distinctive imagination and view of reality through the usage of language [.

What does this mean in difference to linguistic relativity? First of all, the defini- tion of reality is no longer an external one but rather internally formed - there is no extra-linguistic world. The world as humans see it is constructed discursively. In her theoretical outline Hornscheidt refers to the philosophical discussion on constructivism, among others also to Ernst Glasersfeld and Pierre Bourdieu It rather states that reality is not discernible i.

This philosophical view has a strong effect on basic principles in linguistics, be- cause it asks why linguistics separates what we know about language from what 14 cf. Theoretical framework we know about the world. Post-structural theory sees the context as the crucial moment at which we negotiate meaning. Thus, what a word or even a sentence means is constructed through and with language while we use it. In the field of linguistics however these consequences have not been highly regarded so far.

So far, it was assumee that there is a difference between the language system and language usage. This fact is criticized by post-modern theory and especially by constructivist theories. Thus, linguistics has so far completely disregarded its own highly normative character. Language is in this new viewpoint no longer seen as inher- ently carrying meaning as well as it is not separated from an independent system of grammar.

Rather, meaning in language is constructed through usage, more precisely through repeated use and reinforcing use. As Hornscheidt puts it: Through the rep- etition of a specific use such patterns are reinforced. If then, the idea of a language system which exists independently is reinforced, this too seems to be a natural phenomenon. Hornscheidt raises the question if it is possible that no such 16 see Hornscheidt and also references therein to Michel Foucault: In that sense what we know about the language we acquire is, like what we know of the world, a result of experiences we make.

Meaning is something a group of speakers appoints to a word and it does not lie in the word itself. In this view a word, a phrase or even a language does not exist independently of its user and thus is not bound to any strict system. The system as well as the meaning we give to it is created through using the language. In the same way looking upon the language and describing it i. Hornscheidt suggests that based on this perception also the category gender can appear in a new light. In this context, it is thus important to ask which social group s declare their view on the world and on what we in our every day language call reality and regard as the reality, and how they do this and what kind of appellation and standardization practices they use Hornscheidt, , p.

The focus here is on linguistic practice s and in this context Hornscheidt again refers to Bourdieu and his Theory of Practice pp. Bourdieu develops a process related way of viewing different social struc- tures which is not contingent on drawing borderlines between polar opposites or dichotomies Watts, , p. The main focus in his theory is on the processual nature of structures which we also find mirrored in recent theories on grammaticalization cf. In this sense any kind of language usage could also be termed as a form of social practice.

This theory sets language as a means to continually construct the world. Hornscheidt here raises the question if not the notion of a language system only came into being through its continual repetition that made it appear natural. In other words, was grammar not created by repeatedly describing grammar? Hornscheidt introduces two terms to grasp the level of the language system in an alter- native way. It is viewed as a combination of convention and authorization of a very distinct language use Hornscheidt, , p.

This would then explain language change simply as preferring another new convention over the old one. In her discussion of feminist linguistics Hornscheidt observes such autho- rizing processes and concludes that one question becomes apparent, namely: In linguistics the most prestigious way of looking at language is looking at its structure If linguistics has language as an object of research this cannot only entail parts of language and there cannot be a hierarchy regarding which parts of language are more scientific and more real.

This idea also should be valid for the field of feminist linguistics. Furthermore, the langue is traditionally treated as the more important thing whereas the parole was treated as a minor point. Theoretical framework it being a determiner of how the langue develops. Recent theory asks rather how relationships and links of signs are and how meaning arises from these relationships and links.

Post-structural theory does not go along with the earlier, purely prescriptive approaches of the 19th century but rather goes in the other direction in that it assumes that a purely descriptive view on language is not possible Hornscheidt, , pp. Es- pecially the field of feminist linguistics was and is criticized for being ideological as opposed to theoretical.

With her critique Hornscheidt demonstrates that also within structuralist and generative linguistics ideological biases exist and that more recent approaches, especially in feminist linguistics, have their validity ex- actly because they look at language use. In the following section, some basic concepts developed by Hornscheidt are introduced, as they are understood and used in this study. Conventionalization and conventionalized meaning Conventionalization is the basis for the power of linguistic speech acts: So for a convention to remain a convention it needs to be continually repeated and it also has to be repaired continually.

The convention could be viewed as in competition with other conventions and thus it has to be restated again and again to strengthen it—otherwise it might be replaced. This effect is visible in the following example: In German the word die Studierenden is used instead of the generic die Studenten. It is a form of grammatical abstraction by 21 Hornscheidt here refers to Joseph and Taylor , pp.

Theoretical framework using a nominalized participle in its plural form. But the abstraction from gram- matical gender only works in the plural form. There is, however, a tendency to use the participle in the singular and with a masculine article i. So, the convention of using the generic masculine is repaired. Hornscheidt views conventions as a historic processes in which social norms are sedimented.

Thus, in a constructivist framework we speak of conventionalization as this better indicates the processual charac- ter of this phenomenon. By setting such a norm it is further implied that a certain kind of language usage is valid over time, that it also is unchangeable and that it mirrors something underlying. The dispute on grammatical gender in linguis- tics is thus also a form of conventionalizing and authorizing a certain language norm.

Linguistic theories on the generic masculine, for example, that assume its neutrality are reflected in grammars and language textbooks. In this way the convention is continued and also the linguistic discourse on gender so has a nor- malizing effect. Grammar theories are thus not, as many claim, more objective and exclusively descriptive. Rather, grammar theories also promote and pass on standardized language usage i.

The concept conventionalized meaning is introduced to replace the idea that meaning actually resides within a word and is static. Hornscheidt here follows Marmaridou and explains conventionalized meaning as emerging when contextual meaning is continually repeated and thus becomes schematized. Such conventionalized meanings then no longer bear contextual meaning, but rather sanction contextual meaning via processes of schematizing.

This means that similar meanings are so often generated in the same context that we as language users believe the meaning is not developed in the context but resides within the word itself. We are used to think that words mean something by themselves and tend to forget that we as language users actually have a say in what words mean.

Therefore, we as language users do no longer conceive of language as being something creative but rather see it as expressing thoughts passively. This is what Hornscheidt calls conventionalized meanings: Constructivist approaches thus view grammar also as a form of language usage, which has become strongly conventionalized: These are at the same time the authorizing sources that evoke the idea of being more important than actual and concrete language usage.

By focusing on the context in analysis a different view on meaning develops. Rather than regarding meaning as an aspect of a linguistic sign it is perceived to be evolving in interaction. Hornscheidt criticizes that most pragmatic approaches keep assuming an underlying, relatively static language system, even if it does not play a major role in their analyses.

Friese, Annika

In this context the question is raised if assuming a language system is not rather an analytical item rather than a language inherent one. Furthermore, did not the continuous repetition of the idea of a language sys- tem naturalize different aspects of language usage as system? According to Horn- scheidt a complementary pragmatic approach contributes a further level of meaning to the structuralist and generativist approaches by building on the as- pect of grammaticalization of different phenomena.

Hornscheidt takes up a perspective view of pragmatics in which the borderlines between pragmatics and semantics are given up: The level of the language system is thus defined in a different way. It is moreover a convention and actively conventionalizing and authorizing of a certain kind of language usage. This means, the approach of Hornscheidt gives up the idea of a system that exists before language usage altogether cf. In this way research avoids analyzing actual language usage.

With the so-called linguistic turn discourse analytical approaches 23 for a criticism of this and a plead of core meaning see Kienpointner , p. Theoretical framework appeared that in contrast stress the analysis of language usage. But even in these, often a separation between language and an extra-linguistic reality is implicit. It is suggested to rather view gender assignment along pragmatic criteria which means that language is fundamentally viewed as language use. All efforts of stating the pre-discursive should be analysed critically by asking which phenomenon such approaches naturalize.

Within linguistics the relationship of language and thinking was associated with linguistic relativ- ity exclusively for a long time. This had the effect that this topic was ignored for quite some time in linguistics, as the topic had become unappealing for lin- guists More recently language has detached from the field of linguistics and became interesting for other fields of research as well. Thus, a new understanding of language has found its way into the humanities. Its center of interest is lang- uage usage. Another important level is the relationship of language usage to the language users.

Even the relatively young field of research cognitive lingusitics often has a structuralist character. According to Hornscheidt , pp. But also here the basic assumption is that language expresses or influences mental repre- sentation in some way or the other. Butler goes even further by saying that even the body is cultural [cf. The construction of the body without question is also emphasized: There is no approach, no way of understanding nature: The problem with constructivism in this sense is that it leads into a certain extend of determinism.

By that the ability to act, which women only just have reached as subjects, was questioned again. For Hornscheidt the so-called de-construction of the category woman does not negate the category but allows us to focus at the category as such. The notion of linguistic action is crucial in constituting the category i.

Theoretical framework pellation the category woman is often constituted by using grammatical gender. This construction is an ongoing process, language is viewed as a performative act that evokes what it denominates p. Thus, grammatical gender can be pragmatically used to construct the category gender in language and this is done frequently. In much the same way the term personal reference implies a distinction of reference and per- son and this means that referring to someone is temporally subordinated to the actual person. Hornscheidt constitutes reference rather as a communal communicative performance of interactants—it is possible that trying to achieve reference does not work.

There is a reciprocity of communicative events Horn- scheidt, , pp. In the case of grammatical gender this means that understanding a reference as gender specific or not does not only depend on lang- uage systematic categories i. Hornscheidt speaks of reference in a pragmatic way as acts of denomi- nation. How we refer to people is also a something we are used to do, a practice we have internalized, while we are unaware of the categorizations of humans we also promote with this: Theoretical framework humans in this way and not in another.

It is what we are used to do that dictates us to do it, not that grammar does not offer other possibilities. Hornscheidt introduces the term appellation as opposed to the traditional term reference and argues that to refer to someone actually constitutes an act of naming: Personal appellation and gender Hornscheidt defines personal appellation the following way: All Germanic languages especially categorize appellation according to gender, which has partly led to a grammaticalization of this categorization.

Linguistically, gender differentiations appear in combination with many other possible features but not all features are equally relevant in all linguistic communities and thus they are not conventionally found in personal appellation in all linguistic communities.

The main point in this observation is that grammatical gender can neither be seen as something that existed before there was a relation to gender or it can be said that there is a clear relation of grammatical gender to gender. In contrast to feminist linguistic theories Hornscheidt does not assume that linguistic gender is inherently discriminating but rather that it opens the pragmatic possibility to be used in such a way cf.

Grammaticalization How can grammaticalization theory be of use for the analysis of gender specifica- tions? In this process the relative pre-existence of a rule set is constructed. It is relative because it always is retro-actively established by abstracting from a certain language usage. In our every day understanding of language, supported by grammar textbooks, this achieves the status of a system.

Grammaticalization offers the possibility to connect diachronic and synchronic perspectives on language. A very clear definition of grammaticalization is from Heine and Kuteva: Grammar is thus a construct of social agreement. One of the major starting points for a grammaticalization process is, according to Lehmann , that speakers have the feeling that their linguistic means are insufficient and inadequate. Gram- maticalization is a diachronic phenomenon because language change is a historic process, but the basic interest is synchronic and focuses on actuality Hornscheidt, , p.

Within cognitively oriented research into grammaticalization it is further assumed that there are source concepts. These basic concepts, similarly to ICMs, refer back to the physical basis of human cognition. According to Horn- scheidt here it is important to ask in how far the basic concept of gender is of such high relevance cf. This further implies that there may be cases in which it is obligatory and thus rule 27 cf.

Theoretical framework based to express gender and thus gender specification could be understood as a grammatical phenomenon that sometimes employs grammatical gender. A theoretical framework for the further discussion on linguistic research has been laid out. The most im- portant assumption is that the language system is viewed as a form of language usage which is more or less conventionalized. Thus, a strong focus on language use for linguistic analysis is promoted.

Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature In this chapter an overview on the development of feminist linguistics from the s to the present day is given. There is a strong focus on the German lang- uage area, but also influences from the English speaking research community are discussed. Parts of this chapter were also published in German in Posch The development of feminist linguistics In the German language area feminist linguistics has been established since the nineteen seventies.

The field deals on the one hand with discourse studies, the differences between men and women in talk and interaction and how these con- tribute to discrimination. On the other hand it is concerned with the grammar of German as a factor in the ongoing struggle for equal rights. This occupation with potentially discriminating structures in language has acquired some fame under the name system critique, the criticism of the language system i.

This branch of feminist linguistics focuses on the so-called generic masculine or default masculine in personal appellation. Luise Pusch , one of the pioneers of feminist linguistics, provokingly asked how it can be possible that a group with 99 female students and one male student, in German can be subsumed under the generic masculine term Studenten see Pusch ; ; ; In the fol- lowing section, a short overview of the developments of feminist language system critique will given.

The struggle from the first critique of the generic masculine to forms of gender symmetric language usage found today will be illustrated shortly and some more recent approaches to the field of study will be touched on. The question why a renewed focus on gender fair language use is indispensable for the humanities will be raised. In the German language area an inimitable dispute arose immediately after the first feminist language analyses were published.

The differentiation or the intermixture of grammatical gender and sexus was the source of this fight. Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature der2. She describes some aspects which are particularly relevant for the German language with regard to grammatical gender. Thus, she mainly criticizes what is known as generic masculine or default gender: In German women can be denoted with a grammatically masculine form without problems, as for example in a sentence like the following: Rather, the masculine form can be used if the sex of a person is not known or irrelevant.

Naturally, early German feminist linguistic approaches were strongly influenced by the engagement with language and gender of American feminist researchers, such as Dale Spender [] , Ann Bodine [] , Wendy Martyna [] and many more. Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature criticism. In the follow- ing section provides a brief overview of the main arguments of English feminist language critique.

The generic masculine or default In English, as opposed to German, grammatical gender is no longer a distinctive feature3. One of the first English language approaches to a critique of the generic masculine forms was made by Australian feminist researcher Dale Spender in She harshly criticized prescriptive grammarians who worked in favor of enhancing the masculine pronoun he over the older generic form they. Common gender reference Human Non-human masc.

Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature more actively enforced into the language than in German. Usage of the generic he was already documented from Old English onwards, the reason being that referents and writers of those texts were male, or as Ronneberger-Sibold puts it: So Ronneberger-Sibold assumes that the reason that the masculine ended up becoming the default form lies in the fact that men were seen as the default human. In English feminist linguistics, hence, there was some discussion on the question whether or not the actual act of prescribing the generic masculine actively contributed to its very broad proliferation.

This idea is taken up, among others by, Bodine [] Bodine [] advances the view that the generic masculine would not have been equally triumphant if it had not been promoted by descriptive grammars. In there was a first attempt to correct the agreement in sen- tences in which they referred to a singular.

This was considered as a rule violation and they was substituted by he Curzan, , p. Curzan, as opposed to Bodine, is of the opinion that these prescriptive acts cemented the generic us- age of the masculine form but that it had already existed much earlier. In her study, Curzan concludes that: The following example from Curzan shows Middle English generic usage: Syche a persone ys ful slogh, Be he hygh, or be he logh Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature is, of course, the sociocultural and economic dominance of men in a patriarchally organized society [.

According to Ronneberger-Sibold, one has to ask why there seems to be an apparent difficulty of matching historical linguistics with feminist linguistics Ronneberger-Sibold, , p. Still, it was partly because of grammatical prescriptions that language usage is in favor of and from the viewpoint of men. Grammarians insisted on it being used in this way for the sake grammatical correctness. This attempt to correct grammar was later set into official law7. In that way, even at this time, grammar was not only a systematic feature of a language but rather a tool used for creating a systematization which later would become natural to language users.

Spender, an advocate of the Sapir—Whorf—Hypothesis cf. Leonard, 7 cf. Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature language policy had on language users, and she very much focuses on language usage. As she puts it: The approach of Spender [] thus criticizes the general opinion that grammar is something objective that actually exists within a language but inde- pendent of language users. It might be argued though that grammarians only tried to capture the functioning of the gender categories. Linguistics has long tried to whitewash its own field by referring to the arbitrariness of language and by stretching this term to its breaking point Spender [] It was usually not necessary to give any explanation on why a man would be mentioned before a woman.

So, grammarians were on safe ground arguing against common they on the basis of the so-called natural order. Behind this lies the belief that men have to come first in a natural order, the idea of the superiority of the male, of the being the more original human being just as it is said in the Bible. Spender sees in this a first reflection of patriarchy in the language structure. She here refers to one of the oldest prescriptive works The Arte of Rhetorique by Thomas Wilson , who said: And what though it often so happeneth God wot the more pitty yet in speaking at the least, let vs keepe a naturall order, and set the man before the woman for maners sake Wilson, [], Book III.

Spender, and after her many others, criticize the very big role that prescriptiveness played and still plays in the construction of grammars. Especially, as grammarians generally tend to refer to other grammarians for confirmation of what is grammatically correct: This point is also taken up by Curzan , who adds that also more modern approaches often use sexist rhetoric concerning generic usage, even if not as naive and more subtle Curzan, , p.

Her focus is much more on language use than it is on grammar alone and she anticipates the idea that also grammar is a form of language usage — an approach which is beginning to gain acceptance in German feminist linguistics today. Her idea that also grammar is part of language usage is impressively shown in the following excerpt: In this pro- cess women have played little or no part. The basic idea is the following: Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature on the other hand use the generic form according to its written-down grammat- ical standards of correctness Spender, [], p.

This idea has since been confirmed by some reception studies, which today also are a big field in the research on gender in the German language cf. Gabriel and Mellenberger Spender [] also refers to an interesting study that documented that male schoolteachers felt not recognized appropriately by being referred to as she. This was normal at that time simply because there were not many male elementary schoolteachers. When male teachers began to enter this profession, they felt poorly recognized by being referred to generically as she.

The teachers requested to use generic he rather than she, because they felt being lowered by the negative image that was evoked with the feminine pronoun. As supportive argument they used that the correct and proper use of the English language would command to use generic he rather than she. The same thing happened in German as well. As soon as there were first male applicants for becoming a nurse, the German word Krankenschwester was re- placed by the newly coined term Krankenpfleger, which as a generic could serve for both, men and women Pusch, , p.

The seem- ingly objective criteria of grammatical correctness are thus quickly unmasked as practical solution to serve the idea that men are on a higher rank than women. A female Austrian Politician, Waltraud Klasnic, was elected into the office of a provincial governor, called Landeshauptmann. She explicitly insisted on being called Landeshauptmann instead of Landeshaupt- frau as if the title would be lessened by using -frau. Also Pober refers to the first Landeshauptfrau provincial governor in Austria, Waltraud Klasnic.

Pseudogeneric Spender [] further anticipates arguments later taken up by German feminist linguists by asking the question: The idea that the generic or default masculine does not function to include both, men an women, equally is later taken up by numerous studies, some of which will be discussed in section 3. On the one hand, women are always required to figure out if they are actually meant or not.

Men always are sure to be addressed by the generic form. According to Spender [] , who is a follower of the idea of linguistic relativity, the interchangeable mode of usage of the masculine form, sex-specific on the one hand and generic on the other, puts women in the position of being unsure whether they are meant or not.

Feminist language critique of English has also, of course, many opponents in academic discourse. This was in the s and then the problem was simply pushed away by linguists as a psychological problem rather than a linguistic one. Martyna comments on this debate rather cynical: How can both be true? On the grounds of it being uneconomical, linguists often rejected proposals of feminist linguists to make language more gender fair. Bodine [] conducted a survey of 33 school grammars used in Amer- ican junior and senior high schools.

Furthermore, they were ac- tively perpetuating on the notion of what is or is not correct, which was created by grammarians. It is ex- actly this social significance which makes grammatical gender problematic. She does not say that a pro- noun, i. This entails legal consequences as well.

• Book Box Sex Und Gender Drei Sichtweisen Und Gemeinsamkeiten By Annika Friese Pdf.
• .
• Gesammelte Werke (German Edition).
• .

The same effect was later criticized for the German language as well, for further discussion, see section 3. One notable difference between approaches towards feminist linguistic between English and German is that English examples very often compare sexist language to racist language. This is not done with the same consistency in German. On the other hand, racism is more often sooner taken seriously than is sexism, or as Martyna [] puts it: This means, sexism in the German speaking community maybe is still more acceptable than it is in the English speaking community.

Maybe this is also because, at least in Austria, there is still a stronger tendency to supporting patriarchal family structures, as for instance the annual Gender Gap Report indicates Thus, racism would rather be sanctioned than sexism. Still, founded criticism for the relative neglecting of racism in German linguistics cannot be given here and would be subject for further research. Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi, Thus, his argumentation exemplarily illustrates the development of the debate on feminist linguistics. Structuralist linguistics have defined the generic masculine usually not as masculine but rather as gender neutral in the mode of a part-whole relation.

It thus rather constitutes a coincidence that of all things the masculine form represents the neutral form. Hence, if we come across a sentence like: In 14 Tagen ist Weihnachten. Feminist linguistics — overview of the literature way: