The Critique of Gender Linguistics from the Perspective of Feminist Linguistics

Introduction. The paper reviews features and main problems of feminist linguistics. The novelty of the study is an unparalleled take on feminist linguistics in contradistinction to gender linguistics; the identification of their fundamental differences as well as emphasizing arguments in favour of both scholarly importance and practical value of feminist linguistic studies. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the lack of academic papers concerning the subject; the growing interest in studying the language as an anthropocentric sociocultural phenomenon; and the increasing significance of the feminist movement world-wide.

Methodology and data sources. The theoretical foundation of the study constitutes Russian and foreign gender studies (works of А. V. Kirilina, А. М. Kuznetsov), feminist sociological and sociolinguistic studies (L. N. Kaznin, R. Lakoff, M. Fuko) as well as feminist linguistic studies (N. A. Antropova, E. Gorshko, O. A. Voronina, E. Zdravomyslova, A. V. Tolstokorova). The methods of the study include both analysis and synthesis of theoretical material; polling research; the analysis of the collected data.

Results and discussion. The latest results on feminist linguistics research are showing inadequacy of the attempts of proving the existence of either «women’s language», «men’s language», or genderlect. This is in fact entirely sociocultural phenomenon of the replicating women’s and men’s behavioral patterns in a particular culture, including the patterns of speech. Feminist linguistics uses a more in-depth approach in the studies and addresses the language system directly, identifying gender asymmetry that is evident in the androcentrism of a language; it also develops strategies against language sexism and suggests concrete ways of its elimination, such as the introduction of gender-neutral lexical units and feminine gender-specific job titles, the implementation of inclusive language. All of that is possible with feminist language reforms and appropriate feminist language planning.

Conclusion. An overview of conventional gender linguistics findings draws to a conclusion that feminist linguistic studies introduce lots of new ideas of a special value to linguistics. Feminist language critique is a progressive course of modern linguistics that draws attention to the most vital language issues of the society and suggests effective means of addressing them.

1. Krapivenskii, S. (1996), Sotsial’naya filosofiya [Social philosophy], available at: https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/krapiv/01.php (accessed 20.01.2021).

2. Shevchenko, Z.V., “Biodeterminism”, Slovar’ gendernykh terminov [Dictionary of gender terms], available at: http://a-z-gender.net/biodeterminizm.html (accessed 20.01.2021).

3. Kirilina, A.V. (2004), Gendernye issledovaniya v lingvistike i teorii kommunikatsii [Gender studies in linguistics and communication theory], Russian political encyclopedia, Moscow, RUS.

4. Antropova, N.A. (2015), “To the question of reforming the modern German language under the influence of the feminist criticism of the language”, Philology: scientific research, no. 4, pp. 292–301. DOI: 10.7256 / 2305-6177.2015.4.17404.

5. Khrestomatiya feministskikh tekstov. Perevody [Reader of feminist texts. Translations] (2000), in Zdravomyslova, E. and Temkina, A. (eds.), Dmitrii Bulanin, SPb., RUS, available at: http://cisr.pro/files/publ/Xrest_fem_texts.pdf (accessed 20.01.2021).

6. Kuznetsov, A.M. (2005), “Feminism and linguistics: gender aspects of language”, Chelovek: obraz i sushchnost’ [Human: image and essence], no. 1 (16), pp. 165–186.

7. Tolstokorova, A.V. (2005), “Gender Sensitive Reform of Language as an Element of the Global Social Policy: Experience of International Woman's Movement”, The Journal of Social Policy Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 87–110.

8. Kaznin, L.N. (2009), “Gender theory in social science”, Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University, ser. 12, no. 4, pp. 71–77.

9. Lakoff, R. (1975), Language and Woman's Place, Harper and Row, N.Y, USA.

10. Foucault, M. (1996), Volya k istine: po tu storonu znaniya, vlasti i seksual'nosti [The Will to Truth: Beyond Knowledge, Power and Sexuality], Transl. by Tabachnikova, S., Magisterium, Castal, Moscow, RUS.

11. “Electronic collection of scientific works by E. Gorshko”, Tekstologiya.ru, available at: http://www.textology.ru/razdel.aspx?id=17 (accessed 20.01.2021).

12. Voronina, O.A. (2019), “Construction and deconstruction of gender in modern humanitarian knowledge”, Bulletin of Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology, no. 1, pp. 5–16. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2019-1-5-16.

13. Beauvoir, S. (2010), The second sex, Transl. by Borde, C. and Malovany-Chevallier, Sh., Vintage books, N.Y., USA, available at: https://www.academia.edu/32540858/1949_simone_de_beauvoir

14. _the_second _sex_pdf (accessed 20.01.2021).

15. Kirilina, A.V. (1999), Gender: lingvisticheskie aspekty [Gender: linguistic aspects], Institute of Sociology RAS, Moscow, RUS.

16. Laskova, M.V. (2001), “Grammatical category of gender in the aspect of gender linguistics”, Abstract of Dr. Sci (Philol.) dissertation, RSUE, Rostov-on-Don, RUS.

17. Jespersen, O. (1922), Language, its nature, development and origin, Allen & Unwin, London, UK.

18. Mauthner, F. (1921), Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache, Cotta, Stuttgart, DEU.

19. Labov, W. (1972), Sociolinguistic patterns, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USA.

20. Mead, M. (1949), Male and female: a study of sexes in a changing world, William Morrow & Co, N.Y., USA.

21. Tannen, D. (1996), Gender and discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

22. Goffman, E. (1994), Interaktion und Geschlecht, Campus, Frankfurt am Main, DEU.

23. Kolosova, O.A. (1996), “Cognitive foundations of language categories: on the material of modern English”, Abstract of Dr. Sci. (Philol.) dissertation, MSU, Moscow, RUS.

24. Homberger, D. (1993),“Männersprache – Frauensprache: Ein Problem der Sprachkultur?”, Muttersprache, vol. 193, pp. 89–112.

25. Key, M. (1975), Male/Female Language, The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.Y., USA.

26. Dawkins, R. (2008), Bog kak illyuziya [God as an illusion], CoLibri, Moscow, RUS.

27. Dobrovol’skii, D.O. and Kirilina, A.V. (2000), “Feminist ideology in gender studies and scientific criteria”, Gender kak intriga poznaniya [Gender as the intrigue of cognition], Rudomino, Moscow, RUS, available at: http://www.owl.ru/library/002t.html (accessed 20.01.2021).

28. Tafel, K. (1997), Die Frau im Spiegel der russischen Sprache, Harassowitz, Wiesbaden, DEU.

29. Samel, I. (1995), Einführung in die feministische Sprachwissenschaft, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, DEU.

30. Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. (1974), The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA.

31. Hirschauer, St. (1993), “Dekonstruktion und rekonstruktion. Plädoyer für die Erforschung des Bekannten”, Feministische Studien, vol. 2, pp. 55–68.

32. Kirilina, A.V. (2000), “Gender studies in foreign and Russian linguistics (philosophical and methodological aspects)”, Social sciences and modernity, no. 4, pp. 138–143.

33. “When women gained the right to vote around the world”, Locals, available at: https://locals.md/2018/kogda-zhenshhinyi-poluchili-pravo-golosa-v-raznyih-stranah-mira-karta/ (accessed 20.01.2021).

34. Gorshko, E., Gendernaya problematika v yazykoznanii [Gender issues in linguistics], available at: http://www.owl.ru/win/books/articles/goroshko.htm (accessed 20.01.2021).

35. Edwards, J. (1996), “Language, Prestige, and Stigma”, Contact Linguistics, vol. 1, pp.703–709.

36. Ferguson, G. (2006), Language Planning and Education, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

37. Liddicoat, J.A. and Baldauf, B.R. (2008), “Language Planning in Local Contexts: Agents, Contexts and Interactions”, Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts, pp. 3–17. DOI: 10.21832/9781847690647-002.

38. Gender equality in Swedeen, available at: https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/ (accessed 20.01.2021).

39. “Global gender gap report 2020” (2020), World Economic Forum, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf (accessed 20.01.2021).

40. Reforma feministskogo yazyka [Reform of the feminist language], available at: https://ru.qaz.wiki/wiki/Feminist_language_reform (accessed 20.01.2021).

41. “Feminist Philosophy of Language”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/ (accessed 20.01.2021).

42. Obshcherossiiskii klassifikator professii rabochikh, dolzhnostei sluzhashchikh i tarifnykh razryadov [All-Russian Classifier of Workers’ Professions, Employee Positions and Wage Grades], available at: http://okpdtr.ru/ (accessed 20.01.2021).

43. Startseva, M. (2020), “Pornography is Yulia's arrest, not her drawings. What is the essence of the case of the artist Yulia Tsvetkova and why is it important for everyone”, Gorizontal'naya Rossiya,

44. June, available at: https://7x7-journal.ru/articles/2020/06/27/pornografiya-arest-yulii-a-ne-ee-risunki-v-chem-sut-dela-hudozhnicy-yulii-cvetkovoj-i- pochemu-ono-vazhno-dlya-vseh (accessed 20.01.2021).

45. “Activist Yulia Tsvetkova entered the list of the most influential women in the world”, Radio Svoboda [Radio Liberty], available at: https://www.svoboda.org/a/30966931.html (accessed 20.01.2021).

46. “Women 2020”, Glamour, available at: https://www.glamour.ru/woty2020/woty2020 (accessed 20.01.2021).