Adventures in Linguistic Sexism

LINGUISTIC SEXISM                                                                        2

Abstract

This paper, separated into three sections, delves into the realm of linguistic sexism and the impact it has on society at large. Section One: Understanding Language describes discourse and how society uses it. Humans shape themselves through their discourse and the words they say, whether or not they acknowledge it. This prelude, a prerequisite to understanding the implications of linguistic sexism, begins the journey to understanding critical discourse and how to engage in it. Section Two: Gendered Language addresses the questions of linguistic sexism directly. Included in this discussion subjects like stereotypes, sex-paired words, male generics, generic pronouns, titles, and marked terms have a place. This paper goes in depth on each issue, and discusses its patriarchal implications. Section Three: The Alternative explains why society needs to change its ways, and provides possible solutions. Some such solutions include the plural “their” and excluding the use of pronouns altogether in certain writings. Overall, this paper serves to explain linguistic sexism and its harms in society.

 LINGUISTIC SEXISM                                                                        3        

Section One: Understanding Language

Since the topic of linguistic sexism has to do with language and the way words come into form and ultimately use, society must first understand the role language plays in the overall shaping of thoughts and actions. After all, the ways humans use language have profound impacts on how society views each individual member (Amare, 2007, p. 165). Language, the tool humans use to communicate, shapes the surrounding environment and changes how each member views each other. Without words to put to specific actions, everyday interactions would seem meaningless. Through language, society forms views, opinions, knowledge production, and societal norms (Nneka, 2012, p. 1). Language has the power to include everyone in a constructive way and include all groups in a functioning society. On the opposite hand, it can also actively exclude particular groups and create destructive practices (Nneka, 2012, p. 1). If the words used by a particular people group cause another group harm, then it has achieved its oppressive potential. However, if the language builds up both groups, it fosters a more inclusive environment for both parties to flourish (Amare, 2007, p. 165).

The next part of language, symbolic uses of words, complicates matters more. For every word in the English language, a symbol exists (Maryann, 1983, p. 186). Without a symbol, words would cease to have any meaning and language would devolve into meaningless gibberish (Maryann, 1983, p. 186). The concept of symbols may seem simple, however they can become extremely complex very quickly. A symbol can grow and change over time, making it extremely dynamic (Maryann, 1983, p. 192). Language can change depending on who uses it and in what context (Nielsen, n.d., p. 57). For example, take this literal symbol: #. Generations past would call the symbol a “pound” key, while the current generation calls this a “hashtag.” The thing itself did not change, only the word used to describe it. This example illustrates that words can evolve in meaning depending on its usage and the implications associated with it. This fact,

LINGUSTIC SEXISM                                                                        4

with the possibility of consistency among all words, means language at large has potential to change (Maryann, 1983, p. 192). Many may not see the importance of evaluating language if it will eventually evolve again, however the only way language can evolve comes through recognizing assumptions in current language and actively striving to fix them (Maryann, 1983, p. 192).

Understanding of general language and symbols, while important, does not define discourse, the main purpose of the paper. Instead, discourse defines itself in relation to the function of words in sentences and the meaning behind them (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 44). Each individual word has unique connotations associated with it, and society should recognize this to monitor the underlying themes each word presents. In this way, the words used in social settings and how they get applied to everyday life constitutes discourse (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 44). It not only applies to language, discourse applies itself to culture as well (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 50). This fact proves evident through the way different people groups view different words. In fact, some cultures do not even have words to describe another culture’s objects, emotions, or thoughts. In this way, language not only forms society, but it also structures community values and hierarchies, as well as knowledge production (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 50).

Discourse, while somewhat closer to the specific issue at hand, still finds itself too broad a category. Linguistic sexism best falls under the category of critical discourse. Critical discourse takes a different approach to language than mere symbols or syntax. It deals mainly with how society comes to produce its ideals and what becomes viewed as common knowledge (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 57). Critical discourse gets put to use when something commonly accepted, such as gendered language, becomes called into question (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 57).  “Discourse is a site of struggle. It is a terrain, a dynamic linguistic and, above all, semantic space

LINGUISTIC SEXISM                                                                        5

in which social meanings are produced and challenged” (Ehrlich & King, 1994, p. 74). This makes critical discourse the perfect venue to address various forms of oppression and their implications.

           One such system of oppression, linguistic sexism, takes shape in the form of patriarchy. English as it currently stands blatantly excludes women from the discussion or claiming a place in language. The world, shaped from a masculine lens, stereotypes and generalizes the entire human population as only male and nothing more (Nneka, 2012, p. 4). If language truly forms viewpoints on subjects and values, which it does, then language reflects the sexist tendencies of culture through the use of sexist terms (Nneka, 2012, p. 4). The patriarchal use of language serves to systematically erase women and suppress their individuality under the “power” of masculinity (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 20). Use of sexist language tells women their struggles cannot have their own place; they must fit under the male interpretation set out before them (Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, p. 20). Thus, critical discourse about linguistic sexism must come to the forefront of conversations in order for anything to change.