Women as a linguistic footnote

Pub Date : 2022-11-18 DOI:10.1558/genl.21680
Roman Kuhar, Milica Antić Gaber
{"title":"Women as a linguistic footnote","authors":"Roman Kuhar, Milica Antić Gaber","doi":"10.1558/genl.21680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The debate on nonsexist or gender-sensitive language in Slovenia has been taking place since the mid-1990s. It intensified again in 2018 when the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, decided to use the feminine grammatical gender in its internal regulations as generic and inclusive for all genders. The decision provoked heated public reactions and media reports. Through critical frame analysis of 60 media texts published between May and December 2018, this article identifies four basic frames: the decision as impermissible linguistic engineering, as a sign of excessive political correctness, as a false solution to the actual existence of sexism in language, or finally, as a positive change. Whereas many of the arguments used in the Slovenian debate were found in similar debates elsewhere, a new discursive frame emerged that cannot be placed on the classical dichotomy of feminist and antifeminist, but is instead based on equality fatigue and the understanding that gender equality has allegedly already been achieved.Razprava o neseksisticni oziroma spolno obcutljivi rabi jezika v Sloveniji poteka ze od sredine 90. let prejsnjega stoletja. Ponovno se je okrepila leta 2018, ko je bil na Filozofski fakulteti UL sprejet sklep o genericni rabi zenskega slovnicnega spola kot vkljucujocega za vse spole v internih pravilnikih fakultete. Odlocitev je sprozila burne odzive javnosti in prav taksno porocanje medijev. S kriticno analizo okvirjev smo analizirali 60 medijskih besedil, objavljenih med majem in decembrom 2018, in v njih identificirali stiri osnovne okvire: odlocitev kot nedopusten jezikovni inzeniring, kot znak pretirane politicne korektnosti, kot napacno resitev za preseganje dejanskega obstoja seksizma v jeziku oziroma kot pozitivno spremembo. Medtem ko je mnoge argumente, uporabljene v slovenski razpravi, moc najti v podobnih razpravah drugod, se je v analiziranih medijskih porocilih pojavil tudi nov diskurzivni okvir, ki ga ni mogoce umestiti na klasicni feministicni ali protifeministicni kontinuum, saj temelji na zasicenosti z enakostjo in razumevanjem, da je enakost spolov domnevno ze dosezena.\n ","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.21680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The debate on nonsexist or gender-sensitive language in Slovenia has been taking place since the mid-1990s. It intensified again in 2018 when the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, decided to use the feminine grammatical gender in its internal regulations as generic and inclusive for all genders. The decision provoked heated public reactions and media reports. Through critical frame analysis of 60 media texts published between May and December 2018, this article identifies four basic frames: the decision as impermissible linguistic engineering, as a sign of excessive political correctness, as a false solution to the actual existence of sexism in language, or finally, as a positive change. Whereas many of the arguments used in the Slovenian debate were found in similar debates elsewhere, a new discursive frame emerged that cannot be placed on the classical dichotomy of feminist and antifeminist, but is instead based on equality fatigue and the understanding that gender equality has allegedly already been achieved.Razprava o neseksisticni oziroma spolno obcutljivi rabi jezika v Sloveniji poteka ze od sredine 90. let prejsnjega stoletja. Ponovno se je okrepila leta 2018, ko je bil na Filozofski fakulteti UL sprejet sklep o genericni rabi zenskega slovnicnega spola kot vkljucujocega za vse spole v internih pravilnikih fakultete. Odlocitev je sprozila burne odzive javnosti in prav taksno porocanje medijev. S kriticno analizo okvirjev smo analizirali 60 medijskih besedil, objavljenih med majem in decembrom 2018, in v njih identificirali stiri osnovne okvire: odlocitev kot nedopusten jezikovni inzeniring, kot znak pretirane politicne korektnosti, kot napacno resitev za preseganje dejanskega obstoja seksizma v jeziku oziroma kot pozitivno spremembo. Medtem ko je mnoge argumente, uporabljene v slovenski razpravi, moc najti v podobnih razpravah drugod, se je v analiziranih medijskih porocilih pojavil tudi nov diskurzivni okvir, ki ga ni mogoce umestiti na klasicni feministicni ali protifeministicni kontinuum, saj temelji na zasicenosti z enakostjo in razumevanjem, da je enakost spolov domnevno ze dosezena.  
分享
查看原文
妇女作为语言注脚
自20世纪90年代中期以来,斯洛文尼亚一直在进行关于不存在或性别敏感语言的辩论。2018年,卢布尔雅那大学文学院决定在其内部法规中使用女性语法性别,作为对所有性别的通用和包容,这种情况再次加剧。这一决定引起了公众的强烈反应和媒体的报道。通过对2018年5月至12月期间发表的60篇媒体文本的批判性框架分析,本文确定了四个基本框架:这一决定是不允许的语言工程,是过度政治正确的标志,是对语言中性别歧视实际存在的错误解决,或者最终是一种积极的改变。斯洛文尼亚辩论中使用的许多论点都是在其他地方的类似辩论中发现的,出现了一种新的话语框架,它不能放在女权主义和反女权主义的经典二分法上,而是基于平等疲劳和对性别平等据称已经实现的理解。自90年代中期以来,关于斯洛文尼亚使用非性别歧视或性敏感语言的讨论一直在进行。上个世纪的几年。2018年,卢布尔雅那大学文学院通过了一项决定,在学院内部规则中,女性语法的通用性包括所有性别,这一决定再次加强了这一点。这一决定是由动荡的公众反应和同样多的媒体报道引发的。通过对这些框架的批判性分析,我们分析了2018年5月至12月期间发表的60篇媒体文章,并确定了四个基本框架:这一决定是不可接受的语言工程,是过度政治正确的标志,是克服语言中性别歧视实际存在的错误解决方案,或者是一种积极的改变。虽然斯洛文尼亚辩论中使用的许多论点可以在其他地方的类似辩论中找到,但在分析的媒体报道中出现了一个新的话语框架,它不能放在经典的女权主义或反女权主义的连续体上,因为它是基于对平等的关注和对性别平等应该已经实现的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信