{"title":"“其中一个是女性,所以这也令人鼓舞。”“由牛津提供动力”在线词典编纂中社会性别的表现","authors":"Silvia Pettini","doi":"10.1285/I22390359V44P275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since any language cannot but mirror its speech community’s ideology, lexicographers cannot but record how that ideology is reflected in language usage (Iamartino 2020, pp. 37-38). Particularly relevant in this sense are all those entries which belong to sensitive issues in a given society: political and social ideas, religion, ethnicity, sex, and gender (Iamartino 2020, p. 36). As regards the latter, as Pinnavaia remarks (2014, p. 219), while male gender does not seem to be an issue, female gender does. Indeed, since the beginnings of dictionary-making in early modern Europe and until quite recently, dictionaries have always been full of entries, words, definitions, examples, and comments that display the contemporary patronising and often derogatory attitude of the cultural and social male elite towards women (Iamartino 2010, p. 95). In this light, this paper investigates the representation of “social gender” (Hellinger, Busmann 2001a, p. 11) in the definitions and usage examples of a group of occupational terms in the Oxford Dictionary of English, whose free online version is hosted on the “powered by Oxford” dictionary portal Lexico.com and licensed for use to technology giants like Google, Apple and Microsoft (Ferrett, Dollinger 2020). The rationale behind the present study lies in two recent online controversies which, blaming Oxford University Press for linguistic sexism, eventually prompted the publisher to revise thousands of entries (Flood 2016, 2020; Giovanardi 2019a; Oman-Reagan 2016; Saner 2019). Accordingly, this research aims to promote a debate about the current relationship between Internet lexicography, gender, and society, while highlighting the role online platforms may play in potential ‘wars on words’ as a new form of dictionary criticism.","PeriodicalId":30935,"journal":{"name":"Lingue e Linguaggi","volume":"72 1","pages":"275-295"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“One is a woman, so that’s encouraging too”. The representation of social gender in “powered by Oxford” online lexicography\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Pettini\",\"doi\":\"10.1285/I22390359V44P275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since any language cannot but mirror its speech community’s ideology, lexicographers cannot but record how that ideology is reflected in language usage (Iamartino 2020, pp. 37-38). Particularly relevant in this sense are all those entries which belong to sensitive issues in a given society: political and social ideas, religion, ethnicity, sex, and gender (Iamartino 2020, p. 36). As regards the latter, as Pinnavaia remarks (2014, p. 219), while male gender does not seem to be an issue, female gender does. Indeed, since the beginnings of dictionary-making in early modern Europe and until quite recently, dictionaries have always been full of entries, words, definitions, examples, and comments that display the contemporary patronising and often derogatory attitude of the cultural and social male elite towards women (Iamartino 2010, p. 95). In this light, this paper investigates the representation of “social gender” (Hellinger, Busmann 2001a, p. 11) in the definitions and usage examples of a group of occupational terms in the Oxford Dictionary of English, whose free online version is hosted on the “powered by Oxford” dictionary portal Lexico.com and licensed for use to technology giants like Google, Apple and Microsoft (Ferrett, Dollinger 2020). The rationale behind the present study lies in two recent online controversies which, blaming Oxford University Press for linguistic sexism, eventually prompted the publisher to revise thousands of entries (Flood 2016, 2020; Giovanardi 2019a; Oman-Reagan 2016; Saner 2019). Accordingly, this research aims to promote a debate about the current relationship between Internet lexicography, gender, and society, while highlighting the role online platforms may play in potential ‘wars on words’ as a new form of dictionary criticism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lingue e Linguaggi\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"275-295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lingue e Linguaggi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1285/I22390359V44P275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lingue e Linguaggi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1285/I22390359V44P275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
由于任何语言都不能不反映其言语社区的意识形态,词典编纂者不能不记录这种意识形态如何反映在语言使用中(Iamartino 2020, pp. 37-38)。在这个意义上,特别相关的是所有属于特定社会敏感问题的条目:政治和社会思想,宗教,种族,性别和性别(Iamartino 2020, p. 36)。至于后者,正如Pinnavaia所说(2014,p. 219),虽然男性性别似乎不是一个问题,但女性性别却是一个问题。事实上,从现代欧洲早期开始编纂词典到最近,词典中一直充斥着词条、词汇、定义、例子和评论,这些都显示了当代文化和社会男性精英对女性的傲慢和贬损态度(Iamartino 2010, p. 95)。有鉴于此,本文研究了牛津英语词典中一组职业术语的定义和用法示例中“社会性别”的表现(Hellinger, Busmann 2001a,第11页),牛津英语词典的免费在线版本托管在“由牛津提供动力”的词典门户Lexico.com上,并授权谷歌、苹果和微软等科技巨头使用(Ferrett, Dollinger 2020)。本研究背后的基本原理在于最近的两起网上争议,这两起争议指责牛津大学出版社在语言上的性别歧视,最终促使出版商修改了数千个条目(Flood 2016, 2020;Giovanardi 2019;Oman-Reagan 2016;更理智的2019)。因此,本研究旨在促进关于互联网词典编纂、性别和社会之间当前关系的辩论,同时强调在线平台作为一种新形式的词典批评,可能在潜在的“文字之战”中发挥作用。
“One is a woman, so that’s encouraging too”. The representation of social gender in “powered by Oxford” online lexicography
Since any language cannot but mirror its speech community’s ideology, lexicographers cannot but record how that ideology is reflected in language usage (Iamartino 2020, pp. 37-38). Particularly relevant in this sense are all those entries which belong to sensitive issues in a given society: political and social ideas, religion, ethnicity, sex, and gender (Iamartino 2020, p. 36). As regards the latter, as Pinnavaia remarks (2014, p. 219), while male gender does not seem to be an issue, female gender does. Indeed, since the beginnings of dictionary-making in early modern Europe and until quite recently, dictionaries have always been full of entries, words, definitions, examples, and comments that display the contemporary patronising and often derogatory attitude of the cultural and social male elite towards women (Iamartino 2010, p. 95). In this light, this paper investigates the representation of “social gender” (Hellinger, Busmann 2001a, p. 11) in the definitions and usage examples of a group of occupational terms in the Oxford Dictionary of English, whose free online version is hosted on the “powered by Oxford” dictionary portal Lexico.com and licensed for use to technology giants like Google, Apple and Microsoft (Ferrett, Dollinger 2020). The rationale behind the present study lies in two recent online controversies which, blaming Oxford University Press for linguistic sexism, eventually prompted the publisher to revise thousands of entries (Flood 2016, 2020; Giovanardi 2019a; Oman-Reagan 2016; Saner 2019). Accordingly, this research aims to promote a debate about the current relationship between Internet lexicography, gender, and society, while highlighting the role online platforms may play in potential ‘wars on words’ as a new form of dictionary criticism.