Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Other (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4)
- Geschlechtergerechte Sprache (4)
- Genderzeichen (2)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Website (2)
- Dagestan (1)
- Daten (1)
- Datensatz (1)
- Doppelformen (1)
- Gendern (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (7) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
- Peer-Review (1)
Das Thema genderinklusive Sprache ist mittlerweile nicht nur Gegenstand regelmäßiger Umfragen, Presseartikel oder Talksendungen, sondern auch von Volksinitiativen. In Baden-Württemberg beispielsweise veranstaltet Klaus Hekking, Initiator des Volksbegehrens Stoppt Gendern in Baden-Württemberg, eine Radtour gegen Gendern, um Unterschriften zu sammeln (die Initiative wurde allerdings vom Innenministerium gestoppt). Auch in Hamburg lief 2023 eine Volksinitiative namens „Schluss mit Gendersprache in Verwaltung und Bildung“, die vom „Verein Deutsche Sprache“ initiiert und von der Hamburger CDU unterstützt wurde. Die Initiative hat fast 17.000 Unterschriften gesammelt und überregionale mediale Aufmerksamkeit bekommen.
Less than one percent of words would be affected by gender-inclusive language in German press texts
(2024)
Research on gender and language is tightly knitted to social debates on gender equality and non-discriminatory language use. Psycholinguistic scholars have made significant contributions in this field. However, corpus-based studies that investigate these matters within the context of language use are still rare. In our study, we address the question of how much textual material would actually have to be changed if non-gender-inclusive texts were rewritten to be gender-inclusive. This quantitative measure is an important empirical insight, as a recurring argument against the use of gender-inclusive German is that it supposedly makes written texts too long and complicated. It is also argued that gender-inclusive language has negative effects on language learners. However, such effects are only likely if gender-inclusive texts are very different from those that are not gender-inclusive. In our corpus-linguistic study, we manually annotated German press texts to identify the parts that would have to be changed. Our results show that, on average, less than 1% of all tokens would be affected by gender-inclusive language. This small proportion calls into question whether gender-inclusive German presents a substantial barrier to understanding and learning the language, particularly when we take into account the potential complexities of interpreting masculine generics.
The prohibitive is typically defined as the negative imperative, i.e. it “implies making someone not do something, having the effect of forbidding, preventing, or restricting” (Aikhenvald, 2017: 3). This chapter focuses on the formation of the prohibitive in the languages of Daghestan and neighboring regions, analyzing two different aspects of the morphological coding: first, the verb form (especially whether it is an imperative form or not), and second, the type of negation marker/affix used. Based on this, the general encoding types are deduced. Additionally, the phonological form of the markers is shortly analyzed.
This paper focuses on language change based on shifting social norms, in particular with regard to the debate on language and gender. It is a recurring argument in this debate that language develops "naturally" and that "severe interventions" - such as gender-inclusive language is often claimed to be - in the allegedly "organic" language system are inappropriate and even "dangerous". Such interventions are, however, not unprecedented. Socially motivated processes of language change are neither unusual nor new. We focus in our contribution on one important political-social space in Germany, the German Bundestag. Taking other struggles about language and gender in the plenaries of the Bundestag as a starting point, our article illustrates that language and gender has been a recurring issue in the German Bundestag since the 1980s. We demonstrate how this is reflected in linguistic practices of the Bundestag, by the use of a) designations for gays and lesbians; b) pair forms such as Bürgerinnen und Bürger (female and male citizens); and c) female forms of addresses and personal nouns ('Präsidentin' in addition to 'Präsident'). Lastly, we will discuss implications of these earlier language battles for the currently very heated debate about gender-inclusive language, especially regarding new forms with gender symbols like the asterisk or the colon (Lehrer*innen, Lehrer:innen; male*female teachers) which are intended to encompass all gender identities.