Page 106 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 106
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
the right to question culturally assimilated “truths”. As a social semiot-
ic and a symbolic code that determines the ways we think about some-
one or something, language is an important social institution and a key
battlefield for equality that must remain open to activist intervention.
In terms of gender-neutral language (hereinafter GNL),1 it makes more
sense to discuss what speakers do with language in social interaction than
what constitutes language and its systemic aspects. The conceptualisation
of language outside its user is problematic because language is primari-
ly a field of action and social practices. According to Tuldava, discourse,
as the most important social aspect of language, is a pragmatic process
dealing with meaning (Verdonk, 2002, p. 18; Widdowson, 2004, p. 8) in
the sense of interactive events that have meaning and that posit “agen-
cy”. As such, discourse determines the balance of power between individ-
ual participants. Critical discourse analysis (CAD) rejects the assump-
tion about the neutrality of science (Van Dijk, 2008), as scientists are also
(or especially) part of social structures that establish important balanc-
es of power. This is why (critical) analysis of academic discourse has been
central to CAD and other linguistic studies across the world in recent
years. For Fairclough (1992, p. 128), a critical linguist, discourse is a spe-
cial way of constructing the subject matter that includes rules about gen-
res. For Kress (1989, p. 7), discourses are “systematically organised sets of
statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institu-
tion” and include a variety of genres. However, it was not until the advent
of corpus linguistics, which made it possible to examine large quantities
of language data, that true (quantitative and qualitative) discourse analy-
sis became possible. In a narrow linguistic sense, discourse can be under-
stood simply as a type of text that entails identifying conventional pat-
terns of language use. The longest tradition among approaches to gender
and language must be recognised in (variational) sociolinguistic analyses
(Kranjc, 2019, pp. 396–397), which were based on considerations of lan-
guage as a product of the individual’s personal sociodemographic circum-
stances. In the following sections, we will observe GNL particularly as it
is revealed at the intersection of feminism, linguistics and education. In
doing so, we will touch upon various aspects of education, such as teach-
ing materials, language resources and academic discourse about language.
The level of the implementation of GNL at the discourse level in a range
of educational environments will be examined.
1 Initiatives to limit gender disproportion come from many international and supranational
institutions. Guidelines and policies for GNL (gender-neutral language, also gender-fair
or gender-sensitive language) are an integral part of gender equality policies (UN, UNE-
SCO, European Parliament and others).
104
the right to question culturally assimilated “truths”. As a social semiot-
ic and a symbolic code that determines the ways we think about some-
one or something, language is an important social institution and a key
battlefield for equality that must remain open to activist intervention.
In terms of gender-neutral language (hereinafter GNL),1 it makes more
sense to discuss what speakers do with language in social interaction than
what constitutes language and its systemic aspects. The conceptualisation
of language outside its user is problematic because language is primari-
ly a field of action and social practices. According to Tuldava, discourse,
as the most important social aspect of language, is a pragmatic process
dealing with meaning (Verdonk, 2002, p. 18; Widdowson, 2004, p. 8) in
the sense of interactive events that have meaning and that posit “agen-
cy”. As such, discourse determines the balance of power between individ-
ual participants. Critical discourse analysis (CAD) rejects the assump-
tion about the neutrality of science (Van Dijk, 2008), as scientists are also
(or especially) part of social structures that establish important balanc-
es of power. This is why (critical) analysis of academic discourse has been
central to CAD and other linguistic studies across the world in recent
years. For Fairclough (1992, p. 128), a critical linguist, discourse is a spe-
cial way of constructing the subject matter that includes rules about gen-
res. For Kress (1989, p. 7), discourses are “systematically organised sets of
statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institu-
tion” and include a variety of genres. However, it was not until the advent
of corpus linguistics, which made it possible to examine large quantities
of language data, that true (quantitative and qualitative) discourse analy-
sis became possible. In a narrow linguistic sense, discourse can be under-
stood simply as a type of text that entails identifying conventional pat-
terns of language use. The longest tradition among approaches to gender
and language must be recognised in (variational) sociolinguistic analyses
(Kranjc, 2019, pp. 396–397), which were based on considerations of lan-
guage as a product of the individual’s personal sociodemographic circum-
stances. In the following sections, we will observe GNL particularly as it
is revealed at the intersection of feminism, linguistics and education. In
doing so, we will touch upon various aspects of education, such as teach-
ing materials, language resources and academic discourse about language.
The level of the implementation of GNL at the discourse level in a range
of educational environments will be examined.
1 Initiatives to limit gender disproportion come from many international and supranational
institutions. Guidelines and policies for GNL (gender-neutral language, also gender-fair
or gender-sensitive language) are an integral part of gender equality policies (UN, UNE-
SCO, European Parliament and others).
104
