Introduction – Gender-Inclusive Language in International and Political Contexts
Gender equality is among the core values of democratic countries. The European Union integrates the gender perspective into all policies and major initiatives. The major challenges currently affecting the EU also have a gender dimension. To promote gender equality, a dual approach was developed, representing on the one hand concrete policies aimed at rectifying situations caused by inequality, and on the other hand gender mainstreaming as the EU’s integrated, legally binding approach to gender equality. As international gender policy developed, attention increasingly turned to the question of applying gender equality in language, from which arose discussion of the use of gender-inclusive language in various national languages. Gender-inclusive or gender-balanced language is understood as a comprehensive way of expression, with empathy and consideration for all genders. Other terms are also used as synonyms, for example gender-sensitive, gender-aware, or gender-correct language. The application of gender equality in language and issues raised in connection with gender-sensitive expression entered public awareness gradually from the second half of the twentieth century, initially under the influence of feminist and gender linguistics research and later also in relation to international policy aimed at gender-inclusive language. In 1990 the Council of Europe first adopted Recommendation No. R (90) 4 on eliminating sexism in language, in which the Committee of Ministers recommended that member-state governments support the use of language reflecting the equality principle between women and men and adopt measures to achieve this goal. Since then, the use of gender-balanced language in official and everyday communication in Council of Europe member states has advanced significantly. In 2007, guidance was issued recommending that member states use gender-balanced language in official documents, especially legal texts, in official communication, education, and the media. Many member states joined the discussion on gender-balanced language and subsequently proposed guidance for its implementation at various levels (cf. Terkanič, p. 35 in Cviková et al., 2014a). The United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, as well as various professional associations, universities, major news agencies, and publishers, have adopted guidelines on non-sexist language, either in separate documents or as special recommendations included in their style manuals.1 The use of inclusive language is currently one of the basic requirements when drafting documents in all official languages of the EU and is no longer merely a linguistic matter, but increasingly visible as a language-political phenomenon.
From the foregoing, it is clear that at the end of the twentieth century the issue of applying gender-balanced language came to the fore in several languages. The presented study focuses attention on the development and reception of this phenomenon in the German-speaking environment, aiming to point out the discourse and the specific features of social and scholarly discussion of this issue. We proceed from the fact that in German-speaking countries, under the influence of feminist and gender linguistics and international policy focused on inclusive language, legislation was developed and guidance was created for the use of gender-sensitive language in various fields, and that discourse is considerably more developed than in Slovakia, where this phenomenon is only now becoming more visible. In order to indicate current language practice in the use of gender-symmetrical language forms in German, we present at the end the results of our study of such forms in German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers using corpus-linguistic methods within the German Reference Corpus DeReKo. We also devote attention to the use of gender-inclusive language in German and Slovak in our current monograph titled Rodovo symetrický jazyk v slovenskom a nemeckom jazykovom prostredí v kontexte európskej rodovej politiky a gender mainstreamingu (Štefaňáková, 2020), which examines this phenomenon interdisciplinarily through several scholarly disciplines, especially philosophy, sociology, political science, and linguistics.
1. Development of Gender-Inclusive Language under the Influence of Feminist and Gender Linguistics and Gender Policy with an Emphasis on the German-speaking Environment
The problem of expressing gender equality in language came into focus in the second half of the twentieth century. The beginnings of the discussion are linked to the feminist movement, or feminist language policy, whose goal was to eliminate sexist manifestations in language. Feminist linguistics began to develop on the basis of second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, first in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. The questions it raised arose from diverse demands for equalization of women in all areas of social life. Its central concern was, in that period, asymmetry in the representation of women, as well as sexism in verbal and non-verbal representation of women. One of the first major theorists who addressed gender asymmetry in language was the American linguist Robin Lakoff(ová) (Language and Woman’s Place, 1975). Among the first major German authors were, for example, Trömel-Plötz(ová), Pusch(ová), Hellinger(ová), Wodak(ová), Samel(ová), and others. In the West German context, feminist research motivated by the second-wave women’s movement (Neue Frauenbewegung) was initially carried out under the label women’s studies (Frauenforschung) and later also gender studies (Geschlechterforschung). Feminist and later gender-oriented language research also pointed out that using masculine forms for persons of both sexes (the so-called generic masculine) is discriminatory and disadvantageous for women (and other genders), which in German as in many other languages prompted the development of strategies for applying gender-inclusive/balanced language.
Feminist research is considered the developmental and historical predecessor of gender linguistics. On the basis of feminist linguistics, gender linguistics emerged around the 1980s in the United States and Western Europe. In that period the term gender was primarily used in the meaning of social sex. The object of critique in gender linguistics was initially heteronormativity as a socially and politically organizing principle. It especially criticized gender constructions in public discourse and the associated structuring of the public sphere in relation to the traditional division of roles and work between men and women. The object of interest was especially representations of women and men in the media, advertising, commercials, and in discourses of various kinds (in the labor market, education, healthcare, religion, and so on), with a focus on how language supports traditional vertical and horizontal occupational and positional segmentation, namely feminization and masculinization of professions. Contemporary research in the area of gender linguistics takes into account the specific context more strongly. The object of study has expanded to include other social sexes, and gender linguistics more now addresses discourse practices in relation to homosexuality and other genders. A key aim of gender deconstruction is also the uncovering of social inequality and power relations in discourse concerning age, ethnicity, social sex, and others. (cf. Valdrová, 2017). Gender linguistics is one of the youngest linguistic disciplines. Language policy is part of it and formulates practical recommendations for a more gender-just use of language.
In the case of German-speaking countries, the first guidelines and recommendations for using non-sexist and gender-balanced language for German emerged in Germany. In the 1970s and 1980s, the question of using gender-balanced language in public space came to the forefront. Formal proposals on the use of gender-balanced language gradually emerged in offices and ministries and became topics of intensive discussions in various feminist, non-feminist, linguistic, and non-linguistic conferences and colloquia (cf. Kegyesne Szekeres, 2005). The first guidance for German, Guidelines for avoiding sexist language use (Richtlinien zur Vermeidung des sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs), appeared in Germany in 1980 (Trömel-Plötz, Pusch, Hellinger, Guentherodt, 1980). The authors appealed in particular to authors of legal texts, regulations, forms, job advertisements, textbooks, radio, and television texts to use gender-balanced language. In 1993, at UNESCO’s request, Germany adopted recommendations titled A Language for Both Genders – Guidelines for Non-Sexist Language Use. Eine Sprache für beide Geschlechter – Richtlinien für einen nicht-sexistischen Sprachgebrauch, which addressed lexical and grammatical rules and included rules of word formation. The first documents arising from feminist language politics served as a model and template for many later ones in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Guidelines in these countries were prepared on behalf of ministries, courts, or other institutions (cf. Štefaňáková, 2020, p. 94). Austria and Switzerland also joined efforts to use gender-balanced German. In Austria, the Ministry of Social Affairs issued in 1987 its first guideline entitled Linguistische Empfehlungen zur sprachlichen Gleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann im öffentlichen Bereich/Linguistic recommendations on equal linguistic treatment of women and men in the public sphere. In 2000–2002, the Austrian federal government adopted several directives according to which, in line with gender mainstreaming strategy, special attention must be paid to the implementation of gender-balanced language in all departments (cf. Štefaňáková, 2020, p. 99). Although Switzerland is not an EU member state, like Germany and Austria it also fulfils, in policy, the equality platform adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. The first guidelines and recommendations regarding the use of gender-balanced language in Switzerland arose already in the 1980s. In the report Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann in der Gesetzes- und Verwaltungssprache/Equal Linguistic Treatment of Women and Men in Legal and Administrative Language (1991), creative solutions for using gender-sensitive language are described for the three Swiss official languages German, French, and Italian (see Adamzik and Alghisi, 2017). In all recommendations, the aim is to limit the use of the generic masculine and enable the use of various strategies of gender-sensitive expression.
In the last two decades, various working groups have addressed the issue of representing gender equality in German. Manuals with recommendations for gender-sensitive expression were also published at many German, Austrian, and Swiss universities. Important guidance is also included in the Statement of German news agencies on the use of gender-correct language and in a report of the Council for German Orthography published in 2018.2 The Council for German Orthography prepared general recommendations for areas and text types in which this issue is relevant, e.g., contracts, official documents, official texts (laws, regulations, etc.), lectures, speeches, communication in public spaces such as schools or universities. The dictionary DUDEN: Richtig gendern. Wie Sie angemessen und verständlich schreiben/DUDEN: Správne použitie rodu v jazyku. Ako primerane a zrozumiteľne písať (2017) also points to various possibilities for using gender-balanced language.
2. Discourse on the Issue of Gender-Balanced Language in the German Language Environment
As introduced in the preceding chapter, gender and feminist linguistics critically pointed to the use of the generic masculine as a generic male form for persons of different sexes in expression practice and observed its effects on shaping people’s positions in discourse. As in other languages, in German the critique of the generic masculine led to strategies for using gender-balanced language and subsequently to intensive social and scientific discussion of this issue, which continues today. The aim of this chapter is to highlight the specificities of this discussion against the background of changes in German under the influence of policy aimed at gender-inclusive language. Let us first look at the use of the generic masculine in German.
2.1 Generic Masculine in German
The use of the general masculine form (generic masculine) is not typical only for Slavic languages but also occurs in German. This phenomenon dates to the mid-nineteenth century, when in 1850 the British Parliament decided that masculine language forms would also include women. (cf. Gibbon, 1999, p. 50). The use of the generic masculine gradually spread to other languages. In sociolinguistic discourse on German, the term generic masculine began appearing only in the 1980s. Unlike English, where it had become established earlier and longer, it initially concerned the use of nouns only. In 1980, Luise F. Pusch(ová) and Senta Trömel-Plötz(ová) published for the first time the thematic volume Sprache, Sex und Macht / Language, Sex and Power (The title is given as language in translation where needed), addressed not only to specialist audiences, where the problem of generic masculine was thematically explored from a feminist perspective.
The generic masculine is accompanied by the belief in its neutrality; that is, the masculine is understood as a neutral and basic form when referring to a given social group. In simplified terms, when a cover form is used, it means general designation of persons in masculine, derived from the idea that the masculine is the basic and unmarked lexical, word-formation, and frequency form of a social group, e.g., Lehrer as a cover form for teachers, both male and female. Besides person designations, some pronouns are also used this way, e.g., everyone knows, one of us, and so on. (cf. Valdrová, 2017). The term generic masculine cannot be applied as a cover term for things (e.g., der Tisch) and abstract nouns (e.g., der Ruhm), because there is no conflict between noun gender (as a linguistic sign) and biological sex.
The term is also anchored in German grammars. In Duden it states: “… man verwendet die maskuline Form vielfach auch dann, wenn das natürliche Geschlecht unwichtig ist oder männliche und weibliche Personen gleichermaßen gemeint sind.” (Duden, 1995, p. 196)3. Thus in German the masculine cover form is used to designate groups containing different sexes, e.g., Jeder Lehrer will gute Studenten haben./Every teacher wants good students (This includes teachers of both sexes); Der Deutsche gilt als fleißig./A German is considered hardworking.; Am Telefon ist unser Reporter Claudia Meyer./On the phone there is our reporter Claudia Meyer. (In this case, a female person is expressed only with the masculine noun form.) In German today, the generic masculine is still used primarily in names of occupations (e.g., der Lehrer, Jäger, Arzt and others) and in so-called nomina agentis derived from verbs or nouns that denote the associated actor (e.g., der Täter, Masseur, Händler, Direktor, der Kunde and others). In addition, German has idioms in which der Mann is used generically, for example Mann über Bord, den toten Mann machen. The noun Mann is also used generically in compounds, e.g., Privatmann, jedermann and in derivatives, e.g., kaufmännisch, fachmännisch and others. Closely tied to the generic masculine are also pronouns such as man, Mensch; wer, jemand, and niemand. The pronoun man in German is also interpreted predominantly as masculine. Similar to this are indefinite pronouns wer, jemand and niemand, which can also appear in sentences only with masculine personal pronouns, e.g., Wer kann mir sein Fahrrad leihen? As a form of the generic masculine or feminine and even neuter are occasionally used in German, e.g., die Person, die Geisel, die Waise and das Opfer, das Kind.
As noted above, criticism of the generic masculine led to its replacement possibilities being explored in scholarly circles, making it possible to name persons in a gender-balanced way. Current handbooks on gender-sensitive expression now mainly recommend gender specification through double naming of persons in full form (Lehrer und Lehrerin, Lehrer/Lehrerin) or so-called splitting with a slash or parentheses and a feminine ending (Lehrer/in, Lehrer/innen, Kolleg(in), Kolleg(inn)en). In addition, gender-balanced naming is recommended through lexemes with Binnen-I before the feminine ending (e.g., ein/e HerausgeberIn), and specific new forms were created: Gender-Gap with underscore (Student_innen), Gender-Star with an asterisk (Student*innen), and so-called “X-Form” (StudierX, ProfessX), which, due to increased visibility of intersexuality and transgenderity, began to be used for naming the full spectrum of genders. Another recommended strategy is gender neutralization, where names abstracting away from biological sex are used (die Person, der Mensch), participles in the present (Lehrende, Promovierende), description through noun-modifying constructions (Fachbereichsleitung), or designation of a function, office, or group instead of persons (das Rektorat, das Dekanat), among others. Beyond this, various creative solutions are also suggested to express gender neutrally, e.g., derived words with the suffixes -ung, -ion, -ium, -kraft (e.g., die Softwareberatung), passive voice, present participles, adjectives, etc.
From the beginning of the scholarly discussion on replacing the generic masculine and making gender visible in German, different and largely opposing approaches were formed, and they persist to this day. One current criticizes the use of the generic masculine and advocates gender-sensitive language with correct gender expression, while another current takes a critical stance toward replacing the generic masculine and using gender-balanced language in German. The issue of applying gender-sensitive language remains, despite a long-running discourse, one of the most debated and controversial topics in the German-speaking environment.
2.2 Critique of the Generic Masculine – Promotion of Gender-Balanced Language
Given that the feminist movement had a strong base in the German-speaking context, from the early beginnings of feminist linguistics one can observe a strong current promoting and supporting the use of gender-balanced language and replacement of the generic masculine with other gender-balanced forms, mainly invoking the social function of language. Feminist linguistics critics, for example Samel(ová), Pusch(ová), Tromel-Plötz(ová), Tannen(ová), oppose inappropriate and ambiguous uses of the cover masculine, which in their view invisibilizes and often disadvantages women and other genders. They argue from social-psychological studies showing that with masculine forms and designations most people think of males regardless of whether those refer to stereotypically male (der Bergmann), neutral (der Zuschauer), or explicitly female (der Kosmetiker) activities.
According to several studies, grammatical gender in German has a specific effect on mental representation of biological sex. That expressions like der Terrorist, der Lehrer tend to be associated more with men is explained by proponents of gender-sensitive expression by pointing out that, apart from the actual proportion of women and men in named groups, social factors are crucial (for example, the term der Terrorist is associated with men more than der Kosmetiker because it is linked with violence, which is more stereotypically associated with men). Social psychologists Stahlberg(ová) and Sczesny(ová) from the University of Mannheim conducted a questionnaire survey in which 100 people were asked about favorite fictional heroes, with the questionnaire presented in three versions (a version with generic masculine forms in questions, one with gender-neutral expression, and one with explicit gender expression through splitting). When both sexes were asked about, respondents listed more female fictional characters than in the versions with generic masculine wording. (cf. Stahlberg and Sczesny, 2001). This is one of many social-psychological studies in German showing that language can reinforce or weaken the perception of certain phenomena, including gender.
Based on sociolinguistic research, the use of the generic masculine in advertisements can also lead to fewer female applicants for the occupation in question compared to male applicants, whereas if explicit female forms are stated even for predominantly male, technical jobs, women’s interest in these occupations increases. Language should therefore, according to proponents of the generic masculine, be used so that it makes visible and gives equal opportunities to men, women, and other social sexes. The 1998 Duden grammar states: “Besonders bei Berufsbezeichnungen und Substantiven, die den Träger bzw. die Trägerin eines Geschehens bezeichnen (Nomina Agentis), wird die Verwendung des generischen Maskulinums immer mehr abgelehnt.”/Use of the generic masculine is increasingly rejected especially for professional designations and nouns that designate the actor or actress in an event (nomina agentis).
The prominent Austrian Indo-Europeanist Ivo Hajnal allows for the removal of the generic masculine, but does not see the driving force as present-day gender policy; rather, he places it in the history of the German language, when in many cases feminine forms naturally accompanied masculine ones. Knoke(ová), in her article Wie gender darf die Sprache werden on the Spektrum.de website (posted on the Goethe Institute site in Hungary), pointed out that already in Goethe’s time there were feminine designations such as Müllerin, Meierin, and Hauswirtschafterin (housewife). In those times these were primarily labels for the wife of a miller or steward, but after the husband’s death many of these women continued in the profession and successfully managed businesses. She emphasized that today it would be unnatural to use the generic masculine to denote occupations where almost only women work (for example, in kindergartens and other childcare institutions, where mostly women work and therefore the title should correspond as Erzieherin or possibly Erzieher).
Referring to selected research, she also points to coded asymmetry in German person labels. In her view, the masculine form presents men as the norm, while the feminine form encodes women only as deviation from the norm by attaching the suffix -in to the masculine form. As an example, she cited a commercial for OB tampons with the slogan “Jeder erlebt seine Tage anders”/“Everyone experiences their days differently.” This ad drew many protest voices in Germany because it addressed women with the masculine term “everyone.” Knoke(ová) stated that all solutions for applying gender-sensitive language are welcome if they are not dogmatic, are compatible with German grammar, and do not sound absurd. (cf. Knoke, 2017)
Some critics of the generic masculine point out that in German there still are no labels for people who do not identify as male or female. They consider German grammar discriminatory in this respect. In their view, therefore, one should consider changing grammar so that it accounts for all social genders. They even proposed introducing another personal pronoun, “nin,” for people who do not feel male or female. This attempt at transforming German grammar was first presented by Cabala de Sylvain at a transgender conference in Berlin in 2007 and later developed in a publication titled Sylvain-Konvention. de Sylvain’s primary aim was to remove male dominance in German. He therefore proposed four grammatical genders: Masculinum, Femininum, Neutrum, and Indefinitivum, with the indefinite article din and pronoun vor recommended for Indefinitivum (cf. de Sylvain – Balzer, 2008). Heger(ová) later proposed a gender-neutral article dier with several pronoun variants (Hegerová, 2013). The use of these pronouns, however, has not yet become established in actual language practice.
2.3 Promotion of the Generic Masculine in German
Despite the fact that in German-speaking countries there is now legislation on gender-balanced language due to international policy aimed at inclusive language, it is still possible to observe a strong, ideologically entrenched current that criticizes replacing the generic masculine and rejects changes in German, especially those introduced for ideological reasons. It considers efforts to set language norms for gender-balanced language to be undemocratic.
For proponents of the generic masculine, German has become a tool of contradictory political efforts. Promoting gender-balanced forms is associated with the notorious principle of political correctness and is seen as causing more harm than benefit, in reality contributing little to the implementation of gender equality. In addition, it is paradoxical that newer queer theories, which aim to make gender visible, even reject reducing to only two sexes in language. Attempts to remove generic masculines from language are compared to a phenomenon called Orwellscher Neusprech.4 The German term “Neusprech” is the translation of English “Newspeak,” used by George Orwell in his 1984 novel, where he described deliberately modified language for political goals. It is a critical satire of so-called Basic English by Ch. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards for a new English that Orwell initially supported between 1942 and 1944, but later opposed. Newspeak/Neusprech, therefore, denotes language that is artificially prescribed by a ruling regime.5 Linguistic interference through the artificial creation of norms is still considered impermissible by many linguists.
Advocates of the generic masculine argue that applying a gender perspective is not possible in every language. Every language has its own logical structure. In German, for example, grammatical gender (genus) and biological sex (sexus) are distinguished and three grammatical genders are recognized. In Turkish, Hungarian, and some other languages, genus is not distinguished, and therefore explicit marking of gender is not possible there. In these languages this is not considered a disruption of gender equality, and, by this logic, it should not be in German either. They also criticize the fact that in German there are still no practical, clear, and stylistically acceptable alternatives to the generic masculine. For this reason, gender-balanced language has barely been adopted in ordinary communication. Usually it is used only in official forms or official documents. Explicitly making two (mostly) genders visible in everyday communication, in their view, is not possible because it would very much complicate understanding and fluency of expression. For this reason, gender-balanced language is not used even in most German news agencies and newspapers.
Views also appear that new language forms such as Binnen-I (MitarbeiterInnen) or Gendersternchen (Kolleg*innen) negatively affect legibility and cannot be naturally applied in speech. The same applies to splitting. In written or spoken form, combining two role labels into one compound would require reformulating a term such as Schülervertreter with double marking as Schülerinnen- und Schüler-Vertreter or Schülerinnen- und Schüler-Vertreterinnen or Schülerinnen- und Schülervertreterinnen und -vertreter. The expression Der Ministerpräsident oder sein Stellvertreter would, in official practice, have to be said as Die Ministerpräsidentin oder der Ministerpräsident, ihre Stellvertreterin oder ihr Stellvertreter oder seine Stellvertreterin oder sein Stellvertreter (that is, instead of five original words, sixteen words).
The rhetoric specialist Matthias Pöhm pointed in the critical article Der Unsinn der gendergerechten Sprache to the fact that gender-correct language in public speech does not contribute to successful rhetoric. As an example he cited the following text: “Vertreterinnen und Vertreter der drei Innerschweizer Kantone wollen für Ihre Bürgerinnen und Bürger ein neues Ausländer- und Ausländerinnen-Zentrum schaffen. Es gibt aber Kritikerinnen und Kritiker, die fürchten danach von Ausländerinnen und Ausländern überschwemmt zu werden. Vorgestellt wurde die neue Idee bei einer Medienkonferenz in Luzern. Die anwesenden Journalistinnen und Journalisten waren nicht die einzigen Zuhörerinnen und Zuhörer. Auch etliche Bäuerinnen und Bauern aus der Umgebung interessierten sich für das Projekt. ...” 6
From the example above, even without knowledge of German, readers can picture the lengthened naming of persons in a text using paired forms, which makes it less clear and understandable. Linguist Peter Eisenberg, a professor at the University of Potsdam/Postupim, has spoken on the issue of applying gender-balanced German in multiple articles and media discussions. In his online article Ein Säugling ist nicht das selbe wie ein Gesäugter, he stated that prescribing and imposing artificial grammatical rules and norms for expressing gender equality in language is typical of authoritarian, not democratic, regimes. In one of the many discussions on this topic he expressed the following view:
“Frauen sollten hörbar oder sichtbar in der Sprache sein, es gibt aber niemanden, der das Recht hat, in eine Sprache einzugreifen. Das ist das Credo, was ich hier gleich mal zum Besten geben möchte. Das hat aber nichts damit zu tun, dass man nicht Frauen sichtbar machen will.” / “Women should be made visible in language, both in spoken and written form, but no one has the right to interfere in language. That is the credo I want to state clearly here. But this has nothing to do with not wanting women to be visible in language.”8
According to Eisenberg, women can be made visible in language without artificially intervening in it. Therefore he recommends using either non-sexing forms of the generic masculine or gender specification by explicitly naming both sexes, for example Studentinnen und Studenten, even though this is tedious and sometimes problematic because such forms are not the product of any authoritative prescribed norm, but are actually attested in German grammar. Eisenberg criticizes especially newly invented forms for female naming, such as Binnen-I, schrägstrich, underscore, and Gendersternchen, which developed problematically. He also pointed out that some nouns in German cannot form a feminine shape, e.g., for der Flüchtling there is in practice no feminine form die Flüchtlingin. Der Flüchtling can therefore, in his view, denote both women and men. At the same time, replacing this term with a neutral form is also problematic: the past participle der/die Geflüchtete does not have exactly the same meaning as der Flüchtling. Likewise, the neutral meaning is not the same in pairs such as der Fahrer and Fahrende. Using neutral forms created from participles instead of explicit gender naming is therefore sometimes problematic and contentious. Eisenberg is unequivocally opposed to introducing norms for gender-balanced language because he considers that undemocratic.9
In the Austrian newspaper Die Presse,10 a critical article argued that on Austrian specialist universities, using gender-correct formulations is even a condition for receiving a good grade. According to the article’s author, the gender debate has moved to the point where pupils and students must be required to use gender-balanced language. Austrian media criticized practices in which students at teacher-training colleges are required to use gender-correct language in bachelor theses. The relevant school decides what sanctions to impose if this requirement is not followed. This can lead either to a lower grade or the return of the final thesis.
From the foregoing analysis of positions and viewpoints it is clear that arguments for using inclusive/gender-balanced language and replacing the generic masculine in German are manifold. Until only a few years ago, discussion focused on distinguishing between men and women by using masculine and feminine forms in spoken and written language. In 2017, on the basis of a constitutional court decision, the designation of intersexuality in written language was introduced in Germany, and in 2018 in Austria. In 2018, the German government adopted a proposal to amend the population registration law. Since then, the sex register no longer needs to include a sex marker, or an additional option beyond “male” and “female” can be entered: “diverse” when a person does not fit either male or female. In this context, for naming people with diverse sex, forms with the gender star (Student*innen) and so-called “X-forms” (StudierX, ProfessX) are especially recommended. Despite the ongoing controversial debate around using gender-balanced language, this phenomenon is becoming increasingly established in language practice across various communication domains, as confirmed by the results of our corpus study of Austrian, German, and Swiss newspapers, which we present below.
3 Gender-Balanced Language in Journalistic Texts from a Pluricentric Perspective – Results of Corpus Analysis
To indicate contemporary language practice and the state of use of gender-symmetrical language forms in German, we conducted a study of language use in German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers using corpus analysis. To determine whether changes associated with inclusive language are also occurring in the journalistic domain, we tracked the degree of use of selected recommended forms of gender-symmetrical person designation in corpora of German, Austrian, and Swiss newspaper texts stored in the German Reference Corpus DeReKo. Our motivation was the fact that inclusive language in journalism had so far remained at the edge of scholarly interest. In the selected newspaper corpora, we focused on detecting gender pairs in full form with conjunction, comma, or slash (Lehrerinnen und Lehrer; Lehrerinnen, Lehrer; Lehrerinnen/Lehrer), forms using slash splitting (e.g., Lehrer/in), splitting with parentheses (Lehrer(in)), forms with Binnen-I (MitarbeiterInnen), with gender underscore (Student_innen), with gender star (Student*innen), and with an “X” ending (StudierX, ProfessX). We expected the highest awareness of gender-balanced language, and therefore the greatest occurrence of gender-symmetrical forms, in German newspapers, because in Germany this issue became visible earlier than in Austria and Switzerland, as indicated in the first chapter. We expected the lowest occurrence of gender-balanced forms in Swiss newspapers, given the specific development of gender policy in that country. Our aim was to provide an overview of the use of gender-balanced language in journalism from 1990 to the present, and through corpus analysis we tracked selected gender-balanced person designations in text corpora of the newspapers Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Presse, and Tages-Anzeiger in DeReKo. We chose these three newspaper corpora in order to provide a contrastive pluricentric perspective, with due consideration for the existence of three German-speaking varieties shaped by specific language-gender policies. We searched for gender-symmetrical forms that mark gender in German in the selected newspaper corpora by creating character and metacharacter strings in the retrieval system Cosmas II.
From the results of the corpus analysis it followed that in the corpora of German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers all selected recommended ways of gender-balanced person designation are applied to varying degrees. We found the highest number of gender-symmetrical designations in Tages-Anzeiger (32,882 occurrences) with a frequency of 96,63 forms per million tokens/all word forms in the corpus, from which we inferred that this daily applies gender-balanced language most deliberately among the papers analyzed. In second place was the Austrian daily Die Presse with 10,577 occurrences and a frequency of 31,48, and the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung with 12,704 and a frequency of 17,22; it applies gender-balanced language least via the selected forms. Our hypothesis of the highest share of gender-balanced forms in Süddeutsche Zeitung was therefore not confirmed, and the hypothesis of the lowest frequency of gender-symmetrical designations in Swiss Tages-Anzeiger was also refuted. According to the corpus results, in the texts of German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers, and therefore in journalistic language overall, parallel designation of persons in full form with conjunction or without it is most common (Lehrerinnen und Lehrer; Lehrerinnen, Lehrer), second most common are forms with Binnen-I (LehrerInnen), and third most used are person designations with slash/splitting (Lehrer/in, Lehrer/innen, Lehrer(in), der/die Lehrer/in). Forms with underscore/Gender Gap (Lehrer_in) and with star/Gender Sternchen (Lehrer*innen), which are recommended to make the full spectrum of genders visible in language, are used only rarely in newspaper texts, from which we conclude that these have not yet become established in journalistic language. The corpus results show that parallel person designation in full form is the most used way to express gender equality in German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers, and therefore in journalistic language too; paradoxically, this is not in line with recommendations of the Council for German Orthography, which for written language recommends, for reasons of linguistic economy, the use of more abbreviated forms. Our study of written language in German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers and the resulting data confirm an ongoing trend of change in German toward greater use of gender-inclusive language.
Conclusion
The aim of the presented study was to highlight discourse around gender-balanced language in the German-speaking environment against the background of changes occurring in German under the influence of both feminist and gender linguistics and language policy aimed at gender-inclusive language. For a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon under study, we considered it important to point to related phenomena and circumstances that led to the emergence of gender-inclusive language. We briefly described both the direction of feminist and gender linguistics and linguistic gender policy, as well as strategies for gender-sensitive expression that developed on the basis of criticism of the generic masculine in German. We then pointed to scientific and social discussion on the use of gender-balanced language in the German language environment, which brought with it a wide range of views from criticism of replacing the generic masculine to promotion of gender-inclusive language forms at different levels of communication. In order to document contemporary applied practice of gender-inclusive language in journalism, we presented at the end the results of a study of gender-balanced language in German, Austrian, and Swiss newspaper texts, which we carried out in the German Reference Corpus DeReKo using corpus-linguistic methods (cf. Štefaňáková, 2020). Our aim was to provide an image of recommended gender-symmetrical forms in journalistic texts within the defined period from 1990 to the present. Corpus analysis of written-language texts and the results from it confirmed a trend already underway in German relating to the use of gender-inclusive language. In our view, this is a sign of targeted implicit language policy by publishing houses of German, Austrian, and Swiss newspapers, in which current tendencies in the development of German are reflected. It appears that under international policy, regulatory, codifying, research, publishing, and other institutions have become part of the process, and therefore gender-balanced language is not only a linguistic problem but increasingly a language-political phenomenon.
Author: Mgr. Jana Štefaňáková, PhD.
The author works as an academic assistant at the Department of German Studies of the Faculty of Arts of UMB in Banská Bystrica, and in her publications she primarily focuses on the pluricentricity of the German language, language policy in German-speaking countries, and language gender policy with an emphasis on gender-balanced language. In 2020 her third monograph was published under the title Rodovo symetrický jazyk v slovenskom a nemeckom jazykovom prostredí v kontexte európskej rodovej politiky a gender mainstreamingu, which examines the phenomenon of gender-symmetrical language in Slovak and German contexts in the publicist domain against the background of recent changes in the languages influenced by feminist and gender linguistics, as well as in the context of European linguistic gender policy. In an effort to provide as comprehensive a view as possible of the examined phenomenon, she approaches the issue interdisciplinarily on the basis of knowledge from several disciplines.
References:
ADAMZIK, K. – ALGHISI, A. 2017. Instanzen der Sprachnormierung. Standardvarietäten und Verwaltungssprache im Vergleich. In PANDOLFI, E. M., MIECZNIKOWSKI, J., CHRISTOPHER, S., KAMBER, A.: Studies on language norms in context. Frankfurt a. M. : Lang, 2017, p. 37-72.
CVIKOVÁ, J. – JURÁŇOVÁ, J. – KOBOVÁ, Ľ., MAĎAROVÁ, Z. – OSTERTÁGOVÁ, A., SATINSKÁ, L. – VRÁBĽOVÁ, J. – TERKANIČ, M. 2014. Analýza významu a možností používania rodovo vyváženého jazyka. Bratislava : Centrum vzdelávania MPSVR SROV.
DE SYLVAIN, C. – BALZER, C. 2008. Die Sylvain-Konventionen – Versuch einer geschlechtergerechten Grammatik – Transformation der deutschen Sprache. In Liminalis 2/2008. [accessed 2021-09-20]. Available online: http://liminalis.de/2008_02/Liminalis-2008-Sylvain-Balzer.pdf
DUDEN. 1995. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 5. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich : Dudenverlag, 1995.
GIBBON, Margaret. 1999. Feminist Perspectives on Language. Harlow : Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1999.
HAJNAL, I. 2002. Feministische Sprachkritik und historische Sprachwissenschaft. Die unterschiedlichen Sichtweisen der Kategorie Genus in Syn-und Diachronie. Innsbruck, 2002. [accessed 2021-09-20]. Available online: http://sprawi.at/files/f7e60cb5d1e9c093ae9bc01736281abb
HEGER, A. 2013. Pronomen ohne Geschlecht. In Querrulant_in 4, s. 10. [accessed 2021-09-20]. Available online: http://annaheger.wordpress.com/pronomen/.
KARGL, M. A KOL. 1997. Kreatives Formulieren: Anleitungen zu geschlechtergerechtem Sprachgebrauch. Wien : Bundeskanzleramt, Abt. Schriftenreihe der Frauenministerin, 1997.
KEGYESNE SZEKERES, E. 2005. Sprachlicher Sexismus und sprachliches Gender mainstreaming im Fokus der Europäischen Sprachenpolitik. In European Integration Studies, roč. 4, č. 2/200, Miskolc, 2005, p. 25-44. [accessed 2021-09-04]. Available online: http://arranca.org/ausgabe/28/performing-the-gap
KNOKE, M. 2017. Wie gender darf die Sprache sein? In Goethe Institut : Ungarn. [accessed 2021-09-20] Available online: https://www.goethe.de/ins/hu/de/kul/sup/klt/21458969.html?forceDesktop=1
KOBOVÁ, Ľ. 2010. Feministické je politické: problémy feministickej politickej teórie. In: KICZKOVÁ, Z., SZAPUOVÁ, M., ZEZULOVÁ, J.: Úvod do rodových štúdií. (Gender mainstreaming vo vzdelávaní na vysokej škole). Bratislava : Univerzita Komenského. 2010.
PIETRUCHOVÁ, O. – MAGUROVÁ, Z. 2011. Metodická štúdia sledovania legislatívnych úprav rodovej rovnosti vo vybraných krajinách EÚ a aplikácia v právnom poriadku SR. Bratislava : Centrum vzdelávania Ministerstva práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny, 2011.
TRÖMEL-PLÖTZ, S. – PUSCH, L. 1980. Sprache, Geschlecht und Macht. Wiesbaden : Vieweg Verlag, 1980.
SAMEL, I. 2000. Einführung in die feministische Sprachwissenschaft. 2. vyd. Berlin : Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2000.
SPENDER, D. 1980. Man Made Language. London : Pandora Press, 1980.
STAHLBERG, SABINE – SCZESNY, SABINE. 2001. Effekte des generischen Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedanklichen Einbezug von Frauen. Psychologische Rundschau, roč. 52, č. 3, 2001, p. 131-140.
ŠTEFAŇÁKOVÁ, J. 2020. Rodovo symetrický jazyk v slovenskom a nemeckom jazykovom prostredí v kontexte európskej rodovej politiky a gender mainstreamingu. Monografia. Banská Bystrica : Belianum, 2020.
TRÖMEL-PLÖTZ, S., PUSCH, L. F., HELLINGER, M., GUENTHERODT, I. 1980. Richtlinien zur Vermeidung sexistischen Sprachgebrauchs. In Linguistische berichte 71, 1980, p. 1 – 7.
VALDROVÁ, J. 2017. Generické maskulinum. In KARLÍK, P., NEKULA, L., PLESKALOVÁ, J.: CzechEncy - Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny. [accessed 2021-09-26] Available online: https://www.czechency.org/slovnik/GENERICKÉ MASKULINUM
1 Cf.: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/187110/GNL_Guidelines_SK-original.pdf 2 Report and proposals of the working group “Geschlechtergerechte Schreibung” at the Council for German Orthography meeting of 16 November 2018 – Revised version based on the Council’s decision of 16 November 2018. (https://www.rechtschreibrat.com/DOX/rfdr_2018-11-28_anlage_3_bericht_ag_geschlechterger_schreibung.pdf) 3 “... masculine forms are often used even when natural sex is unimportant or when both men and women are meant equally.” (Author’s translation) 4 Cf.: https://deacademic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/504420#Anwendung_des_generischen_Maskulinums 5 Cf.: https://deacademic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/1013999 6 http://www.rhetorik-seminar-online.com/rhetorik-tipps/geschlechtergerechte-Sprache-gendergerechte-Sprache/ 7 https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/detail-kultur-heute.691.de.html?dram:article_id=380828Linguist+kritisiert+geschlechtergerechte+Sprache%29 8 Author’s translation 9 “... then some people decide to impose and prescribe language forms in one of the largest languages of Europe, which has little to do with democracy. They are usually people we elected to carry out the will of voters...” (“Ein Säugling ist nicht dasselbe wie ein Gesäugter” : https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/detail-kultur-heute.691.de.html?dram:article_id=380828Linguist+kritisiert+geschlechtergerechte+Sprache%29.) 10 https://diepresse.com/home/recht/rechtallgemein/4749107/Verpflichtendes-Gendern-verfassungswidrig