Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Master's Thesis (3)
- Postprint (2)
- Other (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- Gender (23) (remove)
Institute
Gender-inclusive language has evolved into a much-debated topic during the past years, discussed interdisciplinarily from theoretical to psycholinguistics, sociology, and economy – and by anyone who uses language.
Studies on German that primarily relied on questionnaires (reviewed in Braun et al. 2005), cloze tests (Klein 1988), and categorisation tasks with picture matching (Irmen & Köhncke 1996) disqualify the generically used masculine forms as pseudo-generic – failing their grammatically prescribed function to include referents of any Gender. Gender-balanced expressions (pair and split forms like Lehrer und Lehrerinnen) make explicit reference to female presence and participation, and thus elevate a more equitable interpretation.
Online methods to investigate the processing of Gender-sensitive language are surprisingly rare among research on the phenomenon, except for reaction time measures (Irmen & Köhncke 1996, Irmen & Kaczmarek 2000) and eye-tracking in reading (Irmen & Schumann 2011).
In addition, Gender-neutral language (GNL) has not been focused on in the majority of experiments, and when it was among the stimuli, results were inconclusive (De Backer & De Cuypere 2012) or found such alternatives to be ineffective (resembling masculine generics, Braun et al. 2005), despite the fact that guidelines on non-discriminatory language use commonly recommend these.
Gender-neutral (GN) expressions for personal reference in German include
• nominalised participles; nominalisations in general: Interessierte, Lehrende
• collective singulars: Publikum, Kollegium
• compounds (e.g., with a notion of “-person”): Ansprechpersonen, Lehrkräfte
• paraphrases that background a (gendered) subject: e.g., passives, relatives
In a visual world eye-tracking study, the comprehension of plural generics using masculine nouns and GN forms was tested for roles and occupations.
In complex stimulus scenarios, reference had to be established to referent images presented on a screen. At the end of each item, a question was asked in order to (re)identify the image that matched the referents of the respective setting best. Images depicted 1) a single person (protagonist), 2) an all-female group, 3) an all-male group, 4) a mixed Gender group of female and male members. The group referents were introduced with either a) masculine nouns (die Lehrer), b) female-specific feminine nouns (die Lehrerinnen), or c) one of the upper three nominal GN variants (die Lehrkräfte).
Results confirm the frequent male bias in masculine forms that are used as generics, that is, their male-specific interpretation. Furthermore, stereotypicality of nouns had an impact on responses. The GN alternatives, which are generally known to aim for indefinite reference (“marked” for Gender-fair language) were found to be most qualified to elicit mixed Gender group interpretations. When reference was established with GN terms, an inclusive response was consistently elicited. This was both indicated by eye movements and response proportions, but to a different extent depending on the particular GN noun type. Concepts that abstract from Gender in their linguistic forms (“neutralising” it) appear to be more inclusive, and thus better candidates for generic reference than masculines.
Heute sind die Themen Frauen und Frieden auf der Ebene der Sicherheitspolitik der Vereinten Nationen als Resultat von Resolution 1325 (2000) eng miteinander verbunden. Welche rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Konsequenzen haben sich aus dieser Entwicklung einerseits für die Arbeit der Vereinten Nationen selbst, andererseits für die Mitgliedstaaten ergeben und wie steht es um ihre Umsetzung? Die Studie zeichnet die WPS-Agenda nach und diskutiert die diesbezüglichen Aktivitäten der Vereinten Nationen. Die Umsetzungsmaßnahmen Deutschlands werden im Anschluss untersucht und bewertet.
Gender and framing
(2019)
Framing literature has so far failed to construct gender as an analytical category that shapes the ways in which we perceive, identify and act upon grievances. This article builds on the insights of feminist theory and employs the conceptual vocabulary of the social movement framing perspective in maintaining gender as a main parameter of framing processes. Drawing on ethnographic research on local community struggles against hydropower plants in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, this article maintains the centrality of gender to framing processes. It analyzes the gendered difference between men’s macro-framings and women’s cultural and socio-ecological framings, which is rooted in their differing relationships with their immediate environment, as well as with the state and its institutions. The article maintains that the framings of women, which represent the immediacy of the environment, are more effective in gaining public support and shaping movement outcomes. In this sense, constructing gender as an important determinant of “frame variation” is essential not only to reveal women’s frames that are largely silenced through and within the mechanisms of social movement organization, but also to stress their centrality in shaping repertoires of contention, public reception and movement outcomes.