An Analysis on Sex and Gender Indicators in Language

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 14, 344 - 367, 10.09.2022

Lyazzat Nakhanova

https://doi.org/10.46250/kulturder.1136158

Öz

Socially and culturally constructed gender differences and characteristics are one of the most interesting issues in modern society. In recent years, attention has been drawn to the increase in interdisciplinary research on gender and gender relations in various fields of science. The overall aim of this article is to assess gender, gender and language relations. Along with the transfer of some views and thoughts that have formed and gained meaning in the context of language, gender and gender, the links between the aforementioned phenomena have been tried to be examined through the theoretical approaches and theories based on them. Thus, determining and examining the "phonetic, morphological and lexical" level indicators of gender and gender phenomena should be counted as the aims of this study. As a matter of fact, as a result of the study, it was concluded that the gender indicators in the sound level of the language are generally based on gender differences arising from the biological and physiological infrastructure of men and women; that grammatical categories that include gender indicators in language are based on society's dialectical perception of the world; It has been determined that the lexical level of the language includes gender indicators in their semantic connotations, and the lexical dimension is constructed on the level with the superior gender sign.

Anahtar Kelimeler

language, sex, gender, linguistics, indicator

Dildeki Cinsiyet ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Göstergeleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Sosyal ve kültürel olarak inşa edilen toplumsal cinsiyet farkları ve özellikleri çağdaş toplumun en ilgi çeken meselelerinden biridir. Farklı bilim alanlarında cinsiyet ve toplumsal cinsiyet ile ilişki disiplinler arası çalışmaların son yıllardaki artışı dikkat çekmektedir. Bu makalenin genel amacı cinsiyet, toplumsal cinsiyet ve dil ilişkileri üzerine değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktır. Dil, cinsiyet ve toplumsal cinsiyet bağlamında oluşan ve anlam kazanan bazı görüş ve düşüncelerin aktarılmasıyla beraber bunlar üzerine temellenen teorik yaklaşımlar ve kuramlar üzerinden söz konusu olgular arasındaki bağlar incelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Böylece toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet olgularının dilin fonetik, morfolojik ve leksik düzeyindeki göstergelerinin tespit edilerek incelenmesi de bu çalışmanın amaçları olarak sayılmalıdır. Nitekim çalışmanın sonucunda dilin ses düzeyindeki cinsiyet göstergelerinin genellikle kadın ve erkek biyolojik ve fizyolojik altyapısından kaynaklanan cinsiyet farklılıklarına dayandığı; dildeki cinsiyet göstergelerini içeren gramer kategorilerinin toplumun diyalektik dünya algılayışı üzerine kuruldukları; dilin leksik düzeyinin, toplumsal cinsiyet göstergelerini anlamsal çağrışımlarında içermesi, leksik boyutun üstün cinsiyet işaretli düzey üzerinde kurgulandığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dil, cinsiyet, toplumsal cinsiyet, dilbilim, gösterge

Kaynakça

• Ackrill, John Lloyd (1963). Aristotle’s Categories and de Interpretatione (Translation with Notes). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Alpatov, V. M. & Kryuchkova, T. B. (1980). O muzhskom i zhenskom variyantah yaposkogo yazıka. Voprosy Yazıkoznaniya, 3. Moskva, 58-68.
• Al-Wer, Enam Essa (1991). Phonological Variation in the Speech of Women from Three Urban Areas in Jordan. Doctoral Dissertation. Colchester: University of Essex.
• Anders, Sari M. van (2013). “Beyond Masculinity: Testosterone, Gender/Sex and Human Social Behavior in a Comparative Context”. Front Neuroendocrinol, 34: 198–210.
• Bailey, Charles-James. N. (1982). On the Yin and Yang Nature of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers Inc.
• Barnawi, Najla et al. (2013). “Midwifery and Midwives: A Historical Analysis”. Journal of Research in Nursing and Midwifery (JRNM), 2(8): 114-121.
• Bem, Sandra Lipsitz (1993). The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
• Bornstein, Kate (2016). Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us, New York: Vintage Books.
• Bozekenov, Tauirbek (2017). “Yer men ayel ortaq antroponimderdin şığuw uaji men damu procsesi”. Qaz UU Habarşısı, Filologiya Seriyası, 2: 356-360.
• Braun, Freiderike (2000). “Gender in the Turkish Language System”. Turkic Languages, 4: 3-21.
• Burnley, David (1992) The History of the English Language, London: Longman.
• Butcher, Samuel Henry (1922). The Poetics of Aristotle. London: Macmillan and Co. Limited.
• Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
• Cameron, Deborah (1992). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Campbell, Lyle (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Çelik, Adil (2022). Türk Folklorunda Levirat. Çanakkale: Paradigma Akademi Yayınları.
• Chandler, Daniel (2002). Semiotics The Basics. New York: Routledge.
• Chapkis, Wendy. (2013). “The Trouble with Mary Jane’s Gender”. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 35: 71-88.
• Cixous, Hélène (1976). “The Laugh of the Medusa”. Trans. Cohen K. & Cohen P. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1(4): 875-893.
• Coates, Jennifer (2013). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. London: Routledge.
• Corbett, Greville G. (2013). “Sex-based and Non-sex-based Gender Systems”. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Eds. M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. Leipzig, GE: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 20-24.
• de Beauvoir, Simone (2009). The Second Sex. Trans. Constance Borde & Sheila Malovany Chevallier. New York: Vintage Books.
• de Saussure, Ferdinand (1959). Cours de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Payot.
• Deaux, Kay & Major, Brenda (1990). “A Social-Psychological Model of Gender”. Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference. Ed. D. Rhode. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 89-99.
• Deely, John N. (2010). Semiotic Animal: A Postmodern Definition of Human Being Transcending Patriarchy and Feminism to Supersede the Ancient and Medieval “Animal Rationale” along with the Modern “Res Cogitans”. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press.
• Dixon, Robert M. W. (1991). The Endangered Languages of Australia, Indonezia and Oceania. Oxford: BERG.
• Dorofei, Y. O. (2009). “Gendernıye stereotipy v antichnosti. Uchenıye zapiski Tavricheskogo nascionalnogo universiteta im. Vernadskogo”. Seriya: Filosofiya, Kulturologiya, Polıtologiya, Sosiologiya, 22(2): 66-109.
• Dubois, Betty Lou & Crouch, Isabel (1975). “The Question of Tag Questions in Women’s Speech: They Don’t Really Use More of Them, Do They?”. Language in Society, 4(3): 289-294.
• Dunn, Michael (2000). “Chukchi Women's Language: A Historical Comparative Perspective”. Anthropological Linguistics, 42(3): 305–328.
• Eakins, Barbara Westbrook & Eakins, Rollin Gene (1978). Sex Differences in Human Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender, and Power All Live. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
• Eco, Umberto (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Bloomington USA: İndiana University Press.
• Fishman, Pamela M. (1983). “Interactions: The Work Women Do?”. Language, Gender, and Society. Eds. B. Thorne et al. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 89–101.
• Flax, Jane (1987). “Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory”. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(4): 621–643.
• Franceschina, Florencia (2005). Fossilized Second Language Grammars: The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Frye, Douglas et al. (1995). “Theory of Mind and Rule-based Reasoning”. Cognitive Development, 10(4): 483-527.
• Graddol, David & Swann, Joan (1989). Gender Voices. Cambridge: Blackwell Publications.
• Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gür, Murat (2019). Türk Romanında Erkeklik ve Milliyetçilik (1908-1923). İstanbul: Kesit Yayınları.
• Henley, Nancy M. & Kramarae, Cheris (1991). “Gender, Power, and Miscommunication”. Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. Ed. N. Coupland et.al. New York: Sage Publications Inc, 18-43.
• Holmes, Janet (1985). “Sex Differences and Miscommunication: Some Data from New Zealand”. Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Ed. John B. Pride. Melbourne: Rivers Seine, 149-178.
• Irigaray, Luce (1985). This Sex Which is not One. Trans. Catherine Porter. New York: Cornell University Press.
• Jakobson, Roman (1978). Six Lectures on Sound and Meaning. Trans. John Mepham. UK: The Harvester Press Limited.
• Jespersen, Otto (1922). Language, Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.
• Jespersen, Otto (1926) Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig und Berlin: Verlag von B.G. Teubner.
• Kerimoğlu, Caner ve Doğan, Gökçe (2015). “Türkçede Cinsiyet Görünümleri ve Çağrışımsal Zihniyet”. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 38: 143-178.
• Kessler, Suzanne J. & McKenna, Wendy (1978). Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Korkmaz, Zeynep (1992). Gramer Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
• Kottak, Conrad Phillip (2014). Antropoloji. İnsan Çeşitliliğinin Önemi. Çev. İzzet Duyar. Ankara: De-Ki Yayınevi.
• Kristeva, Julia (1981). “Oscillation Between Power and Denial”. Trans. Marilyn A. August. New French Feminisms: An Anthology. Eds. Elaine Marks & Isabelle de Courtivron. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 165–168.
• Labov, William (1963). “The Social Motivation of Sound Change”. Word, 19(3): 273–309.
• Labov, William (1991). “The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change”. Language Variation and Change, 2(2): 205–254.
• Lacan, Jacques (1973). Le Séminaire, Livre XI. Les Quatre Concepts Fondamentaux de Lapsychanalyse. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.
• Lacan, Jacques (1977). Écrits, A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Lakoff, George (1990). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Illinois: The Univ. of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
• Lieberman, Stephen J. (1977). The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Missoula. Montana: Scholar Press.
• Maltz, Daniel N. & Borker, Ruth A. (1982). “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication”. Language and Social Identity. Ed. John J. Gumperz. UK: Cambridge University Press, 363–380.
• Mastropavlou, Maria & Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria (2011). “The Role of Suffixes in Grammatical Gender Assignment in Modern Greek”. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 11(1): 27–55.
• Mead, Margaret (2003). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: Perennial an Imprint of Harper Collins Pub.
• Meillet, Antoine (1903). Introduction a l’etude Comparative des Langues Indo-europeennes. Paris: Hachette. Morris, Charles (1946). Signs, Language, Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Murray, Charles (2020). Human Diversity: The Biology of Human Gender, Race and Class. New York: Twelve an Imprint of Hachette Book Group.
• O’Barr, William M. & Atkins, Bowman K. (1980). “Women’s Language? or Powerless Language?”. Women and Language in Literature and Society. Eds. Sally McConnell-Ginet et al. London: Oxford University Press, 93–110.
• Peirce, Charles Sanders (ed.) (1998). The Essential Peirce (1893–1913): Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. S. 625.
• Rochberg-Halton, Eugene & McMurtrey, Kevin (1983). “The Foundations of Modern Semiotics: Charles Peirce and Charles Morris”. American Journal of Semiotics, 2(1-2): 129-156.
• Schultz, Muriel (1990). “The Semantic Derogation of Women”. The Feminist Critique of Language. Ed. Deborah Cameron. London: Routledge, 134–147.
• Sebeok, Thomas A. (1977). A Perfusion of Signs. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Shapiro, Michael (2002). “Aspects of a Neo-Peircean Linguistics: Language History as Linguistic Theory”. The Peirce Seminar Papers: Essays in Semiotic Analysis, Vol. 5. Ed. Michael Shapiro. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 108–125.
• Shibamoto, Janet S. (1985). Japanese Women’s Language. New York: Academic Press.
• Short Susan et al. (2013). “Sex, Gender, Genetics, and Health”. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1): 93-101.
• Smith, Anthony (1997). İnsan Yapısı ve Yaşam. Çev. Erzen Onur ve Nida Tektaş. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
• Spender, Dale (1980). Man-Made Language. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
• Stoller, Robert J. (1968). Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. New York: Routledge.
• Tannen, Deborah (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
• Totman, Conrad (2005). A History of Japan. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Trudgill Peter J. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. England: Cambridge University Press.
• URL-1. “Why Gender-neutral Baby Names are on the Rise”. https://nypost.com/2018/03/21/why-gender-neutral-baby-names-are-on-the-rise/ (Erişim: 05.02.2022).
• Vardar, Berke (2002). Açıklamalı Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Multilingual Yabancı Dil Yayınları.
• Wu, Ke & Childers, D. G. (1991). “Gender Recognition from Speech. Part 1: Coarse Analysis”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90(4): 1828-1840.
• Yeung, Tak-lap. (2020). “Two Conceptions of Harmony in Ancient Western and Eastern Aesthetics: Dialectic Harmony and Ambiguous Harmony”. Journal of East-West Thought, 10(2): 65-82.
• Yolcu, Mehmet Ali (2014). Türk Kültüründe Evliliğe Bağlı Tabu ve Kaçınmalar. Konya: Kömen Yayınları.
• Zemskaya, E.A. vd. (1993). “Osobennosti muzhskoi i zhenskoi rechi. Russkiy yazık v ego funkcionirovanii”. Kommunikativno pragmaticheskiy aspekt. Moskva, 224-241.
• Zimmerman, Dean H. & West, Candace (1975). “Sex Roles, İnterruptions and Silences in Conversation”. Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Eds. Thorne, B. & Henley, N. Massachusetts: Newbury, 105-129.