Advertisement

Women in the Public Sphere: Gendered Language

  • Federica Formato
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Language, Gender and Sexuality book series (PSLGS)

Abstract

Language used for, about and by female politicians, is qualitatively and quantitatively investigated to demonstrate how language operates to signal gender, gendering and gendered prototyping. The media have found ways to expose a ‘war among female politicians’, manipulating the choices of the language they use to refer to themselves. Marked forms are used more than unmarked in the case of sindaca (feminine) and sindaco (unmarked masculine) when referring to three female mayors in Italian newspapers. Sexual terms used to insult female politicians about their alleged promiscuous private lives seems to be purposefully used to demonstrate their unsuitability to operate in the institutional public spheres. On the contrary, female MPs legitimize their position in the parliament through language, also building a bond with women outside of the Chamber.

References

  1. Alvanoudi, Angeliki. 2014. Grammatical gender in interaction: Cultural and cognitive aspects. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battaglia, Filippo Maria. 2015. Stai zitta e va’ in cucina. Breve storia del maschilismo in politica da Togliatti a Grillo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, Judith (ed.). 2006. Speaking out: The female voice in public contexts. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzanella, Carla. 2002. The significance of context in comprehension: The ‘we case’. Foundations of Science 7 (3): 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazzanella, Carla. 2009. Noi come meccanismo di intensità. In Fenomeni di intensità dell’italiano parlato, ed. Barbara Gili Fivela and Carla Bazzanella, 101–114. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
  6. Bengoechea, Mercedes. 2011. How effective is ‘femininity’? Media portrayals of the effectiveness of the first Spanish woman Defence Minister. Gender and Language 5 (2): 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloor, Meriel, and Thomas Bloor. 2007. The practice of critical discourse analysis. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, Marilynn B., and Wendi, Gardner. 1996. Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1): 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery, and Steven Wattam. 2015. Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (2): 139–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bull, Peter, and Anita Fetzer. 2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text and Talk 26 (1): 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron, Deborah. 2006. Theorising the female voice in public contexts. In Speaking out: The female voice in public contexts, ed. Judith Baxter, 3–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron, Deborah, and Sylvia Shaw. 2016. Gender, power and political speech: Women and language in the 2015 UK General Election. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catalano, Ana. 2009. Women acting for women? An analysis of gender and debate participation in the British House of Commons 2005–2007. Journal of Politics and Gender 5 (1): 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckert, Penny, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckert, Penny, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1998. Communities of practice: Where language, gender and power all live. In Language and gender: A reader, ed. Janet Coates, 484–494. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Eckert, Penny, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Eckert, Penny, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2007. Putting communities of practice in their place. Gender and Language 1: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Formato, Federica. 2014. Language use and gender in the Italian parliament. PhD, thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  19. Formato, Federica. 2016. Linguistic markers of sexism in the Italian media: A case study of ministra and ministro. Corpora 11 (3): 371–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Formato, Federica. 2017. ‘Ci sono troie in giro in Parlamento che farebbero di tutto’. Italian female politicians seen through a sexual lens. Gender and Language 11 (3): 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia-Blanco, Iñaki, and Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. 2012. The Discursive construction of women politicians in the European Press. Feminist Media Studies 12 (3): 1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gill, Rosalind. 2007. Gender and the media. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  23. Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2002. Grammar and function of we. In Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, ed. Anna Duszak, 31–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes, Janet. 2006. Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iñigo-Mora, Isabel. 2004. On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1): 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilgarriff, Adam. 2012. Getting to know your corpus. In International conference on text, speech and dialogue, 3–15, September 3–7. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koller, Veronika. 2014. Applying social cognition research to critical discourse studies: The case of collective identities. In Contemporary critical discourse studies, ed. Christopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 149–167. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  28. Koller, Veronika, and Wodak Ruth. 2008. Introduction: Shifting boundaries and emergent publics. In Handbook of communication in the public sphere, ed. Ruth Wodak and Veronika Koller, 1–17. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, Paul, and Pam Papadelos. 2017. Who stands for the norm? The place of metonymy in androcentric language. Social Semiotics 27 (1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McElhinny, Bonnie. 1997. Ideologies of public and private language in sociolinguistics. In Gender and discourse, ed. Ruth Wodak, 106–139. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McElhinny, B. 2003. Theorizing gender in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In The handbook of language and gender, ed. Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 21–42. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Mills, Sara. 2008. Language and sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mullany, Louise. 2007. Gendered discourse in the professional workplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal 8 (2): 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peter, Mühlhäusler, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Prentice, Deborah A., Dale T. Miller, and Jenifer R. Lightdale. 1994. Asymmetries in attachment to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (5): 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Proctor, Katarzyna, and Lily I-Wen Su. 2011. The 1st person plural in political discourse: American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (13): 3251–3266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyykkö, Riitta. 2002. Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse. In Us and Others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, ed. Anna Duszak, 233–248. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Neil Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Google Scholar
  40. Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
  41. Shaw, Sylvia. 2000. Language, gender and floor apportionment in political debates. Discourse and Society 11 (3): 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2015. Resisting epistemologies of user-generated content? In Cooptation, segregation and the boundaries of journalism, ed. Matt Carlson, 169–185. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Walsh, Clare. 2001. Gender and discourse: Language and power in politics, the church and organisations. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, John. 1990. Politically speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federica Formato
    • 1
  1. 1.LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations