Women, Crime and Gender in the Private Sphere: Femminicidio

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


Exploring the historical gendered fixed roles for women and men in the private, i.e. heterosexual relationships, demonstrates that these prove equally detrimental to women. The femminicidio, the crime in which men kill their on-going or former partners, is a widespread phenomenon worldwide as well as in Italy. Qualitative and quantitative language investigations show that politics is dealing with this issue as an abstract phenomenon which affects women. Reporting on the topic in Italian newspapers reproduces dangerous narratives which recount how male jealousy and hurt feelings are at the core of this gendered crime. Furthermore, specific language is used to bridge the gap between a void in the legislation and this systematic atrocity perpetrated by men against women.


  1. Abis, Stefania, and Paolo Orrù. 2016. Il femminicidio nella stampa italiana: un’indagine linguistica. Gender/Sexuality/Italy 3: 18–33.Google Scholar
  2. Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple. 2017. The discourse of news values: How news organizations create ‘newsworthiness’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boonzaier, Floretta. 2008. ‘If the man says you must sit, then you must sit’: The relational construction of woman abuse: Gender, subjectivity and violence. Feminism & Psychology 18 (2): 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bou-Franch, Patricia. 2013. Domestic violence and public participation in the media: The case of citizen journalism. Gender and Language 7 (3): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Busá, Maria Grazia. 2014. Introducing the language of the news. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Catalano, Ana. 2009. Women acting for women? An analysis of gender and debate participation in the British House of Commons 2005–2007. Politics and Gender 5 (1): 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coulthard, Caldas, and Carmen Rosa. 1993. From discourse analysis to critical discourse analysis: The differential re-representation of women and men speaking in written news. In Techniques of description: Spoken and written discourse, ed. John Sinclair, Micheal Hoey, and Gwyneth Fox, 196–208. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Diamanti, Ilvo. 2014. The 5 star movement: A political laboratory. Contemporary Italian Politics 6: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dittrich-Johansen, Helga. 1995. La “donna nuova” di Mussolini tra evasione e consumismo. Studi Storici 3: 811–843.Google Scholar
  11. Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell Dobash (eds.). 1998. Rethinking violence against women. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Ehrlich, Susan. 2003. Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Emil, Ludwig. 1970. Colloqui con Mussolini. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
  14. Fagoaga, Concha. 1994. Comunicando violencia contra las mujeres. Estudio sobre el mensaje periodístico 1: 67–90.Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media discourse. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
  16. Formato, Federica. 2014. Language use and gender in the Italian parliament. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  17. Haaken, Janice. 2010. Hard knocks: Domestic violence and the psychology of storytelling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hardie, Andrew, and Tony McEnery. 2006. Glossary of corpus linguistics, A. glossaries in linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hearn, Jeff. 2004. From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory 5 (1): 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hook, Donald D. 1984. First names and titles as solidarity and power semantics in English. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 22 (3): 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ifantidou, Elly. 2009. Newspaper headlines and relevance: Ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (4): 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingraham, Chrys. 2006. One is not born a bride: How weddings regulate heterosexuality. In Introducing the new sexuality, ed. Steven Seidman, Nancy L. Fisher, and Chet Meeks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jeffries, Lesley. 2015. Language and ideology. In Introducing language and linguistics, ed. Louise Cummings and Natalie Braber, 379–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, Michael P. 1995. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family 57: 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karadole, Cristina. 2012. Anti-violence centres and shelters in Italy: History and meaning of women’s struggles against male violence. Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies 17 (2): 238–242.Google Scholar
  26. Kilgarriff, Adam. 2012, September. Getting to know your corpus. In International conference on text, speech and dialogue, 3–15. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vit Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1: 7–36. Scholar
  28. Larcombe, Wendy. 2005. Compelling engagements. Feminism, rape law and romance fiction. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  29. Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, ed. Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  30. McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Hardie. 2011. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Meyers, Marian. 1997. News coverage of violence against women: Engendering blame. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Monckton-Smith, Jane. 2012. Murder, gender and the media. Narratives of gendered love. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nossem, Eva. 2015. Potere e autorità nei dizionari. Gender/Sexuality/Italy 2: 110–124.Google Scholar
  34. O’Hara, Shannon. 2012. Monsters, playboys, virgins and whores: Rape myths in the news media’s coverage of sexual violence. Language and Literature 21 (3): 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pahl, Jan (ed.). 2016. Private violence and public policy: The needs of battered women and the response of the public services. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Partington, Alan. 2010. Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies MD-CADS on UK newspapers: An overview of the project. Corpora 5 (2): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Partington, Alan, Alison Duguid, and Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies CADS. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potts, Amanda, and Federica Formato. forthcoming. Women victims of men who murder: XML mark-up for nomination, collocation and frequency analysis of language of the law. In The handbook of language, gender and sexuality, ed. Judith Baxter and Jo Anguri. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Rederlechner, Mirjam, and Beate Ratz. 1993. Giving birth to a new nation: A critique of the programme for the demographic renewal of Croatia. Rights of Women Bulletin (Spring): 13–15. Google Scholar
  40. Rye, B.J., Sarah A. Greatrix, and Corinne S. Enright. 2006. The case of the guilty victim: The effects of gender of victim and gender of perpetrator on attributions of blame and responsibility. Sex Roles 54: 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santaemilia, José, and Sergio Maruenda. 2014. The linguistic representation of gender violence in written media discourse: The term ‘woman’ in Spanish contemporary newspapers. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2 (2): 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaeffer, John D. 1990. Sensus communis: Vico, Rhetoric and the limits of relativism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schrock, Douglas P., and Irene Padavic. 2007. Negotiating hegemonic masculinity in a batterer intervention program. Gender and Society 21 (5): 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, Mike. 1997. PC analysis of key words—And key key words. System 25 (2): 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tabbert, Ulrike. 2016. Language and crime: Constructing offenders and victims in newspaper reports. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thapar-Björkert, Suruchi, and Karen J. Morgan. 2010. Exploring blame and responsibility in interpersonal violence “But sometimes I think. They put themselves in the situation”. Violence Against Women 4: 16–32.Google Scholar
  47. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Dijk, Teun. A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Walby, Sylvia. 1990. Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Wood, Julia T. 2001. The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women’s narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18 (2): 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wykes, Maggie. 1995. Passion, marriage and murder. In Gender and crime, ed. Russell P. Dobash, Lesley Noaks, and R. Emerson Dobash, 49–76. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federica Formato
    • 1
  1. 1.LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations