Abstract
Feminist linguistic activism has gained prominence among Western feminists as a way to eliminate sexism in language and everyday life. In Russian, gender specification (known as feminitivy) represents the mainstream approach practiced by grassroots feminist reformers. However, alternative approaches aimed at gender neutralization proliferate. The paper examines the prospects and challenges of gender neutralization both in writing and oral speech. Results of a survey documenting attitudes of Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities to language reform attempts are presented, with a special focus on comparison between gender specification and gender neutralization.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction: Feminist linguistic activism
Feminist linguistic activism is a practice that aims to expose and eliminate linguistic sexism across languages. By βlinguistic sexismβ most authors generally mean βasymmetrical treatment [in language] of women and men, of male/masculine and female/feminine concepts and principlesβ (Pauwels, 2003, p. 553), with male/masculine constructed as the norm (βmale-as-normβ ideology) and female/feminine as deviation from that norm (Spender, 1980). Linguistic sexism is commonly illustrated by the high prevalence of βgeneric masculinesβ in languages with grammatical gender and βmale genericsβ elsewhere (Hellinger & BuΓmann, 2015, p. 9), with grammatically or semantically masculine forms (including pronouns) used to refer to all human beings by default regardless of their actual sex, gender or gender identity, while grammatically feminine forms are regarded female-specific. In many cases, feminine forms are derived from masculine forms morphologically by suffices and other means. Moreover, linguistic sexism occurs in other areas, including forms of address, idiomatic expressions, proverbs (e.g. Holmes, 2000; Pershai, 2014), and a plethora of other linguistic imbalances between the speech of women and men (Lakoff, 2004).
Not satisfied with merely exposing linguistic sexism, some feminists seek to establish a βgender-fairβ alternative through comprehensive language reforms. The theoretical framework most often cited by early feminist reformers is the controversial SapirβWhorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity (Schneider & Foss, 1977). This theory argues that, at least to some degree, the language we speak influences our basic categories of thought (Lucy, 2001). If this hypothesis is true then the use of English words like βheβ, βchairmanβ or βfiremanβ creates the perception that all such individuals are men. It follows that replacing these words with their βfemaleβ equivalents might eliminate this βmale-as-normβ ideology. However, Australian feminist Dale Spender, who was among the pioneers to call for language reforms, advocates for a more holistic approach. Spender believes that this process must be a dialectical rather than a unidirectional one. She argues:
As more meanings are changed so will society change and the sexist semantic rule be weakened; as society and the semantic rule changes so will more meanings changeβeven without deliberate intervention. To concentrate on either word meanings or social organizationsβto the exclusion of the otherβis to invite failure (Spender, 1980, p.Β 31).
Contemporary scholars and activists arguing for gender-fair language seem to prefer to cite empirical evidence rather than the SapirβWhorf hypothesis. For example, societies where gendered, natural gender and genderless languages are spoken have been shown to differ in gender equality in a statistically significant way (Prewitt-Freilino et al., 2012). However, on the whole, development of gender-fair language remains largely the domain of activists and amateur linguists, with theoretical foundations playing a secondary role.
Conceived in the wake of second-wave feminism in the United States (US), feminist linguistic activism is currently evolving in two dimensions. First, mainstream feminist reformatory approaches are being challenged to be more inclusive of trans and gender non-binary individuals by, among other factors, a trans and queer critique of second-wave feminismβs binary and essentialist notions of sex and gender (e.g. that the categories of men and woman are immutable and polarized). Second, feminist linguistic activism is spreading, mainly within the Western world, to languages other than English. This pilot study aims to capture both of these dimensions by documenting emerging linguistic practices and attitudes among Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities, with a particular focus on gender neutralization and trans communities.
The next section of this paper (SectionΒ 2) outlines and provides insight into the gender specification vs. gender neutralization debate that informs this study. SectionΒ 3 documents non-standard language use in written Russian. SectionΒ 4 presents the results and documents oral speech strategies. SectionΒ 5 explores the attitudes of Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI individuals towards various types of non-standard language use. Finally, Sect.Β 6 talks about this studyβs limitations and avenues for further research in this area.
2 Gender-neutralization or gender-specification: between ideology and pragmatism
Gender specification and gender neutralization are two main and largely opposite approaches to combating sexism in language (Pauwels, 2003, p. 556). By introducing feminine forms, proponents of gender specification (or feminization) explicitly state that, because men are not the default example of what is human, masculine generics should not be applied to all human beings by default. Gender-neutralization, on the other hand, seeks to eradicate all references to gender in language.
Although both approaches were developed to counter the βmale-as-normβ ideology, their end-goals differ and, since they cannot be implemented simultaneously, compete. Pauwels (2003, p. 556) classifies arguments used by proponents of the two approaches into social and linguistic categories. While social arguments mainly focus on the social effectiveness of reform and ideological issues, linguistic arguments emphasize linguistic viability and language typology. This paper contributes to this debate by introducing the standpoint of transgender individuals and demonstrates why, in languages not well suited for gender neutralization (including Russian), this approach is still on the table.
2.1 Social arguments for trans/non-binary inclusion and gender-neutral language
The basic lines of argumentation between proponents of either feminization or neutralization were drawn in the 1970 to 1980s, which is also when these debates were ignited, largely by cisgender feminists. At that time, social arguments were synonymous with social effectiveness of language reforms; for instance, whether a proposed reform has a chance to gain prominence within the society (e.g. Henley, 1987).
Since the 1980βs, new stakeholders, like transgender, gender non-binary and non-conforming people, have appeared. These groups provide an impetus to rethink social arguments in a broader sense. Trans (including non-binary) activists contribute to this by raising awareness that not all individuals feel comfortable describing themselves or being labeled with traditional βfemaleβ and βmaleβ designations. A growing number of individuals choose to identify as βgenderqueerβ, βagenderβ, βneutroisβ, βgenderfluidβ, βthird genderβ, or another identity entirely. These communities are, subsequently, increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with traditional notions, and therefore linguistic conventions and restrictions, regarding feminine and masculine forms (Hord, 2016). Many such individuals, in striving for new linguistic solutions, argue that their identities are not currently represented. It is, however, not viable to accommodate all the multitude of non-binary identities via separate grammatical genders for each. On the other hand, creating a βhomogenizedβ category for all trans people would lead to othering (i.e. assigning certain individuals to an out-group, essentially different from oneβs own) without addressing the core oppression (Pershai, 2006). A more straightforward and radical path is to do away with, or make optional, grammatical gender altogether.
Another argument raised in favor of gender-neutral language is the ability to avoid the potential to misgender an individual whose gender identity is unknown. That is physical appearance is not always a good predictor of oneβs gender identity or the way they wish to be addressed. Research shows that perpetual misgendering (i.e. being addressed in a gender other than one prefers), whether intentionally or not, is often perceived as a microaggression (Freeman & Stewart, 2018, see also Nordmarken, 2014) and leads to psychological distress in trans individuals (McLemore, 2018). Communicative problems in pre-transition trans individuals can also be caused by the need to use specific gendered forms of speech in order to hide or obscure oneβs gender identity, especially in societies that are particularly transphobic (Zborovskaya, 2012).
For a theoretical linguist, insistence on such a rigid correlation between oneβs gender identity and referential gender might come as a surprise or be evidence of ignorance, since it is not necessarily always the case. In some Polish dialects, for example, unmarried women are addressed in neuter or masculine forms (Corbett, 1991, p.Β 100). This is, nevertheless, not evidence of their identification as male or non-binary. Gender shifts are used in many languages to express a range of emotions, from affection to disdain (Aikhenvald, 2019). Many studies in LGBT linguistics demonstrate the cultural phenomenon whereby cisgender male homosexuals use feminine pronouns to refer to themselves and each other and cisgender lesbians similarly use masculine forms of address (Livia & Hall, 1997). From the standpoint of post-structuralist linguistics, the whole concept of stable referential gender is questionable, since it βimpl[ies] an essentialist existence independent of discursive formationβ (Motschenbacher, 2010, p. 82).
This critique, while theoretically and empirically well-founded, comes from cisgender linguists who might face epistemological barriers to understanding specific experiences of trans individuals. This is subsequently reflected in their use of language and priorities in language planning efforts. An influx of trans people in academia has provided new insights and led to the emergence of trans linguistics as a new and distinct field (Zimman, 2020). Scholars working within this field consider the experience of trans people with language, including referential self-determination and constraints posed at self-expression by cisgenderist society, as central to understanding both social and grammatical gender (Ibid.; Zimman, 2019). An explicit focus on the trans perspective is productive in redefining and broadening the concept of linguistic sexism to include misgendering which is currently overlooked in mainstream feminist language planning in favor of male generics (Ansara & Hegarty, 2013). Following this logic, one might wonder whether a βgender-fairβ label can be applied to gender specificationβan approach that excludes those outside the female/male dichotomy?
2.2 Pragmatic linguistic arguments against neutralization and the ways to overcome
Even when eagerly desired, not every language easily succumbs to gender neutralization. Generally, one can differentiate between three types of languages according to how gender is coded: genderless languages, natural gender languages and grammatical gender (or gendered) languages (Stahlberg et al., 2007). Genderless languages are already gender-neutral by default, thus, they will not be given further consideration. Natural gender languages, like English or Swedish, reflect gender in personal pronouns and can be made gender-neutral by incorporating gender-neutral pronounsβsingular they and hen being the oft-cited examples. Consider, however, that some less common gender-neutral pronouns (e.g. ze) might be considered trans-specific by the general public and may lead to outing of users as trans individuals (Hord, 2016).
Grammatical gender languages, such as Russian, present the most serious challenge to gender neutralization. In these languages not only personal pronouns but most other parts of speech have at least two formsβfeminine and masculine. While neuter is present in Russian, it it is not of much practical use here, since it is reserved for inanimate objects and used for humans only in derogatory speech and a few terms referring to small children (ditja, Δado). Given these circumstances, gender-specification is the choice by default, while gender-neutralization is rarely considered by feminist language reformersβsee PlemenitaΕ‘ (2014) for a discussion on Slovenian, and KieΕkiewicz-Janowiak (2019) for Polish.
The social arguments in favor of gender neutralization raised above, however, still apply in societies where languages are not particularly fit for such a reform. In these cases activists seeking to move their languages in this direction are obliged to invent completely new forms, such as through the use of special symbols. A few examples can help understand the difficulties involved. In French, gender neutral variants of the word βstudentsβ incorporate a period (Γ©tudiant.e.s), a middle point (Γ©tudiantΒ·eΒ·s) or hyphen (Γ©tudiant-e-s) (Shroy, n.d). In Spanish, the use of an at-sign (tod@s), asteriks (tod*s), the letter x (todxs) and an underscore (tod_s) have all been proposed in place of the βaβ and βoβ used to delineate feminine or masculine forms respectively (Melamud, 2017, p. 19). In German, methods include an asterisk (Studier*, Student*in), x-form (Studierx), internal capital I (StudentIn), and an underscore (Student_in, Stu_dentin) (Hermann, 2003; AG Feministisch Sprachhandeln, 2014). The underscore method, known as βgender gap**β, was introduced in 2003 to represent a visual βgapβ between a masculine form and a feminine suffix (Hermann, 2003). Gender-gapped words are intended to include everyone in-between female and male gender identities. The relative usability of this method in German is explained by -In being the most productive suffix for derivation of feminine forms.
In summation, language typology puts great constraints on the choice of the optimal strategy for eliminating language sexism. Natural gender languages are better suited for neutralization, while gendered languages better succumb to feminization. Nevertheless, social arguments may have an outsized impact, leading to the creation of peculiar forms. To use a catchphrase, βwhere thereβs a will thereβs a wayβ.
3 Non-standard language use in Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities: evidence from written sources
Androcentrism of the Russian language is well documented (Doleschal & Schmid, 2001). Language reforms have been attempted since the beginning of Soviet rule. Feminine forms, known as feminitivy (or feminativy), were purposefully promoted by the Soviet government with an aim to engage more women in public life and eliminate gender inequality (Pershai, 2015). Deliberate linguistic reforms are, therefore, not a new phenomenon in the Russian sphere and feminitivy are currently discussed in both popular and academic literature (e.g. Fufaeva, 2020). On the other hand, gender neutralization is a new phenomenon rarely discussed by Russian linguists and known to small but growing communities of LGBTQI people (Andreevskikh et al., 2017; OvΔinnikova, 2017; Klestova, 2020; Zborovskaya, 2014 being a few exceptions).
This section will provide an overview of the main types of non-standard language use among Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities. The discussion is based on both primary and, where available, secondary data.
3.1 Gender specification (feminization)
Feminization is not the main topic of this paper, and interested readers are referred to Mozdzierz (1999) and Doleschal and Schmid (2001) for an overview of formation of feminine forms in Russian, Berkutova (2018) on historical trends, Badanina (2017), Vorobβeva (2020) and similar works on present-day debates.
3.2 Paired forms
Paired masculine and feminine noun forms can be used side by side to refer to a mixed-gender group (1):
-
(1)
Zamykala demonstraciju βRaduΕΎnaja kolonnaβ, v kotoroj prinjali ucastie okolo 600 celovekβpredstavitelβnicy i predstaviteli LGBT-soobΕ‘Δestv, LGBT-aktivistki i aktivisty, sojuznicy i sojuzniki LGBT.
βBringing up rear was the βRainbow columnβ, in which participated around 600 individualsβrepresentatives (f.) and representatives (m.) of LGBT-communities, LGBT-activists (f.) and activists (m.), allies (f.) and allies (m.) of LGBT.β β (Coming Out, 2015)
The obvious drawback is unwieldiness resulting from repeated use of each word. As a result, in official settings, an abbreviated form using two gendered suffices (separated with a slash) is mainly used: e.g. sotrudniki/cy (βemployeesβ). The later suffix may also appear in brackets: e.g. sotrudniki(-cy).
This method will not lead to true neutralization, since the result is little more than a combination of masculine and feminine forms and excludes everything outside the feminine-masculine binary. To include non-binary options, βothersβ can be added, e.g.: podrugi, druzβja i drugie suΕ‘Δnosti (βfriends (f.), friends (m.) and other beingsβ) (Kiberfeminizm, 2020).
3.3 Neuter gender
Some non-binary individuals address their linguistic exclusion by adopting and reappropriating neuter gender forms (2):
-
(2)
β RasskaΕΎi podrobno o momente, kogda ty osoznalo sebja agendernym Δelovekom. /β Po golove udarilo β i osoznalo. Na samom dele kak uznalo o kategorii gendera, tak i osoznalo.
ββ Tell in detail about the moment, when you realized (n.) you are an agender person. /β It hit me on the head β and realized (n.). In fact when [I] learned (n.) about the category of gender, so [I] realized (n.).β β (AgadΕΎikova, 2018)
The stigma surrounding the use of neuter towards humans precludes this approach from gaining popularity. Moreover, neuter shares endings with masculine in several declensions and is, therefore, not always perceived as truly gender neutral.
3.4 Singular they
One approach to gender neutralization is inspired by the use of singular they in English. For a comprehensive discussion of this method see (OvΔinnikova, 2017). We will restrict ourselves here to considering just one example (3) from that study for illustration (Frisk and Chara are characters in a video game Undertale):
-
(3)
β¦ ne sΔitaja Frisk, kotorye okazyvaetsja Δaroj β¦
ββ¦ not to mention Frisk, who (pl.) turn out (sing.) to be Chara β¦β
The relative pronoun kotorye is used in plural to refer to a single non-binary person. In this example, it is followed by the singular verb okazyvaetsja. The name Frisk is not declined, while Chara is declined as feminine, though both character are non-binary. As noted in the original study, the usage of number and declension does not follow a strict pattern and depends on the author and context (Ibid.).
3.5 Gender-gap**
An alternative approach to gender neutralization was inspired by German-speaking queer feministsβ use of gender-gap** to represent βeverything in-betweenβ masculine and feminine (Aloevrukava-blog, 2014). Let us consider two examples ((4), (5)) to illustrate the use and formation of these forms:
-
(4)
Na volne populjarnosti gendernyx issledovanij mnogie lingvist_ki naΔali pisatβ o jazyke βΔerez prizmu genderaβ, xotja togda, kak i sejΔas, malo kto ob"jasnjal_a, Δto imenno ispolβzovanie Γ¨togo podxoda predpolagaet.
βIn the wake of popularity of gender studies many *linguists started to write about language βthrough gender prismβ, although then, as now, few people *explained, what exactly the use of this approach implies.β β (Pershai, 2017, p. 64)
-
(5)
Xotja PidΕΎin (kotor_aja predpoΔitaet mestomenie βon_aβ) otmeΔaet, Δto podderΕΎal_a byβ¦
βAlthough Pidgeon (*who prefers the pronoun βtheyβ) notes, that [they] would supportβ¦ββ (Davis, 2018, p. 98)
The first example comes from an article on gender linguistics and employs gender-gapped nouns and verbs in the place of generic masculine forms (lingvisty, ob"jasnjal) to refer to a group of βlinguistsβ that includes women, men and (probably) individuals of other gender identities. The second example comes from a translation of an English academic book and demonstrates the use of gender-gapped personal and relative pronouns and a verb to express non-binary identity of a third person (in the original, singular they is used).
In formation of Russian gender-gapped words two deviations from the respective approach in German are observed. First, gender-gap** is applied not only to nouns but to others parts of speech, including pronouns and verbs: for example, masculine form ob"jasnjal is supplemented with a feminine ending -a, separated by a gender gap (underscore). Secondly, Russian morphology is much richer, so, in the case of lingvist_ki, the plural ending -y is removed before gender-gap** is applied: lingvisty β lingvist β lingvist_ki. Matters become even more complicated when a feminine form is not derived from a masculine one, but derivation of masculine and feminine employs pairs of parallel suffices. In such cases, activists recommend using the longest common substring, followed by an underscore and a feminine ending: e.g. perevodΔiki (m. βtranslatorsβ) / perevodΔicy (f. βtranslatorsβ) β perevodΔi β perevodΔi_cy. (Aloevrukava-blog, 2014). Therefore, the gender gap loses its original meaning as a βspace betweenβ masculine and feminine and becomes a space between a senseless fragment of a word and its feminine ending. A few words completely defy gender neutralization in this way due to rather different masculine and feminine forms: e.g. drug / podruga (m./f. βfriendβ). Conversely, some feminine forms derived from masculine counterparts may have completely different meanings: e.g. maΕ‘inist (βtrain driverβ) and maΕ‘inistka (f. βtypistβ), making gender-gap** senseless in such cases.
Acknowledging deficiencies and contradictions of the method, its creators nevertheless βchoose not to pay attention, because the idea is more or less easy to grasp and because I think that cis-men for once need to use fantasy, just like everyone else has been doing it for decadesβ (Aloevrukava-blog, 2014).
4 Non-standard language use in Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities: oral speech
Written strategies of creating a gender-fair language exemplified in the previous section can be transferred to oral speech with varying success. Oral articulation of feminitivy via paired forms and words in neuter is straightforward but less obvious in the case of approaches borrowed from English and German. Moreover, oral speech may provide speakers with opportunities that are not easily expressed in writing. An online survey was conducted to shed light on this topic.
4.1 Method
Written questionnaires are a relatively underused approach in sociolinguistic research. They are praised for large sample sizes produced, low cost and time invested, and easiness of analysis (Boberg, 2013). The method is also preferred for low-frequency variables (Bailey et al., 1997). On the other hand, asking direct questions about language use may lead to an βobserverβs paradoxβ and answers provided may better capture respondentsβ attitudes to language use than the way they actually speak (Boberg, 2013). Nevertheless, in some circumstances written surveys can produce valid data comparable in accuracy to fieldwork methods (Dollinger, 2012).
Given the exploratory nature of this study, a written survey was chosen as the easiest possible way to draw a broad picture of oral language use in an extremely understudied population of Russian-speaking LGBTQI individuals and feminists. Its use is further justified by the authorβs intention to study both language use and attitudes to such innovations, which would otherwise require separate studies.
An online survey was created using Google Forms and advertised to the social networks of groups devoted to feminist, LGBT, queer and intersex issues. The form provided a brief explanation of key terms, followed by 14 questions (AppendixΒ 1). The participants were self-selected and the first three questions were used to establish eligibility (membership in LGBTQI and/or feminist communities). The scope of the initial survey was broader than that of the present article. In reporting the results, answers to questions will be reordered to give a more logical presentation. Thus, in this section, results on oral language use with a focus on gender neutralization will be reported, while Sect.Β 5 is devoted to attitudes to non-standard language use.
4.2 Results
The questionnaire form was open for answers from 28 July 2016 to 18 October 2016 when the number of participants reached 1400 and initial overview of the results showed saturation. Based on the answers to the first three questions (gender identity, identification with feminism and LGBTQI communities), the number of eligible responses was reduced to 1205.
4.2.1 Gender neutralization strategies in oral speech
Many respondents revealed that in oral speech they rely on the same ways of gender neutralization that they use in writing. Notably, gender gaps did not defy oral articulation to the extent that might be imagined. One respondent used βa pause in place of a gender gap between a neutral stem and a feminine suffixβ (Resp. 125, genderfluid, demigirl). Other respondents resorted to gesticulation to βdraw the gap in the air with a fingerβ (Resp. 418, genderqueer) or βspell out endings as if reading a word with a gender gap (literatorki-y or literatory-ki)β (Resp. 1128, woman).
The results show that oral speech gives more flexibility to express gender neutrality than writing. One popular method includes using impersonal or indefinite personal structures: tak sluΔilosβ, Δto mne predloΕΎili novuju rabotu (βIt so happened that I was offered a jobβ) (Resp. 650, agender), or mne sluΔilosβ pojtiβ¦ (βIt so happened to me to goβ), mne priΕ‘losβ pozvonitββ¦ (βIt was necessary for me to callβ), kak mne kazalosββ¦ (βAs it seemed to meβ) (usually it introduces a factor of βfateβ in the narrative, as if nothing depends on me) (Resp. 305).
Shifting focus from oneβs own actions to another person or an object is a variation of this strategy: ja uvlekalsja risovaniem (βI enjoyed drawingβ) β u menja bylo uvleΔenieβrisovanie (βThere was my hobbyβdrawingβ), ja rabotal (βI workedβ) β u menja byla rabota (βThere was my jobβ) (Resp. 49, genderqueer), or vΔera xodila v teatr (βYesterday I went to a theaterβ) β vΔera byl otliΔnyj veΔer v teatre (βYesterday was a great evening in the theaterβ) (Resp. 57, woman).
A similar approach is substituting description of past actions with their result in the present: ja prigotovil_a uΕΎin (βI cooked dinnerβ) β uΕΎin gotov (βThe dinner is readyβ) (Resp. 784, genderqueer). Using present and future in situations where past would normally be used: i vot ja prixoΕΎu tuda, a tam mne govorjat (βAnd so I come there, and I am toldβ) (Resp. 20, woman, genderqueer), or ja poΕ‘la v magazin (βIβm going to a shopβ) β ja sejΔas pojdu v magazin (βI will now go to a shopβ) (Resp. 181, nonbinary).
Other methods mentioned include swallowing the endings, using βweβ instead of βIβ, using infinitive instead of the correct past form of the verb, rhetorical questions, etc. When addressing third persons, additional approaches ((6), (7), (8)) are:
-
(6)
I use neutral constructions, address others with vy (βyouβ) or talk about things and actions [not individuals] (Resp. 49, genderqueer).
-
(7)
Phrases with the world ljudi (βpeopleβ): trans-ljudi (βtrans peopleβ), ljudi, zanimajuΕ‘Δiesja aktivizmom (βpeople doing activismβ) (Resp. 55).
-
(8)
When possible, I try to use neutral words: ljudi, narod (βpeopleβ), kto-to (βsomeoneβ) + present tense, plural (Resp. 961, genderqueer).
One respondent said that she is βtrying to articulate endings in an unclear and silent way, so that the gendered ending could not be heardβ (Resp. 751, woman). A couple of respondents have invented completely new gender neutral words or endings: βEΓ«go, ejmuβ¦)) I think itβs better to invent words of neuter genderβ (Resp. 208), or βSometimes I invent forms of words (not lingvisty and lingvistki, but lingvistΓ)β (Resp. 1269, woman). Finally, some respondents inserted foreign words in their speech.
4.2.2 Contextual use of gender in self-reference
Some participants noted that they used different genders to refer to themselves. Several trans people noted that they prefer to misgender themselves in public places to avoid transphobia, while reserving their preferred gender for use among friends. This is more a necessity than preference:
Itβs not always easy to talk neutrally, thus sometimes Iβm obliged to talk about oneself on masculine or feminine. I use the gender corresponding to sex assigned at birth in situations where it is known (documents, work, official business, with relatives and colleagues who are unaware). In other cases, it depends on how people perceive me and whichever is safer. For example, if I look masculine today, then I feel itβs safer to use masculine gender in speech, and vice versa (Resp. 961, genderqueer).
Some respondents switch gender in emotionally charged situations, depending on the mood and topic: βDepends mostly on emotional condition and theme. For example, I more often use feminine when talking about childhoodβ (Resp. 661, genderqueer), or βMasculine, when I want to focus on the action itself and its external consequences, and feminine, when I want to focus on my own impression/perception of the situationβ (Resp. 60).
Finally, some (presumably cis) women use masculine forms on the internet to avoid misogyny or because they are shorter.
5 Attitudes of Russian-speaking LGBTQI and feminist individuals to feminist linguistic reforms: results of a survey
Whichever advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned methods exist from the perspective of a linguist, their viability depends on those who use them in real life. Thus, attitudes to language use are of particular import. This pilot study reports attitudes among two partly overlap** communities (feminist and LGBTQI) among which non-standard language is particularly widespread.
5.1 Method
Direct measurement is taken from among the three popular approaches to studying attitude to language (Garrett, 2010). For this study, the same survey of feminist and LGBTQI identifying individuals was used, as described above. The questions related to language attitudes are Q4βQ6 and Q8.
5.2 Results
Answers revealed mixed attitudes towards language reforms. The common themes raised in arguments supporting these reforms include: (a) silencing of women in language should come to an end; (b) human language is a dynamic construct, therefore the advent of new forms is natural; (c) new forms look strange at first sight but one gets easily accustomed to them. The arguments against language reforms include that: (a) new forms look/sound bad; (b) such reforms distract feminists from more serious concerns; (c) βcoerciveβ reforming by a small minority will never be accepted by society at large; (d) reforms should be guided by professional linguists, not amateurs. These arguments are similar to those used by critics of the reforms in other languages, and partly correspond to classical arguments recorded by Maija Blaubergs back in 1980.
Most of the survey respondents answers to this question implicitly or explicitly related to feminitivy, but not gender neutralization. This is because feminitivy remain most clearly associated with feminist language reforms. Nevertheless, some mentioned neutralization as well. A portion of respondents expressed no strong preference for either feminization or neutralization, considering them to be complementary, not competing approaches: βfeminitivy are a major step in combating gender discrimination. This is the basis for future development of a neutral language for all gendersβ (Resp. 833, woman).
Other comments explicitly compare and contrast the two approaches. Among the proponents of gender neutralization who are critical of feminitivy, the main argument was reluctance to emphasize sex and/or gender of the person concerned:
Feminitivy make visible the women whose achievements are often being silenced. On the other [hand], [I] would like to use gender neutral words for everyone. [I] donβt like emphasizing sex and gender of a person (Resp. 195, trans man).
I donβt approve any types of ghettoization of women, as well as rigid juxtaposition of men and women, emphasizing differences between them. I believe feminitivy place emphasis on differences. I prefer neutrality in the issues of gender (Resp. 1004, woman).
Some transgender and gender non-binary respondents claim that enforced gender binarism in language, promoted by feminitivy, could negatively impact their ability to express (or conceal, when necessary) their gender identity:
Compulsory use of feminitivy such as βauthoressβ and so on will significantly aggravate the lives of gender non-binary and transgender people, since [it] will make them publicly βdefine themselvesβ in relation to sex, thus, if previously a person in a hostile environment could talk about oneself as βI am an authorβ, without specifying βI am a manβ or βI am a womanβ, now he will either refer to himself according to the biological gender or forcefully make an involuntary coming-out. I wouldnβt even mention the people who do not feel either M or F, for whom thereβs no place in this scheme, as if they do not exist (Resp. 253, agender).
On the other hand, a number of proponents of feminitivy expressed strong reservations about gender neutralization. Their opposition was mostly related to unreadability of words with gender gaps:
[I] support feminitivy, [I am] strongly against gender gaps, they confuse and impede one from reading a written text by slowing down comprehension: in a phrase there should be one word, but not an invitation for the readerβs brain to select each time which [form] is more convenient (Resp. 583, woman).
Even those who support gender neutralization for ideological reasons (inclusion), complain about inconvenience of gender gaps:
Underscores make the text feel cumbersome <β¦> But it is [this method] that I find the most βcorrectβ (Resp. 290, non-binary genderfluid).
Gendergap is disastrously inconvenient, but necessary to include gender nonconforming people (Resp. 595, woman).
Though still other respondents praised gender gaps for brevity:
[gender gap] require the least number of characters, in modern world brevity is important (Resp. 42, genderqueer).
The language always goes in the direction of short forms, for this reason I support the form aktivistki_ty. That is, try to designate but in a brief way (Resp. 89, identity unknown).
At least one respondent claimed that the cumbersome nature of such methods is also an advantage: βBrackets and dashes visually overload the text, but I like it: βstumblingβ over them while reading makes people think about gendered endings and those to whom they refer toβ (Resp. 961, genderqueer).
Only one participant explicitly rejected gender neutralization as a strategy on the grounds that it leads to the silencing of women: β[I am] strongly against gender neutralization. Silencing leads to worsening of the situation of womenβ (Resp. 563, woman).
6 Limitations and further directions
This article is the first of its kind to attempt to give a broad picture of feminist language reforms and non-standard language use in Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities. Its broadness has two obvious downsides: the data comes from different sources obtained with different methods and many topics are mentioned in only a perfunctory way. More in-depth research into these topics is clearly warranted. The proposed directions include:
-
1.
Concentrate on specific groups such as trans people, cisgender individuals, lesbian women, etc.;
-
2.
Collect data on oral language use with in-person interviews and observational studies, paying special attention to phonology in the case of trans people;
-
3.
Analyze written language use in a systematic way using methods of corpus linguistics;
-
4.
Study attitudes towards trans/feminist language reforms and non-standard language use among the general population.
7 Conclusion
Gender neutralization and feminization are two alternative approaches to feminist language reforms aimed at overcoming masculine-centrism in many languages. The choice between these approaches is based not only on linguistic typology, but also on socio-cultural reasoning and political commitment. In Russian, feminization in the form of feminitivy is the predominant approach, but there is a strong demand for a gender-neutral alternative on behalf of transgender and especially gender non-binary individuals. As the survey shows, there is a strong demand for this among Russian-speaking LGBTQI and feminist communities. Three methods to approach gender-neutrality are used in writing: neuter gender, singular they and gender-gap**. All of them have significant drawbacks limiting their spread in the communities that employ them. Gender neutralization strategies in oral speech include using impersonal or indefinite personal structures, plural instead of singular, infinitive instead of the correct past form of the verb, and rhetorical questions.
Feminist and LGBTQI participants in this study expressed mixed attitudes towards feminist linguistic reforms. There is a discord between those who perceive language as a static rule-based system and those who are more open to linguistic innovation and creativity. Further divides result from differing priorities set by proponents of particular approaches: while some participants emphasize practical concerns such as simplicity, readability and pronounceability, others focus on inclusion of the whole spectrum of gender identities. Although the survey was not intended to capture awareness on specific approaches to linguistic reforms, the results hint that feminization (feminitivy) may be the best available approach, while gender-gap** remains the best known of gender neutralization methods.
The current study has a number of limitations and invites further research into non-standard language use among Russian-speaking feminist and LGBTQI communities.
References
AgadΕΎikova, A. (2018). βTy malβΔik ili devoΔka?β: agendernye ljudi rassuΕΎdajut o svoej identiΔnosti. Afisha. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://daily.afisha.ru/relationship/8601-ty-malchik-ili-devochka-agendernye-lyudi-rassuzhdayut-o-svoey-identichnosti/.
AG Feministisch Sprachhandeln der Humboldt-UniversitΓ€t zu Berlin (2014). Was tun? Sprachhandelnβaber wie? W_Ortungen statt Tatenlosigkeit! Retrieved March 25, 2021, from http://feministisch-sprachhandeln.org/.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2019). Endearment, respect, and disdain through linguistic gender. ReVEL-Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 17(16), 1β22.
Aloevrukava-blog (2014). Jazykovoe tvorΔestvo protiv diskriminacii: kak pridumyvatβ novye slova i pravila. Kefir i sigarety. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://aloevrukava-blog.tumblr.com/post/82019290971/.
Andreevskikh, O., Pershai, A., & Sitnikova, Y. (2017). Genderno-nejtralβnyj jazyk i nebinarnye identiΔnosti: kak reformirovatβ jazyk? Makeout.by. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://makeout.by/2017/02/27/genderno-neytralnyy-yazyk.html.
Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2013). Misgendering in English language contexts: Applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(2), 160β177. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.160.
Badanina, I. V. (2017). Funkcionirovanie feminativov v jazyke interneta. In A. V. DolΕΎnikova & V. V. BarabaΕ‘ (Eds.), Russkij jazyk v internete: liΔnostβ, obΕ‘Δestvo, kommunikacija, kulβtura: Sbornik statej I meΕΎdunarodnoj nauΔno-praktiΔeskoj konferencii. Moscow: Peoplesβ Friendship University of Russia.
Bailey, G., Wikle, T., & Tillery, J. (1997). The effects of methods on results in dialectology. English World-Wide, 18(1), 35β63. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.18.1.03bai.
Berkutova, V. V. (2018). Feminatives in the Russian language: historical aspect. FilologiΔeskij aspekt, 11(43).
Blaubergs, M. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against changing sexist language. Womenβs studies international quarterly, 3(2β3), 135β147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(80)92071-0.
Boberg, C. (2013). Surveys: The use of written questionnaires in sociolinguistics. In C. Mallinson, B. Childs, & G. Van Herk (Eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
Coming Out (2015). LGBT-aktivistki i aktivisty trebujut privleΔ Vitalija Milonova k otvetstvennosti za reΔi nenavisti. ComingOutSpb.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://comingoutspb.com/news/milonov1may/.
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Doleschal, U., & Schmid, S. (2001). Doing gender in Russian: structure and perspective. In M. Hellinger & H. BuΓmann, Gender across languages: the linguistic representation of women and men, 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Davis, G. (2018). Spory ob interseksnosti: somnitelβnyj diagnoz (A. Berezkin, Trans.). Associacija russkojazyΔnyx interseks ljudej (Original work published 2015).
Dollinger, S. (2012). The written questionnaire as a sociolinguistic data gathering tool: Testing its validity. Journal of English Linguistics, 40(1), 74β110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211414808.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hellinger, M., & BuΓmann, H. (2015). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. In M. Hellinger & H. BuΓmann (Eds.), Gender across languages, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Henley, N. M. (1987). This new species that seeks a new language: On sexism in language and language change. In J. Penfield (Ed.), Women and language in transition. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hermann, S. K. (2003). Performing the Gap: Queere Gestalten und geschlechtliche Aneignung. arranca! Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://arranca.org/archive?path=%2Fausgabe%2F28%2Fperforming-the-gap.
Holmes, J. (2000). Ladies and gentlemen: Corpus analysis and linguistic sexism. In C. Mair & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hord, L. C. (2016). Bucking the linguistic binary: Gender neutral language in English, Swedish, French, and German. Western Papers in Linguistics/Cahiers linguistiques de Western, 3(1), 4.
Freeman, L., & Stewart, H. (2018). Microaggressions in clinical medicine. Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal, 28(4), 411β449.
Fufaeva, I. (2020). Kak nazyvajutsja ΕΎenΕ‘Δiny. Feminitivy: istorija, ustrojstvo, konkurencija. Moscow: Izdatelβstvo AST.
Kiberfeminizm (2020, September 24). Podrugi, Druzβja i Drugie SuΕ‘Δnosti! Kiberfeminizm. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from https://vk.com/wall-126967570_2484.
KieΕkiewicz-Janowiak, A. (2019). Gender specification of Polish nouns naming people: language system and public debate arguments. SlovenΕ‘Δina 2.0, 7(2), 141β171.
Klestova, Y. V. (2020). Sredstva gendernoj nejtralizacii v anglijskom i russkom jazykah. In N. V. Butylov (Ed.), Aktualβnye problemy obΕ‘Δej teorii jazyka, perevoda, meΕΎkulβturnoj kommunikacii i metodiki prepodavanija. Saransk: Afanasβev V. S.
Lakoff, R. T. (2004). Language and womanβs place: Text and commentaries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Livia, A., & Hall, K. (1997). Queerly phrased: Language, gender, and sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (2001). Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
McLemore, K. A. (2018). A minority stress perspective on transgender individualsβ experiences with misgendering. Stigma and Health, 3(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000070.
Melamud, A. (2017). El Masculino GenΓ©rico (Masterβs thesis). Argentina, Buenos Aires: Instituto Superior de Letras Eduardo Mallea.
Motschenbacher, H. (2010). Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mozdzierz, B. M. (1999). The rule of femininization in Russian. In M. H. Mills (Ed.), Slavic gender linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nordmarken, S. (2014). Microaggressions. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1β2), 129β134.
OvΔinnikova, A. A. (2017). Strategija snjatija gendernoj opredelΓ«nnosti: jazykovye sredstva i diskursivnye uslovija realizacii. Tomsk State University. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from http://vital.lib.tsu.ru/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:5205.
Pauwels, A. (2003). Linguistic sexism and feminist linguistic activism. In M. Meyerhoff & J. Holmes, The handbook of language and gender. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pershai, A. (2006). The language puzzle: Is inclusive language a solution? In K. Scott-Dixon (Ed.), Trans/Forming Feminisms: Transfeminist Voices Speak Out. Toronto: Sumach Press.
Pershai, A. (2014). Semantika pola. Vilnius: European Humanities University.
Pershai, A. (2015). Snova o jazykovom seksizme. Journal βJaβ, 1(37).
Pershai, A. (2017). βKolonizacija naoborotβ pjatnadcatβ let spustja: ob osobennostjax razvitija postsovetskoj gendernoj lingvistiki. Crossroads, 1β2.
PlemenitaΕ‘, K. (2014). Gender ideologies in English and Slovene: a contrastive view. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 11(1), 17β29. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.11.1.17-29.
Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., Caswell, T. A., & Laakso, E. K. (2012). The gendering of language: A comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless languages. Sex roles, 66(3β4), 268β281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5.
Schneider, M. J., & Foss, K. A. (1977). Thought, sex, and language: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the American womenβs movement. Womenβs Studies in Communication, 1(1), 1β7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.1977.11089617.
Shroy, A. (n.d). Innovations in Gender-Neutral French: Language practices of nonbinary French speakers on Twitter (unpublished Masterβs thesis). Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://www.academia.edu/33393890/.
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. Abington, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., & Sczesny, S. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Vorobβeva, A. S. (2020). Feminitivy-neologizmy v lingvistiΔeskom aspekte. In Gorizonty sovremennoj rusistiki: sbornik statej MeΕΎdunarodnoj nauΔnoj konferencii, posvjaΕ‘Δennoj jubileju akademika V. G. Kostomarova. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.
Zborovskaya, T. (2012). Verbalβnoe neraskrytie osoznavaemogo pola kak faktor defektivnogo obΕ‘Δenija v processe transseksualβnogo perehoda. In Conference for Young Researchers of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://transgenderlinguistics.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/.
Zborovskaya, T. (2014). Govoritβ o sebe: praktiki utverΕΎdenija ili umalΔivanija identiΔnosti govorjaΕ‘Δego. In Δelovek vΔera i segodnja: meΕΎdisΔiplinarnye issledovanija, 8. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy.
Zimman, L. (2019). Trans self-identification and the language of neoliberal selfhood: Agency, power, and the limits of monologic discourse. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2019(256), 147β175. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-2016.
Zimman, L. (2020). Transgender language, transgender moment: Toward a trans linguistics. In K. Hall & R. Barrett (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195182057.001.0001.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Noah Adams for proofreading and valuable comments on this paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisherβs Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΠΌ ΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅
ΠΠΏΡΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΡ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ± ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π»ΠΈΠ½Π³Π²ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΠΌ Π² ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅, Π° ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΠΌ ΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ. Π€Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²ΡβΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°, Π°Π»ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π°ΠΌ, ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠΌ Π² ΠΌΡΠΆΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π΅, Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠ°β, βΠ°Π²ΡΠΎΡΠΊΠ°β, βΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΊΠ°ββ¦ ΠΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½Π°Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡβΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΊΠ° Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ, Π½Π΅ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΌ, Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ Ρ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ±ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π²ΡΡ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΌ, Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: Π²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ βΠΏΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³β ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ βΠΏΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠ½Ρβ β βΠΏΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³_ΠΈΠ½Ρβ. ΠΠΏΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°Π½ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ½ΡΠΌ.
Q1. ΠΠ°ΡΠ° Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ½Π°, ΠΌΡΠΆΡΠΈΠ½Π°, ΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ-ΠΌΡΠΆΡΠΈΠ½Π°, Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠΊΠ²ΠΈΡβ¦)
Q2. ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π»ΠΈ ΠΡ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ ΠΊ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠΌ-Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°?
-
a)
ΠΠ½Π°ΡΡ ΠΎ-ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
b)
ΠΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
c)
ΠΠ²ΠΈΡ-ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
d)
ΠΠ΅ΡΠ±ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
e)
ΠΠΈΠ±Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
f)
Π Π°Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ (ΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ* ΠΈΠ½ΠΊΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ)
-
g)
Π Π°Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ (ΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ* ΡΠΊΡΠΊΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ)
-
h)
Π‘Π΅ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
i)
Π‘ΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
j)
Π’ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
k)
ΠΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
l)
ΠΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ (-ΠΎΠΌ), Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ
-
m)
ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ / ΠΠ½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
-
n)
Other:
Q3. ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π»ΠΈ ΠΡ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ ΠΊ ΠΠΠΠ’ΠΠ-Π»ΡΠ΄ΡΠΌ?
-
ΠΠ°, ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ
-
ΠΠ΅Ρ, Π½Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡ
-
Other:
Q4. ΠΠ°ΠΊ Π²Ρ Π² ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΠΌ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ°?
-
ΠΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ
-
ΠΠ΅Π·ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ
-
Π Π΅Π·ΠΊΠΎ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ
Q5. Π‘ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π»ΠΈ ΠΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ° ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ½ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΆΠΈΡΡ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΡΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡ?
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ
-
ΠΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°Ρ
-
ΠΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΠ΅Ρ
-
Other:
Q6. ΠΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΡ Ρ ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠΎ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π°ΡΡ Π·Π΄Π΅ΡΡ
Q7. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π° ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ° ΠΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΡΠΌΠ΅?
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Ρ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈβ)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· βΠΈβ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΡβ)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ + ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΊΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ/-Ρβ)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ + ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΊΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΡ/-ΠΊΠΈβ)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠΊΠΎΠ±ΠΊΠ°Ρ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΡ (-ΠΊΠΈ)β)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠΊΠΎΠ±ΠΊΠ°Ρ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ (-Ρ)β)
-
Π£ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π»ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ (Π½Π°ΠΏΡ.: βΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡ_ΠΊΠΈβ)
-
ΠΠ΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΡ Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ· ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ
-
Other:
Q8. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΈΠΌΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΈ Π½Π΅Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΡ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ Π²ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²? ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ?
Q9. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π° ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ Π² ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ?
Q10. Π ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΠΡ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΠ΅?
-
ΠΠ΅Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ
-
ΠΡΠΆΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ
-
Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠΉ
-
Π‘ΡΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ
-
Other:
Q11. ΠΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΡ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡ Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π³Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ, ΡΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π° Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅? Π ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°Π΅ Π·Π°ΡΡΡΠ΄Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ Π»ΠΈΠ½Π³Π²ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π΅Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ
Q12. ΠΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΡ Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π² ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°Ρ , ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, Π² ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΠΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅
Q13. Π‘ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π»ΠΈ ΠΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½Ρ Π±ΡΠ»Π° Π±Ρ Π»ΡΡΡΠ΅, Π΅ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π² ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅ Π½Π΅ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΎ Π±Ρ Π³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°?
-
ΠΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½Π½ΠΎ Π΄Π°
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ Π΄Π°, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅Ρ
-
Π‘ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅ Π½Π΅Ρ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π΄Π°
-
ΠΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½Π½ΠΎ Π½Π΅Ρ
-
ΠΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°Ρ
-
Other:
Q14. ΠΠ΄Π΅ΡΡ ΠΡ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΡ Π»ΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π»Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΡ
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleβs Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articleβs Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kirey-Sitnikova, Y. Prospects and challenges of gender neutralization in Russian. Russ Linguist 45, 143β158 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-021-09241-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-021-09241-6