358
edits
Gender neutral language in French: Difference between revisions
→Illustrative narrative text with neologisms: delete
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Gender neutral language}} | {{Gender neutral language}} | ||
The French language has two | The French language has two grammatical genders: feminine and masculine. Activists have started seeking solutions to degender the language as much as possible and, therefore, make it more inclusive. These solutions entail neologisms as well as non-neologisms. | ||
==Non-neologisms== | ==Non-neologisms== | ||
===Refeminization === | ===Refeminization === | ||
Prior to the 17th century, French, like Italian, Spanish, and other Romance languages, utilized feminine inflections to distinguish female and male professionals. However, for a range of reasons — both societal, such as misogyny,<ref name=":1">Becquelin, H. (no data): ''Langage en tout genre. Argument historique''. Article on non discriminating language. University of Neuchâtel. Online at: https://www.unine.ch/epicene/home/pourquoi/argument-historique.html (retrieved 12.12.2023).</ref><ref name=":12">Viennot, E. (2023): ''Pour un langage non sexiste ! Les accords égalitaires en français''. Online at: https://www.elianeviennot.fr/Langue-accords.html (retrieved 18.12.2023).</ref> and linguistic<ref name=":2">Moreau, M.-L. (2019): L’accord de proximité dans l’écriture inclusive. Peut-on utiliser n’importe quel argument ? In: Dister, A./ Piron, S. (eds.): ''Les discours de référence sur la langue française (Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis)'', 351–378. 10.4000/books.pusl.26517.</ref>, as French was being standardized and dialect speakers were expected to learn French — grammarians ensured that these feminine designations were effectively removed from the language.<ref name=":1" /> | Prior to the 17th century, French, like Italian, Spanish, and other Romance languages, utilized feminine inflections to distinguish female and male professionals. However, for a range of reasons — both societal, such as misogyny,<ref name=":1">Becquelin, H. (no data): ''Langage en tout genre. Argument historique''. Article on non discriminating language. University of Neuchâtel. Online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20231213005251/https://www.unine.ch/epicene/home/pourquoi/argument-historique.html (retrieved 12.12.2023).</ref><ref name=":12">Viennot, E. (2023): ''Pour un langage non sexiste ! Les accords égalitaires en français''. Online at: https://www.elianeviennot.fr/Langue-accords.html (retrieved 18.12.2023).</ref> and linguistic<ref name=":2">Moreau, M.-L. (2019): L’accord de proximité dans l’écriture inclusive. Peut-on utiliser n’importe quel argument ? In: Dister, A./ Piron, S. (eds.): ''Les discours de référence sur la langue française (Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis)'', 351–378. 10.4000/books.pusl.26517.</ref>, as French was being standardized and dialect speakers were expected to learn French — grammarians ensured that these feminine designations were effectively removed from the language.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
Today, many people refer to the contemporary introduction of feminine designations as 'feminization,' believing that these occupational titles are newly coined terms. However, this is not the case, as they are being revived from an earlier iteration of the French language, making 'refeminization'<ref name=":0">Divergenres (2021): ''Guide de grammaire neutre et inclusive''. Québec. Online at: https://divergenres.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/guide-grammaireinclusive-final.pdf (retrieved 12.12.2023).</ref> a more accurate term. | Today, many people refer to the contemporary introduction of feminine designations as 'feminization,' believing that these occupational titles are newly coined terms. However, this is not the case, as they are being revived from an earlier iteration of the French language, making 'refeminization'<ref name=":0">Divergenres (2021): ''Guide de grammaire neutre et inclusive''. Québec. Online at: https://divergenres.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/guide-grammaireinclusive-final.pdf (retrieved 12.12.2023).</ref> a more accurate term. | ||
| Line 297: | Line 297: | ||
|celle <small>[s<u>ɛl</u>]</small> | |celle <small>[s<u>ɛl</u>]</small> | ||
|''cellui'' <small>[s<u>ɛl</u><u>ɥi</u>]</small> | |''cellui'' <small>[s<u>ɛl</u><u>ɥi</u>]</small> | ||
| | |ciel <small>[sjεl]</small> | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Plural | !Plural | ||
| Line 303: | Line 303: | ||
|celles <small>[s<u>ɛl</u>]</small> | |celles <small>[s<u>ɛl</u>]</small> | ||
|''celleux'' <small>[s<u>ɛl</u><u>ø</u>]</small> | |''celleux'' <small>[s<u>ɛl</u><u>ø</u>]</small> | ||
|ceuxes <small>[søks]</small> | |ciels <small>[sjεl]</small>, ceuxes <small>[søks]</small> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 419: | Line 419: | ||
|amoureuseux | |amoureuseux | ||
|amoureuxe [amuʁøks] | |amoureuxe [amuʁøks] | ||
amoureusse | |||
amouré·e | amouré·e | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 424: | Line 425: | ||
|dieu | |dieu | ||
|déesse | |déesse | ||
|dieuesse | |dieuesse, dieusse | ||
|dieuxe | |dieuxe | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 504: | Line 505: | ||
|mignon <small>[miɲ<u>õ</u>]</small> | |mignon <small>[miɲ<u>õ</u>]</small> | ||
|mignonne <small>[miɲɔ<u>n</u>]</small> | |mignonne <small>[miɲɔ<u>n</u>]</small> | ||
| | |mignonn <small>[miɲ<u>õn</u>]</small> | ||
|mignaine, ''mignan'' <small>[miɲɑ̃]/[miɲan]</small> | |mignaine, ''mignan'' <small>[miɲɑ̃]/[miɲan]</small> | ||
|} | |} | ||
The '-aine' suffix has gained popularity. However, its use in monosyllabic words like 'brun·e' may hinder comprehension, which could explain why 'bran', a form that preserves the nasality of the final vowel while only changing its place of articulation, is more widespread. Words with a '-ien/-ienne' (and obviously also '-ain/-aine') suffix cannot form a synthetic gender-neutral form with '-aine', as this would result in a word pronounced exactly the same way as the feminine one (cf. 'citoyenne'). Here, the synthetical neutral forms created with '-an' only retain masculine phonetic traits (i. e. its manner of articulation — vocalic — and its nasality trait — which is positive). Theoretically, this could lead to similar issues as discussed in the Endings from Latin '-or' and '-rix' subchapter. The same could be true with synthetic gender-neutral forms ending in '-aine', but this time in favour of the feminine. However, even though the suffix '-aine' could sound feminine, the resulting form is still easily distinguishable from the original one, since the vowels implied are oral and not nasal, and can therefore be less easily mistaken for mispronunciations — while 'écrivan', 'citoyan' and 'bran' could be (for more information, see the Indefinite and definite article subchapter). | The '-aine' suffix has gained popularity. However, its use in monosyllabic words like 'brun·e' may hinder comprehension, which could explain why 'bran', a form that preserves the nasality of the final vowel while only changing its place of articulation, is more widespread. Words with a '-ien/-ienne' (and obviously also '-ain/-aine') suffix cannot form a synthetic gender-neutral form with '-aine', as this would result in a word pronounced exactly the same way as the feminine one (cf. 'citoyenne'). Here, the synthetical neutral forms created with '-an' only retain masculine phonetic traits (i. e. its manner of articulation — vocalic — and its nasality trait — which is positive). Theoretically, this could lead to similar issues as discussed in the Endings from Latin '-or' and '-rix' subchapter. The same could be true with synthetic gender-neutral forms ending in '-aine', but this time in favour of the feminine. However, even though the suffix '-aine' could sound feminine, the resulting form is still easily distinguishable from the original one, since the vowels implied are oral and not nasal, and can therefore be less easily mistaken for mispronunciations — while 'écrivan', 'citoyan' and 'bran' could be (for more information, see the Indefinite and definite article subchapter). | ||
The use of "-iste" is always genderneutral, like "feministe". | |||
====Endings with silent consonant X in the masculine and audible consonant X in the feminine==== | ====Endings with silent consonant X in the masculine and audible consonant X in the feminine==== | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+Endings with silent (♂︎) and audible | |+Endings with silent (♂︎) and audible (♀︎) consonant | ||
! | ! | ||
!Masculine | !Masculine | ||
| Line 660: | Line 663: | ||
|Monestre | |Monestre | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||