Gender discourse in modern English and Russian belles-letters

Тип работы:
Дипломная
Предмет:
Иностранные языки и языкознание


Узнать стоимость

Детальная информация о работе

Выдержка из работы

Introduction

The theme of the research work is «Gender discourse in modern English and Russian belles-letters». According to many linguists, the concept of «discourse» is very helpful in understanding why men must resist negative stereotypes of their gender imposed by those with a negative mind-set. Discourse is a term that is often used synonymously with «ideology». However, it is much more than this, and is a central concept in trying to make sense of the contested area of understanding gender.

The study of language and gender has increasingly become the study of discourse and gender. While phonological, lexical, and other kinds of linguistic analysis continue to be influential, the interdisciplinary investigation of discourse-level phenomena, always a robust area of language and gender scholarship, has become the central approach of the field. Hundreds of books, articles, and dissertations in numerous disciplines examine the intersection between discourse and gender from a variety of analytic perspectives. This proliferation of research presents problems for any attempt at a comprehensive overview, for although many of these studies are explicitly framed as drawing on the insights of discourse analysis, their approaches are so different that it is impossible to offer a unified treatment of discourse analysis as a tool for the study of language and gender.

Student interest in literary texts is of particular significance for some of the broader questions among students. Research on adolescent patterns of participation and achievement in education generally, and in literacy more particularly, have indicated that there are significant numbers of boys who are falling behind the levels of achievement of their female peers. Understanding the role interest plays in initiating and maintaining literacy skills will help address this problem. Does student engagement with particular texts depend upon students coming to the task with a well-developed interest in literature? Does reading further into a text depend on the level of interest aroused when students first encounter the text? Are these responses to the texts different for boys and girls? These phenomena determine the topicality of our research work.

This paper is a result of a keen and long-lasting interest of its author in applied linguistics in combination with the factors that enable people to interpret fairy tales in both native and foreign language. The question is whether on the basis of discourse analysis theories it is possible to make it easy for foreign language learners to read texts with full comprehension.

So, the aim of our diploma work is to define the role of gender in discourse through English, Russian and Kazakh belles-letters, exactly fairy-tales.

In order to achieve the aim of the work it is necessary to decide the following objectives:

· to look through the literature;

· to demonstrate the approaches of the investigation the notion;

· to make discourse analysis of belles-letters (fairy tales);

· to make the comparative analysis of gender differentiation in Kazakh, Russian and English fairy tales.

The object of the research is gender discourse in belles-letters.

The subject to reveal discourse of gender differentiation in English, Russian and Kazakh fairy tales.

To achieve the object of the work the following objectives of the research can be pointed out: discourse analysis, quantitative and qualitative analyses, complex analysis of literary work, descriptive and comparative methods.

Scientific novelty of the research paper is in the fact that the given paper is the attempt to define the gender discourse in belles-letters, exactly in fairy tales of different languages as English, Russian and Kazakh.

The theoretical and methodological basis consist of the analyzing of the research of the Т. Van Dake, J. Austin, J. Searle, M. Fuko, E. Goffmana, S.I. Vinogradova, B.P. Parshin, V.Z. Demjankova, J.S. Stepanova on the given subject «discourse». We have taken for the analyses the following works: in English — English Folktales (edited by D. Keding and A. Douglas): «The Pottle of Brains«, «The Old Woman and her Pig«, «The Farmer and the Cheese«, «Jack Turnip«, «Lazy Jack»; in Russian — Михаил Евграфович Салтыков-Щедрин «Недреманное око», «Дикий помещик», «Баран непомнящий», «Повесть о том, как один мужик двух генералов прокормил»; in Kazakh — «Красавица Кункей», «Три сына бедняка», «Чудесный сад».

While writing the research work we used such methods as selecting of bibliography, textual and interpreting analysis and comparison of the literary works of the examined period of time.

The practical significance of the research consists of use of scientific — theoretical results and the fact, that actual material can be used at reading lectures on the course of English Literature and drawing up of the manuals and various grants.

The structure: of the work is presented by Introduction, Theoretical and Practical parts, Conclusion, List of used literature (bibliography) and Appendix. The whole work consists of 62 pages. The theme, actuality, the aim, object, subject, methods of investigation of the work are identified in the introduction. In the first part description of the term 'discourse' itself, including examples of its various types and functions are described. It also presents a thorough analysis of the function of a gender in belles-letters, a historical background of how scholars became interested in the use of language, the manners in which they examined speech and writing, as well as it depicts the division of discursive devices. The practical part includes the comparative analysis of Kazakh, Russian and English fairy tales. The work is summed up in the conclusion.

1. Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies

1.1 The concept of discourse in linguistics

Mass media, being a component of interiorization, plays the important role in the course of gender socialization. Occurrence of «new journalism» and the information addressed exclusively to women has been noted in the end of the XIX century. Gradually press «feminization» was replaced «equalization» that has caused serious discussions on a wave of success of feminist movement. Thereof the tendency of dedication of researches to women in journalism was in the early eighties of the XX century observed, however basically in socially — economic aspect; after there was variety of the works devoted to studying of gender relations in journalism, and also to transformations in public consciousness concerning a role of women and information representation. The given fact was an incitement to start the discourse analysis, in particular media, as display means in it of new realities of our society. The given researches of a media discourse are connected not only with the language use, but also with communicator of speeches, society and culture. Thus, the discourse-analysis covers such academic disciplines which focus attention to various aspects of human activity: anthropology, journalism, rhetoric, the literature and cultural science, sociology, psychology, geography, jurisprudence and formation. Therefore non-linguists address in the works to linguistics by means of discourse-analysis studying, and work of philologists gets interdisciplinary value.

In the given work views of modern researchers as Т. Van Dake, J. Austin, J. Searle, M. Fuko, E. Goffmana, S.I. Vinogradova, B.P. Parshin, V.Z. Demjankova, J.S. Stepanova on the given subject «discourse» are presented and also various approaches for an analysis discourse are offered.

Since its introduction to modern science the term 'discourse' has taken various, sometimes very broad, meanings. In order to specify which of the numerous senses is analyzed in the following work it has to be defined. Originally the word 'discourse' comes from Latin 'discursus' which denoted 'conversation, speech'. Thus understood, however, discourse refers to too wide an area of human life, therefore only discourse from the vantage point of linguistics, and especially applied linguistics, is explained here.

There is no agreement among linguists as to the use of the term discourse in that some use it in reference to texts, while others claim it denotes speech which is for instance illustrated by the following definition: «Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative» [1, 105]. On the other hand Dakowska, being aware of differences between kinds of discourses indicates the unity of communicative intentions as a vital element of each of them. Consequently she suggests using terms 'text' and 'discourse' almost interchangeably betokening the former refers to the linguistic product, while the latter implies the entire dynamics of the processes [2, 81]. According to Cook novels, as well as short conversations or groans might be equally rightfully named discourses.

The concept of «discourse» is very helpful in understanding why men must resist negative stereotypes of their gender imposed by those with a negative mind-set. Discourse is a term that is often used synonymously with «ideology». However, it is much more than this, and is a central concept in trying to make sense of the contested area of understanding gender.

U.S. Stepanov believes that the discourse is «language in language», but presented in the form of a special social reality [3, 11]. The discourse exists, mainly, in texts, but there is a special grammar, a special lexicon, special rules of the use and syntax, special semantics — finally — the special world… The phenomenon of a discourse, its possibilities are the proof of the thesis «language is the house of spirit» and, to a certain extent, of the thesis — «language is the life house».

In his turn V.Z. Demjankov defines a discourse as the text in its formation before a mind of the interpreter which consists of sentences or its fragments, and the contents of discourse often but not always concentrates around some «basic» concept, named «the topic discourse» or «discursive topic» [4, 32−43].

In the given definitions such concepts, as a discourse and the text are intertwined. But what is the difference of a discourse from the text? The text is a set of sentences, and the discourse is the base creating the text contextually-connected. According to V.Z. Demjankov, it is considered that discourse is the existence of the mental world which nuclear structures are «idealized cognitive models», «frames» or concepts behind text frameworks. The set of given structures will make semantic system, semantics of the mental world.

The discourse also differs from the act of communication representing natural activity of people in a society — the most widespread form of use of language which covers linguistic activity. At the same time, even if the act of communication concerns the most widespread functions of language use, it all the same is the text of the certain kind constructed by rules of social use. Thus, the term «discourse», according to M. Stabbs, in connection with the discourse-analysis and the analysis of the act of communications is not the same. The former contains the latter; therefore the discourse-analysis should not be interpreted as the special grammatical-focused direction of the analysis of the act of communication [5, 4].

The discourse in metapragmatical conditions is presented not only as a perceived context: conversation, interview, consultations, interrogation etc., but it also covers extralinguistic conditions which operate the given situations of language use. Thus, there are questions: how people use language in the given social context? What freedom is given to them in the use of language and what interferes with it depending on a context?

Between the act of communications and the world of the user there is something more, that enters into philosophy of the act of communication: the reason that human language activity underlies on the basis of laws of more subject domain — a discourse understood as the general context of human language in use. The metapragmatist, thus, is beyond philosophy of act of communication: it reflects discursive context and checks, how much it is active as a result of use of acts of language dialogue, the latters are considered in the conditions of a context as they are pragmatic acts on the essence. Thus, according to G. May, active manufacture of pragmatic acts naturally assumes the existence of a certain society with its implicit and explicit values, norms, rules and laws and the established conditions of life: economic, social, political and cultural. These conditions concern one metaphorical expression — «society factory» — and become visible (basically by means of language and other kinds of human activity) and are covered by one concept «discourse».

The French philosopher M. Fuko characterizes a discourse as the practice of creation of sense from signs. This practice falls outside the limits of simple understanding of statements: sense creation should be perceived as active creation of value, as practice which regularly forms subjects about which she speaks. Discursive space is the huge chaos, ready to accept language and word influence. And on the contrary, discursive space equips with metapragmatically necessary material for value creation. Out of the given space where objects are created, and nothing occurs: no human practice is possible, as polyliterally nothing has sense [6, 191].

Metapragmatical conditions which M. Fuko places into human practice of manufacture of value make a discourse different from a simple set of sentences and statements. As the given conditions are realized be communicators, they cannot be identified with the restrictions established by grammar, the content and even rules of colloquial practice; falling outside the limits all of them, they represent a sociality of the person. Discourse practice is a practice of a society: creative space in which M. Fuko’s objects appear, and created and transformed by a society. Among the objects generated by a society in discursive practice, human social relations are the main; the discourse, thus, according to M. Fuko, represents the plural phenomenon, through which social manufacture of value takes place, and their set creates a society as that.

The discourse creates and recreates public relations: it creates also the individual user, and gives ability to the individual to exist and co-exist with other individuals. Objects can enter into systems according to their characteristics (for example: phonemes in phonology), or according to their distributive properties (as morphemes in morphology and syntax); these objects then form structures in which classified subjects change the status and character of the fact of its structuring dictated by integrity. Thus, the word is more, than sequence of phonemes, the sentence — more than the sequence of morphemes and words connected together, and the text is more than sequence of sentences. On the basis of the above-stated it is possible to draw a conclusion, that the discourse combines social structures which it creates as system which generate it, and It proves to be true definition of the discourse given by S.I. Vinogradov — «the complete communicative event consisting in interaction of participants of communications by means of verbal texts and-or other sign complexes in a certain situation and defined socio-cultural conditions of dialogue» [7, 139]. Accordingly the formula to the given definition will be following:

Discourse = text + interactivity + a situational context + a cultural context.

However M. Fuko’s formula to which scientists often addressed, includes two components:

Discourse = "already-told" + "never-told" [8, 27], other authors, for example, D. Biber, on the contrary allocate set of situational variations making of the following parametres in a discourse [9, 156]:

1) communicative characteristics of participants;

2) relations between the addressee and the receiver;

3) a situation;

4) the channel;

5) relations of participants to the text;

6) installations, intentions and the purposes;

7) a theme.

There is a number of definitions of the term «discourse», however in this paper we take the concept of a discourse as «the speech shipped into life», according to N.D. Arutjunova’s classical definition [10, 17], and we consider it in close interaction with social factors.

From here the conclusion arises, important for understanding of the discourse-analysis: it is impossible to approach to language as to abstract system as the discourse is both a knowledge source, and result. It becomes obvious, that subject of a discourse-analysis is very wide — «language in its use» for J. Brown and J. Iul, «statement» for D. Shiffrin, «verbal communications» for J. Renkem. In the widest sense, we agree with M.L. Makarova’s point of view: the discourse analysis is an integrated sphere of studying of language dialogue from the point of view of its form and function [11, 17]. Many analysts are at a loss to answer, what makes a discourse-analysis a discipline. Dividing B. Jonestones’s sight, it is possible to assert, that «a discourse-analysis is a method of research which is used by many scientists for the various academic and not academic purposes, various disciplines, for the purpose of a finding of the answer to various questions: How the arrangement of information structures in sentences can signal about value? How speakers specify semantic intentions and how listeners interpret this received information and what cognitive abilities underlie on the basic of human use of symbols?» [12, 5].

In the area of pragmatists the discourse-analysis considers «body» of communications and helps to describe main principles of interpretation and ways of use of statements for achievement of the communicative purposes. Moreover, it is important to define the social and gender stratification. In what degree the gender aspect influences creation of this or that type of a discourse? Cording to P.B. Parshin [13, 89], specificity of the social agent is essential to define the type of the discourse; therefore the given aspect should be included in a discourse-analysis. Depending on the agent the discourse can be: feministic, pre-election, Soviet, racist, presidential etc. Researches within the frame of a discourse and a gender are so various, that there is no uniform approach which would be named as «the feministic discourse-analysis». Actually, not all approaches are considered feministic in the given direction, but all of them are considered in four different, but interconnected research traditions: Anthropological (cultural aspect), sociological (social interaction), critical (text), and the most modern anthropological (historical trajectories of a discourse). Thus, we come to the fact that the discourse is a social, cultural and political phenomenon and the discourse theory is not simply reflection of a society, culture and the power, but it is also perennial source of the additional information.

For the present research the critical discourse-analysis which representatives are N. Ferklou, Т. van Dake, R. Vodak is important. The given approach considers language as means for manufacture and power and ideology reproduction. The given statement is also proved in sociology, thus, giving the basis to consider, that the gender discourse is considered as the form of «symbolical violence» [14, 208] which is understood as a kind of the symbolical struggle which purpose is the symbolical power and the symbolical capital. Hence, it is possible to consider any discourse political. It is possible to agree with it partially as pragmalinguistic principle of the analysis takes place in researches of discourse of such scientists as J. Searle, J. Austin, and P. Grace. From the given point of view, the discourse is a world of thought designed by the author in which it immerses the interpreter. The skilled author, especially the politician, anticipates such speech suggestion by preparatory processing of another’s consciousness so that the new relation to a subject harmonized with the settled representations — realized or not realized. Indistinct semantics of language promotes flexible introduction in another’s consciousness: the new sight is modified (it is an original mimicry) under the influence of system of the settled opinions of the interpreter, and at the same time it changes this system" [15, 3−18].

From the aforesaid it follows, that aspects of public relations are expressed and created in a discourse by the power, or by the cooperation. According to D. Tannen, the power deals there where dissymmetric relations in human relations take place, and cooperation, on the contrary, — symmetric [16, 77]. Men, protecting power territory, apply various receptions to support of manufacture of imperious relations, e.g. strategy on fall. The woman in the given context is considered as basic «consumer», and the man — «manufacturer» of a discourse. The given context is mainly presented by such version of a discourse, as institutional. The formula of the given discourse is presented E.I. Shejgal [7, 16]

Discourse =sublanguage + the text + a context

The following understanding of a discourse is offered to the researchers:

Communications system = real + the potential.

«In potential measurement the discourse represents the semiotics space including verbal and nonverbal signs, and also representations about typical models of speech behavior and a set of speech actions and genres necessary for the given type of communications», — writes E.I. Shejgal [7, 16].

The social group carries out additional function of differentiation to a gender sign: accordingly, it dictates presence of a label for performance of the set social role; thus, specificity of style of gender communicative behavior of women and men is traced. The mentality of society in turn sets variability of representations on such concepts, as «feminine» and «masculine», i.e. gender model which is necessary for performance by the individual of social, gender roles and norms in a society during the certain historical period. There is a certain related communication with ritual, but change of a paradigm of values involves change in behavior of society. Hence, on the basis of all resulted above formulas it is possible to present following components of a discourse accounting social and gender aspect:

1) the agent;

2) intention;

3) a sublanguage (social aspect);

4) a sublanguage (gender aspect);

5) the situational text;

6) interactivity;

7) a cultural context.

Generalization of results of researches of the given phenomenon shows, that the foreshortening of research of a discourse depends on those problems which face to scientists. Leaning against J.S. Stepanova, V.Z. Demjankova and E.I. Shejgal’s concepts, we come to discourse definition as «language in language», but presented in the form of a special social reality, i.e. the discourse is considered in close interaction with social factors. It exists, mainly, in texts, which have a special grammar, a special lexicon, special rules of the use and syntax, special semantics — finally — the special world. Conceptually its creation is influenced by factors of situational-social, gender and cultural plan during interaction of participants in semiotics space. The discourse is created in a certain situation of dialogue where participants possess social roles, installations, intentions.

Linguistic Approaches to Gender in Literary Texts

In regard to the question of gender and discourse, we need to identify the discourses around the nature of males in our society, and look for the power effects, or implications, of these discourses — for it is these discourses that will determine the social and political responses to men’s and boys' health needs.

Various discourses about what constitutes «woman» and «man» have appeared over time. In European cultures, the Victorian era’s dominant discourse on women saw them as weak creatures, subject to control by their emotions and reproductive biology. The power effects of this discourse led to social practices, and even legislation, concerning the appropriate occupations and roles of women, and it limited their opportunities to participate in the public sphere of social life. Men, on the other hand, were in this period seen as unable to provide the nurturing required by children, rather as the disciplinarians and provider’s of their family’s material needs. Thus, the power effects of this gender discourse on men resulted in their being largely excluded from the sphere of private life.

Discourses regarding men and women still differ today. This was exemplified in a presentation by an earlier speaker, who noted that young women smoke to control body weight so as to attain a socially defined «attractive» body shape. It was claimed that young men smoke because they see it as a «manly» thing to do. If we deconstruct this statement, we can see that there is an underlying discourse — women are perceived as being subject to outside influences (to their detriment) — that they lack «agency», the power to initiate actions in their own lives — they are largely victims of external forces. Men, however, are seen as having power to choose, as being agents for their own actions, so that men smoke to create a persona. The result (power effects) of this type of discourse, which is common in many areas of men’s and women’s health, is that we attempt to change environments for women (by reducing the emphasis on thin bodies), but tell men to change themselves (by stopping smoking). We locate women’s health challenges outside of themselves, but the challenges to men’s health we see as arising within the men themselves (or in the abstracted men of «masculinities»).

The main way of social communications and manipulation is the language showing various situations of social communications which participants in the conditions of direct dialogue can be at least two real partners and in the conditions of text communications — two potential partners. The language signs making semiotics space of the oral and written text represent social life under different corners, including its political component. The political space of society is designed by various political movements, parties, associations, groups which structure includes the politicians differing not only on political views, on level of linguo-cultural competence, on popularity among members of the given society, but also under such biological factor (feminine, masculine) which deserve special research. The modern gender theory does not try to challenge distinction between women and men, believing, that the fact of distinctions is not so important, as their socio-cultural estimation and interpretation, and also construction of imperious system on the basis of these distinctions.

The second wave of feminist movement in the West in the end of 60s — the beginnings-70s of the XX century has given a push to development of researches which are called now as gender. The steady designation of the whole area of modern interdisciplinary researches by the term «gender» follows tradition of the English-speaking research literature: «gender» means «a social sex» unlike a «biological» sex". `Gender' is one of the central and fundamental concepts of a modern society which requires understanding. T. Lauretis has made digression to dictionaries of the various countries on values of a category «gender» and in the American dictionary of a heritage of English language [17, 18]: the word «gender» is defined, first of all, as the classification term, and also as the morphological characteristic («grammatical gender»). Other meaning of the word gender in this dictionary is «sex classification; a sex». It is interesting, that English language (where is not presented neither masculine’s, nor a feminine gender) has accepted gender as a category referring to a sex. In the same American dictionary it is possible to find out one more gender definition is representation. The word has no adequate translation in Russian, and its writing and a pronunciation is copied from English language. In I.R. Galperin’s big English-Russian dictionary it is possible to see, that gender has two meanings. The first is a grammatical gender and the second is a sex, as a playful designation [18, 668]. Gender definition (gender) as socio-cultural floor sex is not full for an explanation, and it is proved by a definition given in the glossary of the Moscow Institute of gender researches: «The gender is difficult socio-cultural construct: distinctions in roles, behavior, mental and emotional characteristics between man’s and female, (designed) by a society. The gender is designed through certain system of socialization, a division of labor and the cultural norms accepted in a society, a role and stereotypes» [19]. The term «gender» is understood as the representation of relations showing an attachment принадлежность to a class, group, a category (that corresponds to one of meanings of the word «род» — «gender» in Russian). Thus, the gender attributes or assigns to any object or the individual a position in a class, and, hence, and a position concerning others, already made classes. After A.V. Kirilina, we consider concept «a gender» and «sex» as synonyms and we understand under these concepts «socio-cultural and conventional phenomena and discursive factors of variable intensity, instead of biological phenomena» [20, 12].

Summarizing the western general scientific approaches to this category, O.A. Voronina defines seven approaches. So, the gender can be considered as a socially-demographic category; a social design; subjectivity; ideological construct; a network; technology and a cultural metaphor [21, 13 — 95].

In gender researches exists two conceptual approaches: the theory of socio-cultural determinism (accidentalism) and the biodeterminism theory (existentialism). Supporters of the socio-biological concept of gender point out distinctions in women and men’s behavior, in particular communicative; using psycho physiological distinctions connect them with distinction in speech processes and designate gender distinctions by sexual distinctions. Biodeterminists challenge opinion, that distinctions between representatives of two gender groups exist both in physiological, and in the social plan. In frameworks of sociodetermenistic directions, according to E.A. Kartusina, it is especially underlined, that «representations about „masculinity“ and „feminist“, along with communicative behavior, are designed, instead of simply reflected in language as language is represented in the way of formation of consciousness» [22, 26]. А.В. Kirilina scientifically proved two approaches as two periods of development of the gender researches, one of which has come in the stead of another: «…The gender approach is based on a number of methodological principles, major of which — sex relativisation, that is refusal of a biodeterminism and gender interpretation as socially and cultural designed phenomenon. The recognition of cultural conditionality of a sex, its institutional and ritualized character conducts to the recognition of its conventionality, unequally shown as in various cultural and language communities, so at various stages of their development. All it allows to approach to „masculinity“ and „feminity“ phenomena not as to an invariable natural reality, and as to dynamic, changeable products of development of the human society, giving in to a social manipulation and modeling and subject to the strongest influence of cultural tradition» [23, 134−135]. However, in our opinion, socio-deterministic and biodetermenistic approaches oppose today, the relation between concepts «gender» and «sex» is differentiated in various formulations of the concept «gender». O.V. Ryabov explains the relation of concepts «sex» and «gender» as whole and a part: «the sex consists of a biological sex and socio-cultural sex in which, in turn, should be distinguished a social and cultural-symbolical component. Thus „the sex“ and „a gender“ correspond among themselves not as a sort and a kind, but as whole and part» [24, 52]. In other treatment wider concept is the «gender» uniting a biological and social sex: «Gender» is some kind of an interdisciplinary intrigue in which basis set of sciences about the person are weaved, about its not only biological, but also socially and cultural caused specificity, an intrigue as sets of circumstances, events and actions in which centre there is a person, the personality" [25, 9], in our opinion, Special attention demands gender definition as important cognitive category used at interaction of people as in linguistics the concept «gender» corresponds with designed in language and fixed in consciousness of its carriers in the images, norms, traditions and style of behaviors, and also with set of attributes which are attributed to men and women in defined socio-cultural community.)

The interrelation of language and gender was focus of many researches which history breaks up to two periods. For the first period prominent features were: 1) irregular character of research; 2) «man's» language, and a deviation from norm — «female» was considered as norm. The second stage is marked by the large-scale researches caused by growth of interest to pragmatic aspect of linguistics, development of sociolinguistics and essential changes in traditional distribution of man’s and female roles in a society.

The background of gender researches in linguistics leaves the roots in antiquity and is connected with occurrence of the symbolical-semantic concept of a gender category (genus), considering it in a close connection with a direct reality: presence of people of a different sex. The given symbolical-semantic hypothesis was supported by such scientists as M. Gerder, J. Grimm, V. Humboldt, etc., that has predetermined its long domination in the linguistic description. The symbolical-semantic hypothesis has not found acknowledgement because of opening of languages in which the gender category is absent. Nevertheless, in frameworks of criticism of the given hypothesis and gradual replacement by its morphological and syntactic explanation of gender category invariable there was a recognition of that the gender category itself is capable to affect human perception of corresponding words and concepts.

The theme of mutual relation of language and gender was peripheral in linguistics, and regular researches in the given area were not spent. Only in the beginning of last century the given problematic — the language and floor theme — began to be put in the forefront for two reasons: first, because of heightened interest to it of linguists with a world name (E. Sepir, F. Mautner, O. Espersen) and, secondly, in the linguistic description the social plan considering language in connection with a society and the person being in it began to be put forward. It occurrence of new directions in linguistics — sociolinguistics, the pragmatist, psycholinguistics, the discourse and communications theory speaks.

In the end of the 60th — beginning of 70th of the XX century gender researches have received a powerful impulse thanks to the New women’s movement in the USA and Germany therefore in linguistics there was the new direction named feministic linguistics (FL — the term has been entered by L. Push) or feministic criticism of language. R. Lakoff’s work «Language and a place of the woman», proved anthropocentricity of language and defectiveness of the image of the woman in the picture of the world reproduced in language [26, 84].

The interrelation of language and gender was focus of many researches which history breaks up to two periods. For the first period prominent features were: 1) irregular character of research; 2) «man's» language, and a deviation from norm — «female» was considered as norm. The second stage is marked by the large-scale researches caused by growth of interest to pragmatic aspect of linguistics, development of sociolinguistics and essential changes in traditional distribution of man’s and female roles in a society.

The background of gender researches in linguistics leaves the roots in antiquity and is connected with occurrence of the symbolic-semantic concept of a category of a sort (genus), considering it in a close connection with a direct reality: presence of people of a different floor. The given symbolic-semantic hypothesis was supported by such scientists as M. Gerder, J. Grimm, V. Humboldt, etc., that has predetermined its long domination in the linguistic description. The Cimvoliko-semantic hypothesis has not found acknowledgement because of opening of languages in which the sort category is absent. Nevertheless, in frameworks of criticism of the given hypothesis and gradual replacement by its morphological and syntactic explanation of a category of a sort invariable there was a recognition of that the sort category itself is capable to affect human perception of corresponding words and concepts.

The theme of mutual relation of language and gender was peripheral in linguistics, and regular researches in the given area were not made. Only in the beginning of last century the given problematic — the language and sex theme — began to be put in the forefront for two reasons: first, because of heightened interest to it of world-known linguists (E. Sepir, F. Mautner, O. Espersen) and, secondly, the social plan considering language in connection with a society and the person in it began to be put forward in the linguistic description. It explains the occurrence of new directions in linguistics — sociolinguistics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, the discourse and communications theory.

The feministic linguistics has two currents: the first concerns research of language for the purpose of revealing asymmetries in its system, directed against women. These asymmetries have received the name of language sexism. It is a question of the patriarchal stereotypes fixed in language and imposing to its carriers a certain picture of the world in which the supporting role is taken away to women and negative qualities are attributed basically. Researches of language and sex asymmetries are based on Sepir-Uorf's hypothesis: language not only a society product, but also means of formation of thinking and mentality. It allows representatives of feministic linguistics to assert that all languages functioning in patriarchal and post patriarchal cultures are man’s languages and are under construction on the basis of a man’s picture of the world. With the appearance of S. Tremel-Pletts's works «Linguistik and Frauensprache» and also L. Push’s work «Das Deutsche als Mannersprache» the feministic linguistics has received great distribution in the USA and Germany. As M. Dmitrieva considers, supporters of language reform pursued following aims: 1) to make women more appreciable in language; 2) to remove gender relevance; 3) to make gender presence at language less obvious [27, 258].

The second direction investigates features of communications in the unisex and mixed groups (D. Cameron, J. Coates). These researches concern communicatively-pragmatic function of language. Studying of speech behavior within the limits of the given direction has allowed revealing and to describe man’s and female strategy of speech behavior in details. It is possible to carry its strongly pronounced polemic character, attraction to the linguistic description of results of all spectrum of sciences about the person (psychology, sociology, ethnography, anthropology, history), and also a number of successful attempts to affect the language policy to specificity of feministic criticism of language [28, 234].

In 90s gender researches became extended enough. Existence of special man’s and female languages (gender-linguistics) with constant signs which in due time has described Robin Lakoff. Linguists have come to necessity to study speech of women and men in a concrete context. According to A.V. Kirilina, the period of formation of primary development of a linguistic component domestic genderlogy and gender researches is at the end stage. [23, 14]. The given opinion is considered correct only partly as their feature, according to D. Tannen, consists that they did not proceed from feministic ideology as it has occurred in the USA and the Western Europe, and had no sexist orientation in researches. And the parity of a grammatical gender and an extra linguistic category «sex» was studied within the limits of other disciplines — morphology, grammar, lexicology — long before formation of the feministic concept of language and formation of the term «gender» in the West [29, 358].

On O.L. Kamenskaya, considering features of works of gender researches in linguistics, it is offered to differentiate them on two groups. So, the first direction — the gender linguistics — investigates language and speech behavior with application of gender methods, and object of the second direction — linguistic genderology — is studying of a category of a gender with application of linguistic toolkit [30, 13−19].

All linguistic researches of a gender interdependent and complementary, nevertheless, at the detailed analysis it is possible to allocate six directions of development linguistic gender logy in modern linguistics:

1) Socio-linguistic gender researches;

2) Feministic linguistics;

3) Actually gender researches studying language behavior of both sexes;

4) Masculinity research (the youngest direction which has arisen in the end of 20 century);

5) Psycholinguistic researches (within the limits of this direction works are spent to areas of neorolinguistics, studying speeches ontogenesis, here belongs both biodetermenistic direction investigating cognitive features and distinctions between men and women and their display in speech);

6) cross-cultural, linguo-cultural researches, including a hypothesis of gender subcultures.

Thus, in brief it is possible to distribute them in three directions: socio — and psycholinguistic, linguo-cultural, communicative-discursive [31, 78−94].

As a whole at studying of a problem of mutual relation of language and a gender and presence of certain features in man’s and female verbal behavior at present it is possible to allocate three basic approaches:

1) purely gender approach is reduced in treatment of exclusively social nature of language of women and men and aimed at revealing of those language distinctions which it is possible to explain features of redistribution of the power in a society, thus language is defined as certain functional derivative of the basic language, used when partners in speech are at different steps of social hierarchy. A theoretical basis of such approach is M. Fuko’s concepts and the sociological concept of genders have made by E. Goffman.

2) the second — socio-psycho-linguistic approach — reduces the second «female» and «man's» language to features of language behavior of the woman and the man, for it statistics make a skeleton for construction of linguistic theories;

3) the third approach does an emphasis on cognitive aspect of these distinctions. For it appears the main thing not only definition of rate of distinctions and operating by its indicators, but also an establishment of that difficultly gives in to an explanation [31, 82].

Thus, interdisciplinary character as confirms A.V. Kirillina, allocates two directions of researches: 1) a gender — as not linguistic object; 2) a gender — as the object of the linguistic description, is thus allocated metagender and gender level. The gender enters into sphere of researches as a cultural phenomenon, its reflection in language and designing in communicative interaction of individuals. All it allows to involve in research a wide range of linguistic questions — semantics, to the pragmatics, liguoculturology, cognitive linguistics, the discourse analysis etc. [23, 12].

On representation of the majority of linguists on gender, now at studying of a problem of mutual relation of language and a gender and presence of certain features in female and man’s verbal, allocate following directions of gender researches:

— Revealing of certain distinctions of language levels: phonetics, morphology, semantics and syntax, and also distinctions in the field of verbal stereotypes in perception of women and men;

— Revealing of semantic distinctions which speak features of redistribution of social functions in a society — the approach exclusively from the gender positions, connected with the social nature of language of women and men;

— Construction of psycholinguistic theories in which «female» and «man's» languages are reduced to features of language behavior of women and men;

— Cognitive explanation of the revealed indicators. In this case important it appears not only definition of rate of divergences, but also an establishment of communication with various aspects of a picture of the world.

In each country studying of communication of language and a sex has the features, in linguistics the great value takes place developments of this or that concept as history of concepts, and systems of their oppositions to other concepts depend on this or that cultural tradition.

Specificity of gender researches in modern linguistics of the post-Soviet territory is characterized by a number of factors [27, 234−242]:

— Features of language in connection with a sex of its carriers in the Soviet linguistics are considered within the limits of traditional linguistic paradigms: morphology, syntax, etc. the sex within the limits of a separate direction as it occurred in the West, was not considered;

— Formed today gender direction is characterized by undeveloped methodology and some terminological ambiguity. Mainly, as to interpretation of concept «gender»;

— In view of small quantity of works of own scientists it is necessary to lean against works of foreign scientists.

It is necessary to notice, that it is possible to find conclusions in works of the American and German linguists in all directions of linguistic gender researches; however it is required to consider the specificity necessary in connection with ethno cultural distinctions.

So, gender researches have no one expressed dominant. Modern researchers-linguists consider, that in researches on gender linguistics recently there was a turn to a discourse, and studying of interaction of language and a gender, in certain degree, became synonymous to discourse and gender studying. Told at all does not mean decrease in the importance for gender linguistics of such types of the analysis as grammatical, phonologic, lexical etc. At the same time interdisciplinary research of the phenomena discursive order has taken the central place in researches of interaction of language and a gender [32, 36].

In Kazakhstan linguistics throughout the long period of time the sex factor was considered in the linguistic description along with other pragmatic categories of the description. The analysis of imperious relations and a feministic discourse in linguistics were absent for the reasons both political, and social character. The analysis of available works allows defining a number of lines on which intensive research work is conducted. First of all it psycho-and socio-linguistic researches such as B.H. Hasanov, M.Z. Arenova, and also studying of names of persons female and male, categories of a sort and the problems connected with it reference by R.S. Amrenova, T.M. Abdrahmanova.

Thus, in the general plan gender research in linguistics concerns two groups of problems:

— Language and reflection in it of a sex. The purpose of such approach consists in the description and an explanation of how presence of people of a different floor is demonstrated in language (are investigated first of all nominative system, a lexicon, syntax, a sort category, etc.), what estimations are attributed to men and women and in what semantic areas they are most considerably expressed;

— Speech and, as a whole, communicative behavior of men and women where typical strategy and tactics are allocated gender specific choice of units of a lexicon, ways of achievement of success in communications, preferences in a choice of lexicon, syntactic designs etc.

Undoubtedly, at studying of communicative behavior it is necessary to consider the gender factor as public institutes and the culture, influencing gender socialization, dictate certain stereotypes of behavior, but thus also it is necessary to consider the status, age, an accessory to social group.

The given review of history of formation of researches in gender study gives the basis to assert, that it is necessary to consider extra linguistic and introlinguistic factors of influence of a gender on discourse formation, to consider ethno cultural specificity that is very important for intercultural communications during a globalization epoch. So, we come to conclusion, that now researches in gender study consider a gender not only as social construct, and also as institutional, ritualized, socio-cultural phenomenon and its reflection in language, but also designing in communicative interaction of individuals that is reflected in prompt development of new branch in modern linguistics — linguistic gender study.

ПоказатьСвернуть
Заполнить форму текущей работой