英语系本科论文样例

华中师范大学

本科毕业论文（设计）

题目 英汉语言中的男性性别歧视

院 （系） 外国语学院 专 业 英 语 年 级 2001级 学生姓名 杨展云 学 号 20011075 指导教师 舒白梅

二OO五年四月

Anti-Male Bias in English and Chinese

A thesis submitted to the School of Foreign Languages, CCNU In partial fulfillment of the requirements for BA degree

In English Language and Literature

by Yang Zhanyun

Supervisor: Shu Baimei Academic Title: Professor

Signature:

April 2005

Contents

Abstract in Chinese …………………………………………………………… i Abstract in English ……………………………………………………………. ii 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 2. Literature Review………….……….…………………………….....….…… 1 1 2.1 Studies of linguistic sexism….…………………………………................ 2.2 Misconception of linguistic sexism and different approaches……………. 3. Gender-Exclusive Language …………………………………….................. 3.1 Gender-exclusive language in English ……………………………........... 3.2 Gender-exclusive language in Chinese …………………………….......... 4. Gender-Restrictive Language ……………………………………………... 4.1 Gender-restrictive language in English .…………………………………. 4.2 Gender-restrictive language in Chinese…………………………….......... 5. Masculinization of Evil…………………………………………................... 5.1 Masculinization of evil in English………………………………….......... 5.1.1Crime ………………………………………………………………... 5.1.2 Cruelty and violence…………………………………………............ 5.1.3 Libertine……………………………………………………………... 5.2 Masculinization of evil in Chinese ………………………………………. 5.2.1 Crime…………………………………………………………............ 5.2.2 Cruelty and violence.………………………………………………... 5.2.3 Libertine……………………………………………………………... 6. Conclusion………………………………………………………..…………..Bibliography………………………………………………………...………….

1 2 3 3 5 7 7 9 10 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 16

内容摘要

自20世纪60年代起，语言性别歧视研究随着女性解放运动的展开而得到蓬勃发展。一般而言，语言性别歧视研究有四种不同的学术观点，它们分别是：女性主义的观点，约定俗成的观点，男性研究的观点，以及社会语言学的观点。其中，男性研究的观点是20世纪80年代末出现的一种全新的理论。以往国内外的语言学家大多从女性的角度出发研究语言性别歧视问题，极少有人从男性的角度出发对此进行探讨。本文先总结了语言性别歧视研究的发展阶段，并介绍了几种不同的学术观点。之后，文章试图采用男性研究的观点，从排除异性语言，性别有定语言和罪孽联想男性化三个方面比较中英文中针对男性的语言性别歧视现象的共同点，旨在通过列举大量实例证明男性同女性一样可能成为语言性别歧视的牺牲品，引起人们对针对男性的语言性别歧视现象的关注。

关键词：语言性别歧视; 男性偏见; 共同点; 中文; 英文

Abstract

From the 1960s, the study of linguistic sexism has been developed vigorously as the women’s liberation movement spread out. Generally, there are four approaches to the study of linguistic sexism: the feminist approach, the conventional approach, the approach from men’s study, and the sociolinguistic approach. The approach from men’s study is a completely new theory which appeared at the end of the 1980s. In the past, linguists home and abroad usually study the problem of linguistic sexism from the feminine perspective and few from the masculine perspective. This paper first of all summarizes the development stages of linguistic sexism study, followed by an introduction of several different approaches. Later, the article employs the approach of men’s study, attempting to compare the similarities of anti-male bias usage in English and in Chinese from three aspects, which are gender-exclusive language, gender-restrictive language, and masculinization of evil. With abundant examples, the paper aims at proving that the male, like the female, can be preys of linguistic sexism, arousing people’s attention to anti-male bias in language.

Key words: linguistic sexism; anti-male bias; similarity; English; Chinese

ii

1. Introduction

For decades, linguists have been studying the problem of linguistic sexism. Much effort has been put on anti-female language usage while little on anti-male bias in language.

The end of the 1980s witnessed the birth of a new theory to the study of linguistic sexism, that is, the approach from men’s study, which holds that both the male and the female can be preys of linguistic sexism (杨永林, 2004: 36). However, this newly emerging force is not powerful enough to place influence on the solid foundation of traditional approaches to the study of linguistic sexism, not to mention change average people’s concepts about linguistic sexism. Generally, people assume that only females are discriminated against in language.

Therefore, this paper employs the approach from men’s study to discuss the problem of anti-male bias in language and attempts to compare the similarities of anti-male language usage in English and Chinese. Through comparison, people’s misconception of linguistic sexism can be redressed. Meanwhile, attention can be drawn to anti-male bias in English and Chinese. Furthermore, similarities between English culture and Chinese culture can be revealed so as to foster understanding between these two cultures.

Primarily employing the techniques of classification, exemplification, and comparison, the author of this article is going to divide the whole dissertation into four chapters. Chapter one is a general introduction. Chapter two is a literature review, which introduces the studies of linguistic sexism, misconception of linguistic sexism and different theories to the study of linguistic sexism. And chapter three, which is the most important part, compares the similarities of anti-male bias in English and Chinese from three aspects, which are gender-exclusive language, gender-restrictive language, and masculinization of evil. In the end comes a natural conclusion, that is, the male, like the female, can be victims of linguistic sexism.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Studies of linguistic sexism

Linguistic sexism refers to prejudicial attitude of either sex towards the other in the use of language (杨永林, 2004: 18) . The phenomenon of linguistic sexism exists in different cultures, including English and Chinese cultures.

It was early in the 1920s that the well-known linguist, Jespersen, had noticed that there were quite a number of nouns applied to females alone in English. As the women’s liberation movement vigorously developed from the 1960s, linguistic sexism study has roughly gone through four stages.

From 1960s to mid 1970s is the first stage in which feminists and supporters of women’s liberation movement were main participants. The study in this period is confined to political discussion from the perspective of feminism. Few achievements have been made in this period. The second stage, from the 1970s to mid 1980s, mainly discusses the issue of sexism in language from the angle of morphology and semantics. However, some viewpoints and reform measures are not scientific enough so that they are not widely accepted by people. The mid 1980s sees the coming of the third phase. The academic circle researches on linguistic sexism with an attitude which is more sober, objective, discreet and scientific. From the 1990s, social linguists combine the study of linguistic sexism with the study of language and culture, and the study of cognitive science, explaining the potential harm of sexist language to society in a theoretical height of linguistic relativity.

2.2 Misconception of linguistic sexism and different approaches

From the definition of linguistic sexism given at the beginning of the paper, we can clearly see that linguistic sexism includes both anti-male language and anti-female language. However, most people assume that sexist language is only used for the female and that females alone are the victims of linguistic sexism. But according to a recent theory, both males and females can be preys of linguistic sexism and the difference between anti-male usage and anti-female usage merely lies in the extent of victimization (杨永林, 2004: 24).

Generally speaking, there are four academic approaches to the study of linguistic sexism: a feminist approach, a conventional approach, a sociolinguistic approach, and an approach from men’s studies. The feminist approach is relatively radical, arguing that an egalitarian society should be created in order to get rid of linguistic sexism. The conventional approach, compared with the feminist one, represents the conservatives, viewing language both as arbitrary and conventional. All-embracing is the sociolinguistic approach, which can accept the radicalism of feminism, viewpoints of men’s study, and

can take in the reasonable part of the conventional approach. And finally, the approach from men’s study is a newly emerging force which rose at the end of the 1980s. This theory holds that under most circumstances, males and females are all preys of out-moded regulations and irrational practices in certain cultures, and males are often covert preys of implicit linguistic sexism (杨永林, 2004: 45).

3. Gender-Exclusive Language

For decades, linguists have been making researches on the problem of linguistic sexism. Much attention has been paid to anti-female bias but few people have noticed that males can also be preys of sexist language. Eugene August, professor of the University of Dayton, is one among those who have noted anti-male bias. He argues that “anti-male bias in language is as possible as anti-female bias” (quoted in August, 2000: 70). According to him, there are in general three types of anti-male usage in modern English. The first type is language of gender-exclusiveness which excludes males from certain kinds of saying. The second type is gender-restrictive language usage which tries to confine males to certain prescribed gender roles. And the last one is negative stereotypes about males which usually imply insult, cruelty and potential danger (quoted in August, 2000: 72).

Similar to English, Chinese also has anti-male language usage to some extent. Some terms used on males alone are really insulting. In the following parts, the phenomenon of anti-male bias in language will be analyzed and a host of examples will be provided to support the view that the male also can be victims of linguistic sexism.

3.1 Gender-exclusive language in English

Although gender-exclusive language usage which excludes females in English has often been discussed, little heed has been paid to usage that omits males. Example after example can be cited to prove the existence of anti-female language usage. For instance, American linguist Nilsen gives a typical example in the book Sexism and Language:

Let me show you the restrictions that would be placed on my daughter. . . . Among the peculiar restrictions placed on her would be that could never really participate in the brotherhood of mankind. And regardless of what her forefathers were, she couldn’t have been an Irishman, a Frenchman, or a

Dutchman. . . . At school she would have to learn early that she could serve on committees but never be the spokesman or chairman. She could participate in sports, but she could not practice sportsmanship. In baseball she could be a pitcher or a catcher but not the ballboy or the first baseman. . . . Even if she rose to real power in the world and became a queen, she couldn’t rule because there are only kingdoms—no queendoms. . . . But if by some happenstance, she did succeed in gaining power in government, the real tragedy is that she could never be a statesman—only a politician. (quoted in 潘建, 2004: 15)

However, few people have discovered that Alma Mater which means nourishing mother is a gender-restrictive term used to refer to the university or school at which one studies. The same is mammal which is a term used to categorize animals according to the female’s ability to feed the young through her breasts. Obviously, mammal excludes the male of the species.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, males, just like females, can be victims of linguistic sexism both in English and in Chinese. In fact, there exist many similarities of anti-male usage between these two languages.

Both languages ignore the male’s role of being parent and exclude them as victim, which actually is unfair to the male. Whenever parent is mentioned, mother would be put in the first place, while father is considered as a “second-rate parent” as August puts it. Many expressions in Chinese and in English have shown the existence of gender-exclusive usage excluding the male. At the same time, most people hold that males would never be victimized at any time but it is not the case actually.

No matter the man lives in English-speaking societies or in China, he cannot avoid being confined to certain prescribed gender roles. He is supposed to behave like a real man all his life, or else he will possibly be a coward or a sissy one day, and despised by others. Society requires him to work hard as a “breadwinner”, and to make accomplishments in his career, otherwise, he would be granted with such titles as ne’er-do-well which is rather insulting.

Men, both Chinese and English, are confronted with a large number of stereotypes against them in many aspects. They are considered as primary law-breakers, and they are

portrayed as symbols of evil, brutality and violence. And usually people’s imagination would not go beyond the image of the male when such negative terms as drunkard are mentioned.

Therefore, it can be said that to be a male is not a simple thing. As a man, he should be prepared to face all kinds of challenges society places on him. If he fails as a “man”, language would not let him off easily. A host of words and expressions would be right there to tease or criticize him.

Men, in fact, are people who bear the heaviest pressure in the world. As they are trying their best to fulfill men’s duties, they should be ready to receive severe criticism in the form of language, accepting society’s evaluation through a series of criteria.

Bibliography

August, Eugene. Real Men Don’t: Anti-Male Language in English [A]. About Language:

A Reader for Writers [C]. Ed. W. H. Roberts, and Gregoire Turgeon. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000. 68-76.

Gordon, Neve. Rape Used as Control in U.S. Prisons [Z]. 14 Sept. 2001. 23 Mar. 2005.

.

Key, Mary Ritchie. Male/Female Language [M]. 2nd ed. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press,

1996.

崔玲、马志刚. 语言中的性别歧视[J]. 社科纵横，2004, (1): 133-135.

家庭暴力，谁来关注受伤的男人[Z]. 27 Jan. 2005. 24 Apr. 2005. eden/zhuanti/84714.html>.

潘建. 英汉语言性别歧视的比较研究[J]. 外语与外语教学 2004,（3）: 14-16. 杨永林. 社会语言学研究：功能，性别，称谓[M]. 上海：外语教育与研究出版社, 2004.