1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 30, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
PDF

Abstract

The introduction and spread of as the courtesy address title for women is a cornerstone of feminist linguistic planning for English. Its introduction aimed to eradicate the discriminatory inequity in the address system that exposed women through their (non)marital relationship with men. The understanding, use and impact of the courtesy title are fairly well documented, particularly for Englishes of Australia (e.g. Pauwels 1987; 1998; 2001; 2003), US and Britain (Romaine 2001) and New Zealand (Holmes 2001). We have little knowledge of the form’s spread, impact and use by speakers for whom English is not the dominant language but forms part of their linguistic repertoire. Graddol (1997) argues that English-speaking bilinguals will outnumber first language speakers and, ‘increasingly will decide the global future of the language’ (p.10). Such contexts of English – second / third / foreign – usage loosely align with locales Kachru (1997) identified as ‘expanding circles’, and to some extent, many of the ‘outer circle’ Englishes, e.g. Hong Kong. In this paper we take up a new direction in feminist language planning: the exploration of courtesy title use and practices by English-speaking mono-/bi-/multilingual women around the world. We draw upon online survey data (available from http://www.teagirl.arts.uwa.edu.au/) to probe respondents’ strategies for addressing unknown women, as well as women’s use of courtesy titles for themselves. Our mapping of practices associated with reveals an unexpected pattern of diffusion with implications for evaluating planned social language change. In relation to , the implementation of feminist linguistic policy does not cohere with a pattern of spread from inner to outer to expanding ‘circles’ of English or from ‘first language speaker’ to … ‘foreign language speaker’ diffusion. The locale and personal contexts associated with education, awareness and personal commitment to gender equity interact in complicating, and surprising ways. Indeed our research exposes a new directionality for as a preferred form for unknown women, without necessarily implicating its use in self-naming for many bilingual women resident in ‘outer circle’ locales.

© 2007 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2104/aral0708
2007-01-01
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.2104/aral0708
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoyama, T.
    2005 ‘Transgendering shôjo shôsetu: Girls’ inter text- sex-uality’. InGenders, transgenders and sexualities in Japan, edited by Mclelland, M ; Dasgupta, R. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Graddol, D.
    1997 The future of English?London: British Council.
  3. Graddol, D. ; Swann, J.
    1989 Gender voices. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Hellinger, M. ; Bussmann, H.
    Eds 2001 Gender across languages: International perspectives of language variation and change. Volume1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Holmes, J.
    2001 ‘A corpus-based view of gender in New Zealand English’. InGender across languages: International perspectives of language variation and change. Volume1, edited by Hellinger, M. ; Bussman, H. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9.10hol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.10hol [Google Scholar]
  6. Kachru, B.
    1997 ‘World Englishes and English-using communities’. Annual review of applied linguistics17: 66–87. doi: 10.1017/S0267190500003287
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003287 [Google Scholar]
  7. Pauwels, A.
    1987 ‘Language in transition: A study of the title “Ms” in contemporary Australian society’. InWomen and language in Australian and New Zealand society, edited by Pauwels, A. Sydney: Australian Professional Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1996 ‘Feminist language planning and titles for women. Some crosslinguistic perspectives’. InContrastive sociolinguistics, edited by Ammon, U. ; Hellinger, M. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110811551.251
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811551.251 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1998 Women changing language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2001 ‘Spreading the feminist word? A sociolinguistic study of feminist language change in Australian English: The case of the new courtesy title “Ms”’. InGender across languages: International perspectives of language variation and change. Volume1, edited by Hellinger, M. ; Bussman, H. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9.11pau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.11pau [Google Scholar]
  11. 2003 ‘Linguistic sexism and feminist activism’. InThe handbook of language and gender, edited by Holmes, J. ; Meyerhoff, M. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756942.ch24
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  12. Pauwels, A ; Winter, J.
    2004 ‘Gender-inclusive language reform in educational writing in Singapore and the Philippines: A corpus-based study’. Journal of Asian Englishes7 (1): 4–21. doi: 10.1080/13488678.2004.10801128
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2004.10801128 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2004 ‘Generic pronouns and gender-inclusive language reform in the English of Singapore and the Philippines’. Australian review of applied linguistics27 (2): 50–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Pauwels, A. ; Winter, J.
    2005 ‘Feminist linguistic activism in the 21st century: A view across the English-speaking world’. InContexts: Historical, social, linguistic studies in celebration of Toril Swan, edited by McCafferty, K. ; Bull, T. ; Killie, K. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Pennycook, A.
    1994 The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Philipson, R.
    1992 Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Romaine, S.
    2001 ‘A corpus-based view of gender in British and American English’. InGender across languages: International perspectives of language variation and change. Volume1, edited by Hellinger, M. ; Bussman, H. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.9.12rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.9.12rom [Google Scholar]
  18. Rampton, B.
    1995 Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Spolsky, B.
    2004 Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Winter, J ; Pauwels, A.
    2006 ‘Men staying at home looking after their children: Masculinities and gender inclusive language reform’. International journal of applied linguistics16 (1): 16–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00104.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00104.x [Google Scholar]
  21. 2006/in press. ‘“Trajectories of Agency” and discursive identities in education: A critical site in feminist language planning’. Current issues in language planning7 (2).
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2104/aral0708
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error