Gender Sensitivity in Specialized CommunicationA preliminary corpusbased study of the LSP in Economics

  1. Pedro A. Fuertes Olivera
  2. Marisol Velasco Sacristán
  3. Eva Samaniego Fernández
Journal:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241

Year of publication: 2003

Issue: 6

Pages: 65-87

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Abstract

Specialized communication tends to be described as impersonal, objective, ideologically neutral and emotionless. This claim, however, needs to be reanalyzed in terms of the often-described ideological component mainly associated with social meaning. This article continues a very recent tradition demanding that ideology should be unveiled in every particular text, including those typically associated with specialized communication. By studying two small subcorpora of economics texts, this article analyzes two basic aspects of the English gender system: one dealing with terminology; the other examining generic reference. The results obtained, although very preliminary, seem to suggest that the so-called gender bias can also be found in specialized texts, which prompt us to propose the development of a new perspective within LSP: gender sensitivity in specialized communication

Bibliographic References

  • Baron, D. (1986). Grammar and Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
  • Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica 4: 3-19.
  • Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3-43.
  • Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
  • Blanchard, O. (1997). Macroeconomics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bowker, L. (2001). Terminology and Gender Sensitivity: A Corpus-based Study of the LSP of Infertility. Language in Society 39: 589-610.
  • Bucholtz, M. (1999). «Why be normal?»: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls. Language in Society 28,2: 203-223.
  • Chng, H. H. (2002). Separate and Unequal. Judicial Rhetoric and Women's Rights. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Corbett, G. C. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Curzan, A. (2000). Gender Categories in Early Grammars: Their Message to the Modern Grammarian, in B. Unterbeck et al. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 561-576. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Dudley-Evans, T. (2000). Genre Analysis: a Key to a Theory of ESP?. Ibérica 2: 3-11.
  • Eckert, P. & S. McConnell-Ginet (1999). New Generalizations and Explanations in Language and Gender Research. Language in Society 28,2: 185-2001.
  • Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
  • Fairclough, N. L. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
  • Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. A. M. Sheridan Smith (tr.). U.K.: Tavistock Publications.
  • Fuertes Olivera, P. A. (1991). Ms: un ejemplo de empeoramiento semántico, in C. Bernis et al. (eds.), Los Estudios sobre la mujer: de la investigación a la docencia, 363-370. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma.
  • Fuertes Olivera, P. A. (1992). Mujer, lenguaje y sociedad. Los estereotipos de género en inglés y en español. Madrid: Ayto. de Alcalá de Henares.
  • Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. (1999). A Database on English Lexicology: the Formal-Informal English Language database (FIELD). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4,1: 53-75.
  • Fuertes Olivera P. A. (2001). Lexicología y variación en la lengua inglesa. Estudio de los nombres, adjetivos y verbos informales del diccionario Cobuild. Valladolid: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Valladolid.
  • Fuertes-Olivera, P.A. & E. Samaniego- Fernández (1998). Metaphor and Motivation: a Study of English Informal Phraseological Units. Lexicology 4,1:35-59.
  • Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., M. Velasco- Sacristán, A. Arrinas-Baño & E. Samaniego-Fernández (2001). Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1291-1307.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hellinger, M. (2001). English Gender in a Global Language, in Hellinger & Bußmann (eds.), vol. 1, 105-113.
  • Hellinger, M. & H. Bußmann (eds.) (2001a), Gender across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3 vols.
  • Hellinger, M. & H. Bußmann (2001b). Gender Across Languages. The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, in Hellinger & Bußmann (eds.), vol. 1, 1-25.
  • Hewings, M. (2002). A History of ESP through English for Specific Purposes. English for Specific Purposes World. Electronic Journal: 1-11. URL: [accessed 1 May 2003].
  • Hewings, M. & A. Hewings (2002). «It is Interesting to Note that»: a Comparative Study of Anticipatory «it» in Student and Published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21: 367-383.
  • Holmes, J. (2001). A Corpus-based View of Gender in New Zealand English, in Hellinger & Bußmann (eds.), vol. 1, 115-136.
  • Hyland, K. (1998ª). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437-455.
  • Hyland, K. (1999). Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge. Applied Linguistics 20: 341-67.
  • Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press.
  • Jernudd, B. (1973). Language Planning as a Type of Language Treatment, in J. Rubin & R. Shuy (eds.), Language Planning, Current Issues and Research, 11-23. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  • Johnson, S. & U. H. Meinhof (eds.) (1997). Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Kramarae, C. & P. Treichler (1985). A Feminist Dictionary. London: Pandora Press.
  • Kress G. & R. Hodge (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Mankiw, N. G, (1998). Principles of Economics. New York: The Dryden Press.
  • McDonough, J. (1998): English for Specific Purposes , in K. Johnson & H. Johnson (eds.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, 105-110. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Mey, J. L. (1985). Whose Language? A Study in Linguistics Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Miller, C. & K. Swift (1980). The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing: for Writers, Editors and Speakers. New York: Lippincott and Crowell.
  • Montero-Martínez, S., M. García de Quesada & P. A. Fuertes-Olivera (2002). Terminological Phrasemes in OntoTerm®: A new Theoretical and Practical Approach. Terminology 8,2: 177-206.
  • Newman, M. (1998). What can Pronouns Tell us? A Case Study of English Epicenes. Studies in Language 22: 353-389.
  • Palmer, J. C. (1999). Netvertising and ESP: A Genre-based analysis of Target Advertisements and its Application in the Business English Classroom. Ibérica 1:39-54.
  • Pauwels, A. (1998). Women Changing Language. London and New York: Longman.
  • Pauwels, A. (2001). Spreading the Feminist Word. The Case of the New Courtesy Title Ms in Australian English, in Hellinger & Bußmann (eds.), vol. 1, 137-151.
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J.Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Romaine, S. (2001). A Corpus-based View of Gender in British and American English, in Hellinger & Bußmann (eds.), vol. 1, 153-175.
  • Samuelson, P. & W. D. Nordhaus (1985). Economics, 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Sherzer, J. (1990). Verbal Art in San Blas: Kuna Culture through its Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. McH. & M. Coulthard (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Spender, D. (1980). Man Made Language. London: Routledge.
  • Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of Articles Introductions. ESP Monograph No. 1, Language Studies Unit: Aston University.
  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J. M. (1998). Other Floors Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Thorne, B. & N. Henley (eds.) (1975).Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications.
  • Velasco Sacristán, Marisol (2003). Publicidad y género: Propuesta, diseño y aplicación de un modelo de análisis de las metáforas de género en la publicidad impresa en lengua inglesa. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. PhD Dissertation (electronic version available at http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations).
  • Willer, L. R. (2001). Warning: Welcometo your World Baby, Gender Message Enclosed. An Analysis of Gender Messages in Birth Congratulation Cards. Women and Language 24,1: 16-23.
Data source: Dialnet