Claims for gender-inclusive language have repeatedly made their way into popular talk shows in recent years and regularly lead to emotional debates. In this conversation with Martin Luginbühl, Professor of German Linguistics, we dive deeper into gender linguistics, focusing on the specificities of the German language, discussing the pros and cons of gender-inclusive speech and trying our hand at proposing compromises.

 

In the auditorium of the Natural History Museum Basel one can see the so-called Professorengalerie*, a collection of portraits of former professors of the University of Basel. For a long time, the path to an academic career was reserved for men only. The first woman admitted to study at the University of Basel was Emilie Louise Frey, who finally received her doctorate from the medical faculty in 1895. Before that, the university rejected all applications for admission from female students, thus keeping university life in male hands from the student to the rector.

Nowadays, things are different: female students even outnumber men in many degree programs and women also hold the positions of lecturer, professor and rector, albeit still in the minority. Linguistically, however, these developments are often not visible, because again and again the masculine form is used exclusively and it is argued that the generic masculine** “includes” all genders anyway. 

*In German, the term Professoren refers specifically to male teachers but was also traditionally used as an umbrella term that encompasses both male and female teachers. These days many opt instead for Professor*innen or ProfessorInnen as the plural form.

**The generic masculine is the use of male nouns as an abstract plural that includes all genders or an abstract singular person of unknown gender.

*

Out & About: Mr. Luginbühl, does the generic masculine really include everyone?

Martin Luginbühl: It may well be that the person speaking or writing has all gender identities in mind. But the point is what the people who then hear or read their statements imagine. So it’s not enough to include everyone if those who hear it think only of men.

And then, of course, there are many areas in which it simply remains unclear exactly who is meant. A concrete example: “All pensioners get their AHV at 65”. If you are not familiar with Switzerland’s pension system, this statement leaves open the question of whether it refers only to men or also to women. To put it casually, it is a “linguistic misfortune” that the form of the generic masculine is the same as the masculine form.

“Language and reality are interdependent”

Would gender-sensitive language, such as double forms (e.g. Student and Studentin) or the use of the gender asterisk (e.g. Student*innen) increase the visibility of all gender identities?

In fact, all studies that exist in this field show very clearly that when we use the generic masculine, we think predominantly or primarily of men. Conversely, yes, gender-inclusive language has an influence on who we think of.

Supporters of gender-inclusive language argue that changing language use can also change reality and our view of the world. To what extent do you attribute this power to language?

Language and reality are interdependent. I create reality by expressing it in language. And at the same time, language also depicts reality. It’s very difficult to say exactly how they relate to each other. I believe that as soon as realities change, we ourselves realize that the language we have no longer fits our reality and what we want to depict.

When we used to talk exclusively about Studenten (german generic masculine plural for students), for example, it was clear that this meant all the people studying at the university. But as soon as the Studenten were joined by the female Studentin, the value of the word changed and there was a shift in meaning. The perception of the word has also changed. And when I speak of Studenten today, it is clear that I am not explicitly speaking of female students, that is, that I am excluding them. New linguistic forms respond to these changes.

Why are changes in society not automatically reflected in language? Does linguistic change basically take longer than concrete real changes?

The view that language eventually adapts and changes by itself, so to speak, is problematic, because language never changes on its own, it changes through people’s use of it. Basically, one has to say that language is not artificial, but also not completely natural. There are these ideas of language maintenance, that language should be preserved and that we must not change anything about it. However, language is a cultural phenomenon that is produced by people. Everybody uses language. And at the same time, that’s why it’s a cultural phenomenon and not just an individual phenomenon; we can’t initiate language change as individuals. There are collective processes that we can’t control at all. Perhaps in 5 years the gender asterisk will be gone, replaced by another form or – even if I don’t believe it –  there will be a return to the generic masculine.

“So what I would advocate is to be generous to people who try new things.”

Critics often oppose deliberate changes in language use, also with the argument that gender-inclusive language is ideological and, as a result, would no longer represent reality, but a desired state.

Absolutely, gender-inclusive language is highly ideological. But language is always ideological. Even the generic masculine is ideological; grown out of patriarchal structures. So the question is not at all whether we want ideology or not, but what ideology we want. What exactly does it mean to represent reality? If I were to go by which form better represents the majority, we would have to use the generic feminine at our faculty, because many more women than men study here. 

My attitude would rather be that I want to represent diversity. People who statistically belong to a minority often tell how extremely important this form of appreciation is for them. I don’t mean that in a paternalistic way at all, but I speak from my own experience: We feel comfortable, can develop and become productive when we feel valued. That’s why I believe it’s important to do the same in language. And if I want to reflect diversity in my use of language, I’d rather do it once too often than once too little.

What would be your compromise offer for the two parties?

What I think is important is, if possible, to de-emotionalize the discussion. In my own experience, it can quickly get very emotional. If we prescribe certain linguistic forms to people, many feel attacked – understandably so. Because it’s an attack on people’s linguistic self-determination, and that is a high asset that needs to be protected. I would therefore not prescribe a change of language to anyone. My experience is anyway that as soon as processes of language awareness are initiated, quite a lot of people adopt these changes by themselves. Maybe not always and maybe not everywhere, but that is not necessary. 

So what I would advocate is to be generous to people who try new things. And to explain what ideas and aspirations lie behind the new forms. Then everyone can decide for themselves whether they can go along with the idea. Everything else is out of our hands anyway; these eventually become collective processes that will show whether these forms prevail or not.

How do the university and other official bodies deal with the demand for inclusive language?

There are no regulations from the University of Basel, but guidelines are being considered, which I welcome. (This also comes) As a response to the needs of the student administration. 

The decisive body when it comes to regulations for school and official use is the Council for German Orthography. For many people who cannot read well, access to new linguistic forms is difficult. It may well be that the Council will not recognize the forms as grammatically correct because of these arguments. But what we do in newspapers, online media and privately is up to all of us. It  is possible that some forms will become established in certain areas and not in others. 

“I think it’s quite difficult to do away with distinctions in pronouns because we’re so used to doing them in German.”

In recent years, in an additional effort to make women and men equally visible, there have been calls for a language that also refers to non-binary gender identities. One proposal that keeps coming up is the introduction of so-called “neopronouns” (e.g., “they”, “hen”, or “xier”). Do you think the introduction of new terms such as these can work?

I see the use of these pronouns as an exciting contribution to the discussion. Even in the feminist linguistics of the 1980s, there were proposals that were quite seriously meant, but that were not necessarily expected to catch on one day. I think “neopronouns” can be very productive precisely because they are irritating, but they are also a very big intervention in the language system, and that’s why I think they will meet with only a low level of acceptance in society. My prediction is that it won’t catch on. I think it’s quite difficult to do away with distinctions in pronouns because we’re so used to doing them in German. But that’s a bold prediction, maybe in 10 years it will look different. Habituation plays an important role there.

What is your opinion of the many forms of gender-equitable language and the ever new proposals?

Currently, a lot is being tried out and there are many forms side by side. But if you look closely, language is always like that. You write text messages in dialect, for example, and in other areas you know you have to write using standard German. 

Language is always very heterogeneous in use. What’s really exciting is that such an intense discussion is taking place. And of course that has to do with the fact that gender is, on the one hand, one of the main categories according to which we perceive and differentiate people; a highly ideologically charged category. And on the other hand, it is also a social characteristic that we have to define in many contexts when we speak German. Other languages make it a bit easier for the speakers. For example, the English word for “teacher” can mean both female and male. In German, however, we have a “linguistic misfortune” with the generic masculine.

Does it make sense to resort to other languages, such as English, to establish new words? 

Yes, that can certainly be a possibility. In general, the important question for me is not so much whether these adoptions make sense or not, but what is actually adopted and becomes collectively accepted. For example, the word “queer” is currently being used a lot (in the German language). 

What do you think of empowering strategies such as the one used by rappers when they choose negatively connoted terms like “bitch” as self-designations? 

It’s an exciting phenomenon! I see it as being along the same lines as the use of the N-word, when it’s partly picked up and reclaimed by Black rappers in their lyrics. And this is also a political struggle for reclaiming language that has been expropriated and devalued. 

I find it exciting above all because it can of course irritate for a certain time and therefore, it can become productive again in the process of linguistic awareness. 

How do you actually deal with the popularity of this topic – Gendering has been the subject of talk shows time and time again in recent years and has been hotly debated.

On one hand, I find it very exciting that this topic is being broadly discussed. Although of course it annoys me that, unfortunately, quite often linguistically incorrect facts are stated. Indeed, there is also a debate within linguistics happening, but some things are certain. For example, the fact that language is always ideological.

Finally, we would be interested in knowing: has your knowledge of language changed your own speaking?

It remains exciting because I keep noticing things, but simultaneously there are many other things that I have more or less gotten used to. What I haven’t been doing for too long is consistently using gender-sensitive forms in speech as well. For a long time I used double forms, but now I’m making an effort to resort to gender-neutral terms or to work with the glottal stop.

Thank you very much for the interview and the fascinating insights!

Mayra Jenzer und Catherin Schöberl im Gespräch mit Prof. Dr. Martin Luginbühl, Professor für Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft an der Universität Basel