CEU eTD Collection In partialfulfilmentforthe degreeofMaster ofArtsinGender Studies Changes intheConstructedMeaningsofGender Russian Dick-tionaryasInstitutionofSexism: in theDictionaryEntriesfrom1992to2007 Supervisor: Professor ErzsébetBarát Department ofGender Studies Central EuropeanUniversity Galyna Iarmanova Budapest, Hungary Submitted to 2008 By CEU eTD Collection Dictionary. toward morepatriarchalrepresentationofwomenandmen. of edition 2007 to 1992 from gender of meanings of constructed the in nature changes the compare about I Further change. assumptions linguistic and language underpinning the examine to language Russian of influence the under changed been conservative discourseinthedebateonlanguage. have they how and entries dictionary the in constructed are gender of meanings the how analyze I dictionary. explanatory A BSTRACT I find that there has been a methodical change of the constructed meanings constructed the of change methodical a been has there that find I the on debate recent to related texts the of analysis discourse critical use I Russian the in institutionalized sexism of study the on focuses thesis This i zeo Rsin Language Russian Ozhegov CEU eTD Collection B C C C C C C HAPTER HAPTER HAPTER HAPTER IBLIOGRAPHY HAPTER ONTENTS ..Aayi fdcinr eiiin ...... 41 ...... 4.3. Analysisofdictionarydefinitions 40 4.2. Formalsexismindictionary...... 4.1. 28 ...... 3.4. WCIOMsurveys:analysisofassumptionsregardinglanguage 24 intentions...... 3.3. Dominantdiscourseinthedebate:hidden 21 ...... 3.2. Counter-discourseofthedebate:liberallinguists 17 3.1. Creatingmoralpanicinthelanguagedebates...... 13 ...... 2.4. ResearchonsexismintheRussianlanguage 11 2.3. Sexisminthedomainoflexicon...... 7 ...... 2.2. Sexisminthedomainofgrammar 6 2.1. Embodiedsexismvs.institutionalizedsexism...... 4.3.1. Sex,genderandsexuality Ozhegov RussianLanguageDictionary 2.2.3. ‘Positivelanguage’ 2.2.2. ‘Inclusivelanguage’ 2.2.1. Non-sexistlanguageguidelines 4.3.4. Changesinthemeaningof‘femininity’and‘masculinity’ maleparallelforms 4.3.3. Female/ 4.3.2. Womanvs.man 4: 3: 2: 1: 5:

C D R F I NTRODUCTION EMINIST ONCLUSION ICTIONARY USSIAN ...... 66 D S EBATES ON CHOLARSHIP ON P ...... 63 ROJECT ...... 1 ...... 47 ...... T : L ...... 10 ...... 9 ...... ANGUAGE RACING S EXISM IN ...... 42 ...... C ...... 50 ...... 17 ii HANGES INTHE ...... 7 ...... L 92v.20...... 38 : 1992vs.2007...... ANGUAGE ...... 6 ...... C ONSTRUCTION OF ...... 60 ...... M EANINGS 38 CEU eTD Collection 1 pronoun generic as such invisible, women make and derogate trivialize, which usages, ‘everyday’ conventional institutionalized and them, insult to comments’ both through manifested is ‘street making or language women addressing for terms endearment using as such interaction, in Sexism men. to relative the change to existing arrangementbetweenwomenandmen. order in perception of way this changing and contesting at been aimed has politics sexual in engagement As feminist inevitable. out, and pointed 4) natural (2006: as Cameron appear reality perceiving of way the certain a reinforce makes only not does It also but in society, position subordinate consolidating their relations. women about stereotypes gender in dynamics power existing the reflects language with: dealing are we words’ ‘only not is it However, injustices. ‘real’ other many so are there as bothering worth not and ‘trivial’ as anti-feminists by C as sexist conventions of usage are codified in grammar manuals and dictionaries and anddictionaries ingrammarmanuals usage arecodified conventions of as sexist inasmuch alternatives, of implementation systematic and research both for feasible more is contrary, the is on sexism, it Institutionalized guerrilla-style. to informal, by resistance limited context, ‘unregulated’ the in occurs sexism everyday As 105) From HAPTER Non-Sexist Language: Lost in Translation? LostinTranslation? Language: Non-Sexist h tr ‘eim rfr t ies n patcs ht onrd women downgrade that practices and ideas to refers ‘sexism’ term The criticized often been has language in sexism with concern enduring Feminist 1:

I NTRODUCTION oe u ad as 'K yu a hv non-sexist have can you 'OK, language orequal pay;nowwhichis ittobe?’” says: and up many comes on place takes fronts atonce.Nofeminist fairywithamagicwand ever invariably struggle “[P]olitical (2006, reprint from 1995), p. 20. 1995),p. (2006, reprintfrom 1 Deborah Cameron he . (Cameron 1995: (Cameron . 1 , 1995 CEU eTD Collection specified differently. 2 popularity show’s talk increase to need the account into “taking However, broadcast. its on restrictions impose and it denounce publicly sexist, as content show talk the recognize to request with Union Journalists Russian the of Jury Grand the to inquiry an initiated Journalists Women of Association journalists. feminist outraged have host show the by supported participants the of remarks cutting sexist also but title, show talk the with incident an is sexism toward attitude prevalent this illustrate that examples notorious the of One all. at considered if unimportant, and trivial something as seen is it discourse; public the in problem significant brought changes inlanguageuseoverthelastthreedecades. has language in sexism with concern feminist anti-feminists, among guidelines non-sexist to backlash recent a and themselves feminists among language non-sexist the of nature the on opinions different Despite lexicography. of types different new creating and authority their questioning of usage, conventional guardians traditional as dictionaries reforming been have feminists Moreover, well. as public general among but feminists among just not orthodoxy” of status the achieve to “managed had guidelines non-sexist it, put 20) (2006: Cameron as and activity forfeminists.(Cameron2006:4) political organized an become has etc.) English, (Russian, language ‘the’ of politics sexual the with concern the Therefore, criticism. pointed to liable more are therefore Masterpiece “Shedevr mozhet sozdat tolko muzhchina”. Hereafter translation from Russian to English is mine, unless is fromRussian toEnglish muzhchina”. Hereaftertranslation tolko “Shedevr mozhetsozdat iuto i Rsi i sgiiaty ifrn. eim s o rcgie a a as recognized not is Sexism different. significantly is Russia in Situation 1970s, early the in feminists by initiated was language sexist on debate The 2 aired on a national TV channel TV national a on aired 2 Kultura [Culture] Kultura ny Mn a Cet a Create Can Man a Only in 2002. Not only its only Not 2002. in CEU eTD Collection 4 3 (or remainedthesame)underinfluence of therecentdebatesonlanguage? changed meanings constructed these Have differences? gender of nature the about assumptions aretheunderpinning contemporary dictionaries?What ofthe the entries in constructed ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ of meanings the are How are: questions My research dictionaries. explanatory the in institutionalized sexism research to want new versionsofgrammarbooksanddictionarieshavebeenrecentlypublished. debates, the of rhetoric the Following purity’. ‘language for campaign nationwide a a launching and literature been has media/ the There in censorship imposing used. toward shift conservative be to ought it ways the and language of nature the on sexist) (possibly certain prescribing institution meanings havenotbeenexaminedeither. an as dictionaries guidelines; non-sexist promote and issue to attempts no been have There language. in sexism of problem the account into taking not for criticisms major received has linguistics such arenottobetakenseriously. as and ‘exaggeration’ or ‘playfulness’ ‘provocation’, as considered often are sexism a sexism”. or discrimination of gender manifestation were show the of content the nor title the “neither that judgment delivered Jury exaggeration” and playfulness provocation, of elements some through accessed June 1, 2008. accessed June1, IrinaRylnikova igrivosti,giperbolizatsii”. provokativnosti, nekotoroy “zaschetelementov As a step toward creating feminist sexual politics of the Russian language, I language, Russian the of politics sexual feminist creating toward step a As public discourse in the debates excessive been there have hand, other the On gender Russian scattered. very is language in sexism on research Likewise, , Public Discussion: Sexism in the Media Sexism in Discussion: , Public 3 - http://www.owl.ru/win/womplus/2003/01_02.htm 4 Similarly, many other instances of instances other Similarly, many 3 te Grand the , - CEU eTD Collection their intentionsforengaging inthedebate. and participants main the consider also I change. linguistic and language of nature about assumptions underpinning the analyze I language. Russian the on debates Theory Linguistic and Feminism is Cameron’s chapter this for source Main sexist language. reform of successful a for crucial is opinion my in which position, feminist strong her is project my for suitable so writings her find I why reason, Another field. this in researchers most than level deeper much a research. analysis on conduct to able is Cameron my linguist, professional a Being of part this in books Cameron’s Deborah to refer mostly I field. the in developments latest the to according approached is language in sexism of study the how and time over changed has research of focus the how examine I language. dictionary entriesifanysuchchangeshavebeenmade. the in changes of nature the on discourse dominant debates’ the of influence the examine and language on debates the of context the in analysis my situate I entries. dictionary the of ‘masculinity’ ‘femininity’/ and gender regarding assumptions analyze I edition. preceding its with it compare and dictionary explanatory language Russian that havenotbeenexplored. areas identify and language Russian the in sexism on research existing review also Hygiene hpe 2 oes ltrtr review literature a covers 2 Chapter My thesisisstructuredasfollowing: the of edition recent most the choose I questions, these answer to order In Chapter 3 contains a critical discourse analysis discourse critical a contains 3 Chapter (1995) and collection of articles of collection and (1995) (1992). Moreover, I refer to her recent book recent her to refer I Moreover, (1992). On Language and Sexual Politics Sexual and Language On 4 f eiit coasi o sxs in sexism on scholarship feminist of of the texts related to recent to related texts the of (2006). I (2006). Verbal CEU eTD Collection research. discourse, andtheirrepresentationas‘theOther’ismoresalientthanthatofmen. sexist the in category marked a are who women is it as ‘femininity’ of construction closerattentiontothemeaning the integratedmeaningofgender.Ipay the changeof conclusion about I drawa whereupon wordsseparately pairof I analyzeeach (2003). book her from ‘sex’ for entry dictionary the analyzing of methodology Cameron’s by guided am I differences. gender of nature the regarding definitions their in assumptions underpinning the analyze and ‘man’ and ‘woman’ Dictionary. Language Russian of edition 2007 to 1992 from gender of construction meaning in changes n hpe 6 smaie y idns n mk sgetos o further for suggestions make and findings my summarize I 6 Chapter In entries dictionary the of analysis an out carry I 4 Chapter In o ti, cos prle pis f od denoting words of pairs parallel choose I this, For 5 agae n Sexuality and Language I opr the compare I . Ozhegov CEU eTD Collection not fixed, but rather actively constructed in the context. According to her, it is only is it her, to According context. the in constructed actively rather but fixed, not are meanings that ground the on language the dominant control to other powerful, however any group, as well as men of possibility language, the over contests 197) control (p. male Cameron presupposed Regarding biology. their of base the on group homogenous a as women essentializes it argues, she Besides, ahistorical. and utopian both as language’ common of ‘dream the regards 156) (1992: Cameron quest forauthenticwomen’slanguageisconsideredtobeableliberatewomen. a and language’ made ‘man existing the linguistic of abandonment complete the a Only practice. in changes minor by fixed be cannot language through oppression women’s Consequently, feelings. and experience their of expression for resources linguistic suitable of lack the to due language from alienated are women result, a As system. entire language the in is embedded but offensive expressions, or ambiguous in manifested only not is sexism herewith, perspective; anti-feminist from men by book a be to language of sexism the to problem ofsexismareutterlydifferentinnature. solutions possible their as insomuch ‘camps’ two into to feminists said ‘separate’ be could distinction this out, points 104) (1992: Cameron As oppression. 2.1. Embodiedsexism vs.institutionalized sexism C HAPTER eim a be cniee a bt a as ad smtm f women’s of symptom a and cause a both as considered been has Sexism Man Made Language Made Man oee, hs cam hv rcie mlil ciiim fo feminists. from criticisms multiple received have claims these However, believe who feminists, radical of representatives well-known most the of One 2:

F EMINIST (1980), she grounds the notion of language being made being language of notion the grounds she (1980), cause S CHOLARSHIP ON CHOLARSHIP of women’s oppression, is Dale Spender. In her In Spender. Dale is oppression, women’s of 6 S EXISM IN L ANGUAGE CEU eTD Collection agae rma dwgae oe rltv t mn fr ntne androcentric instance, for men, to relative women downgrade grammar language guidelines 2.2.1. Non-sexistlanguage linguistic reform. such of difficulty the notwithstanding promotion, their continue feminists But agenda. political overt their to due kind, such of materials reference other moreany than resistance provoking and controversy more attracting been have language non-sexist for guidelines out, points 132) (1995: Cameron As feminists. by discussed widely 2.2. Sexisminthedomain ofgrammar sexism. the languageaimedatcreatingabetterworldwithout of politics sexual feminist of part large in a been has dictionaries institutionalized and books grammar sexism resisting and Contesting usages. sexist conventional the contest to ways for searched and language sexist on debate the initiated have They sexism. of effects the mitigate can practices linguistic of changes that believe when organizedintoacertaindiscourse. sexist not is language Therefore, ridiculous. look made or discourse public the from excluded are which and true, and ‘natural’ look made are world the of definitions which control that institutions linguistic relevant of domination their of terms the in language over ‘control’ men’s of speak to reasonable Researchers who view sexism as a sexism as who view Researchers eiit hv dan teto t te at ht eti faue o English of features certain that fact the to attention drawn have Feminists been has grammar of domain the in sexism 1960s, late the form Starting 7 symptom e se per or a or sign rte i bcms sexist becomes it rather ; of women’s oppression of CEU eTD Collection their ‘true meaning’. In other words, as Cameron observes (2006: 17), the problem of problem 17), the (2006: Cameron observes words, as other In ‘true meaning’. their express words that sure make to therefore is reform of point the and meanings, than alternatives withtimeregainthesexistmeanings oftheirpredecessors. feminist many result be a As cannot terms. non-sexist process promote who This feminists, by another. controlled is transmission and reception their whereas problem, the of side one only is words the changing that show to order in examples these employs 122) (1992: Cameron men. to relation in used rarely are and ‘woman’ for euphemism an as used often are ‘man’ generic replacing suffix for sex-neutral intended with ‘person’ nouns Likewise, man”. a – keep or – get to able been not have who women ‘unfeminine’ and ‘abnormal’ to words, other in – feminists’ ‘strident and divorcees women, unmarried “older to referring category, new whole a create to system the to added been has but Mrs, and Miss replace not did Australia, and Britain in especially ‘Ms’, example, For ‘neutrality’. linguistic desired bring necessarily rts “omtc hne lk gtig i of rid getting like changes “cosmetic writes, he orshe,s/he,chairman indeed was use conventional changed: gradually and language’, ‘non-sexist endorsed Hill McGraw publisher major a 1973, In expressions. offensive eradicate or alter to have Feminists language. ‘he/man’ reforms linguistic suggested and writing as and speech in changes concrete demanded feminists some by called was sexism street’, the in ‘man in (as pronoun generic ‘spacemen’, male ‘forefathers’, ‘mankind’, is humanity of norm the that implying usages Another problem is that theoretical reformism assigns sexism to words rather words to sexism assigns reformism theoretical that is problem Another However, the reform has not always been effective. As Cameron (1992: 121) (1992: Cameron As effective. been always not has reform the However, mankind was replaced with was replaced with chairperson humanity, 8 and soon man generic o o etrl wr” ad o not do and work”, entirely not do . (Cameron 1992:117) he he and so on). This aspect of aspect This on). so and with generic they, he/she, they, CEU eTD Collection ancnensee ob nlsvns ftelnug n t iiiy sensitivity. itscivility/ main concernseemedtobeinclusivenessof thelanguageand Their onlyrecommended. prescriptive, but were not guidelines that language claimed non-sexist of advocates acceptance, mainstream win to order In entirely”. politics newly-discovered the of sight consequently “[lost] and position defensive a took many feminists part result, a as a allegedly out, points 19) (2006: as Cameron As correctness’. ‘political called them so of phenomenon to opposition of wave new language’ 2.2.2. ‘Inclusive be can reality perceiving theworldappearasnatural. ideological; of way is certain a only language make meanings conventional but 25) ways, many in (2006: represented argues she fact, In well. as meanings intentionally sexist create to be used can it of reality; reflection accurate an is purpose whose medium representational purely a not is language that show examples similar and This 18). (2006: women” them of three survivors, of “fourteen as such reference, in male and intrinsically if as used being linguistic marking gender overt no its with words of neutral of outside occurrences exist to alludes cannot She context. meaning extralinguistic argue, to on goes she as However, words. adequate’ ‘more and ‘neutral’ new with fixed be can which reality’, of reflection ‘distorted and ‘outdatedness’ their as seen made is expressions sexist ecvladntgv fec oteadese ..nthr elnso eae Black/ female/ of feelings hurt not i.e. addressee, the to offence give not and civil be to order in only avoided be should meaning etc. homophobic, that ableist/ idea racist/ the sexist/ conveys ‘civility’ Language 24). (2006: incoherent and patronizing being for language of ‘sensitivity’ or ‘civility’ of notion this criticizes severely 1995 Cameron’s article Cameron’s to the due revisited were non-sexist language guidelines for early 1990s the In Non-Sexist Language: Lost in Translation? in Lost Language: Non-Sexist 9 first published in published first survivors in CEU eTD Collection (1992: 126), challenging sexist representations of reality and confronting people with people confronting Cameron and reality of representations sexist challenging to 126), (1992: According suggest. guidelines language non-sexist most as neutral 2.2.3. ‘Positivelanguage’ merely of suggesting ‘civil’or‘inclusive’language. instead reform linguistic feminist the of motives political the explaining overtly readers its to persuasive and prescriptive both be must guidelines non-sexist effective, to be in order demonstrates, asCameron noticeable. But are quite changes that the contrary, the claim On results. any bring not to did language the reform to not efforts feminist is non-sexism This ineffective. for and inconsistent guidelines both be revised to prove abandoned, language be should usages sexist why expression altogetherinsteadofmakingit‘inclusive’. such of rid get to then logical more seem meaning would It its frame. patriarchal the loses of outside it therefore, destiny, is biology female that sexist asserts inherently it is because children nurture to ‘instinct’ of concept the notes, 25) (2006: expression Cameron as However, sexist instinct’. ‘paternal alternative the ‘inclusive’ by instinct’ replace ‘maternal to recommend guidelines revised an new As inclusiveness. example, of lack a merely is sexism that idea the to refers language’ those avoid to reason no is meanings. there logic, such to according absent, such are if people argues, she therefore, audience; the in be may who people gay disabled/ In general, Cameron clearly shows that without overt political argumentation of political argumentation without overt that clearly shows Cameron In general, ‘non-sexist to interchangeable as used language’ ‘inclusive of notion The In order to eliminate sexism in language, it is not sufficient to make language make to sufficient not is it language, in sexism eliminate to order In 10 CEU eTD Collection out of use. Dictionary, along with publishing, mass media and educational practices, educational and media mass publishing, with along Dictionary, use. of out orgo theirmeanings words graduallychange andold borrowed orcreated, words are 2.3. Sexisminthedomain oflexicon “in awaythatconstantlyquestionsitsmeaningandstatus”(p.227). either signals language to use is feminists task for the writing existing order, the rejection of or acceptance or speaking of act every As it. non-sexist sees of Cameron objectives as main language the of one fact in is use conventional purported of the neutrality of Challenging longer. any neutral be can feminist or conventional whether choice linguistic no argues, 127) (1992: Cameron as but neutral, politically irritate may which not is decision Such unnoticed. slip value, not will it asserts Cameron as however, shock readers; its in exactly lies effectiveness Its speech. and raising for utility generic feminine use to political choice her is language’ ‘positive such of terms “in rather concrete exampleof women”. A empowering sexismand consciousness, denouncing but merits linguistic alleged their of terms feminist in better as presented that be not should expressions sexist to alternatives 125) (1992: argues She discrimination. positive to akin as strategy’ task ofnon-sexistlanguage,theonewhichguidelinesoftenfailtoachieve. political crucial a world is the in women visible making her, For guidelines. non-sexist ‘standard’ of creation than important more much is prejudice unconscious often their hrb, aeo itoue te da f pstv lnug’ o ‘visibility or language’, ‘positive of idea the introduces Cameron Thereby, Word meanings are more frequently changed than grammatical rules, as new as rules, grammatical than changed frequently more are meanings Word 11 she, her she, in her writing her in CEU eTD Collection itoais n general. in dictionaries sexist versionsofstandarddictionaries. non- own their created have Feminists dictionaries. by disseminated meanings the of deconstruction the possible makes also analysis Such contentious. or sexist were definitions if change the for advocating and examples and definitions their analyzing consensual. (Cameron1992:114) be to have dictionaries and universal were those speaker, if as meanings selective their impose they every Thus, selective. of usage the document to impossible is it since but words, of use people’s record to is aim declared Their prescriptive. but oflanguageuse.(Cameron1992:113) be acceptableinthepublicdomain to order in pass to have meanings words/ new feminist gatekeepers the the of one is the androcentrismofthesephenomena.(Cameron 1992:110-115) as such words with play deliberate is Another meanings conventional question institution. to strategy alternative an as dictionary of power the question lexicography feminist of attempts andsimilar This demonstrate thewordusage. to inorder different women of writings the from quotes of list a presents word each rather used; be should they how as defined not are lexicography: words notion of a different uses Treichler Paula oevr sm o te hv edaord hlegn te uhrt of authority the challenging endeavoured have them of some Moreover, been have feminists speakers, most for authoritative remain dictionaries As descriptive, only not are norms linguistic codified other as well as Dictionaries herstory instead of instead Fmns Dictionary, Feminist A history or dick-tionary 12 opld y hrs rmre and Kramarae Cheris by compiled instead of instead dictionary to emphasize to CEU eTD Collection developed. has linguistics researchinfeminist where mostextensive andUS, BritainandGermany) Europe (mostly 92. p. situaciyah”, mnogih kommunikativnyh nerelevantnost vo 83. vmire”,p. orientaciu lichnosti category ‘gender’isirrelevantformanycommunicativesituations” extralinguistic language the Russian thatfor thefact “a consequence of as sexes, but the between power existing the of product a as not explained are a human, for being norm male as such sexism, i.e. asymmetry’, ‘gender of occurrences Likewise, 9 8 7 6 5 biased” therefore and “ideological as methodology feminist reject intentionally linguists gender However, language. Western by criticized world” the in orientation cognitive and cultural social, one’s defines which phenomenon constructed culturally picture” language of phenomena “cultural includes Russia contemporarygenderlinguisticsin field,thescopeofinquiry researchers inthis influential most the of one considered is who 80-85), (2004: Kirilina Alla to According schools: linguistic 2.4. Researchonsexism intheRussian language siniial ojcie aed o ter w rsac. paety postmodernist Apparently, research. own their of agenda objective’ ‘scientifically of analysis without variable’ ‘cultural “feminism rassmatrivaetsa kak ideologiya, kak pripiatstvie dlia podlinno nauchnogopoiska” dlia podlinno kak pripiatstvie ideologiya, kak “feminismrassmatrivaetsa Russiawith ofcontrasting forthepurpose itisconvenient suchterm;however the possiblebiasof Irealize ego mogutoznachat vyrazheniapola variativnostsposobov polu,bolshaya po “nechetkoerazgranichenie kulturnuuikognitivnuu socialnuu, vomnogomopredeliaushiy fenomen, konstruiruemy “socialnoikulturno p. 80. ‘muzhestvennost’”, ‘zhenstvennost’ i poniatiy yazykom russkim “osobennostiotrazheniya Most research on gender in the Russian language has being conducted in two in conducted being language has Russian the gender in on research Most As Kirlina (2004: 91) notes, both these linguistics schools have been severely been have schools linguistics these both notes, 91) (2004: Kirlina As 5 , sex differences in speech styles, and gender as a “socially and “socially a as gender and styles, speech in differences sex , Ivanovo State University State Ivanovo 8 feminists for not paying attention to the problem of sexism in sexism of problem the to attention paying not for feminists 6 Suyn gne dfeecs s arwd on o the to down narrowed is differences gender Studying . 9 a opsd o leel ‘mata’ and ‘impartial’ allegedly to opposed as , oe relations power 13 masculinity and Moscow State Linguistic University. Linguistic State Moscow and ewe wmn n men. and women between femininity 7 . s pr of part a as CEU eTD Collection (1995) 12 11 10 of usage researched They Doleshal. U. and Schmid S. Weiss, D. mostly to belong was area It linguistics. feminist this in works Russian Fundamental language. Russian of structure grammar on developing concentrated of that than scope in broader was research their of nature The 1980s. late the since researchers Western group. concerned withsexisminRussianthananorganized research literature. women’s and textbooks, media, the in representations men’s women’s/ of analysis the on mainly concentrates and methodology, linguistics feminist Western on based is work their of Most changes. such for suggestions guidelines/ practical any without however sexism, eliminate to order feminist in language Russian These of norms reconsider linguistics. to demands their voice gender researchers among support find not does approach their and language Russian it” eliminate to order of in practices linguistic the in changes suggesting sexism and research androcentrism their “analyzing describes as 91) objectives (2004: Kirilina developing. gradually is linguistics gender linguists,either. production knowledge any of situatedness of notion SMI: genderny apsekt] apsekt] SMI: genderny Donna Haraway – see her her see – Haraway Donna by Developed move. asapower butfirstandforemost move towards ‘truth’ isconsiderednotasa production therefore, knowledge andhistorical; is local,partial in factanyknowledge as productionisillusory, knowledge izmereniye rossiyskih SMI izmereniye rossiyskih Partial Perspective Partial means “life” See I. Sandomirskaya. SeeI.Sandomirskaya. yazyka” nazyvaemogoseksizma tak “vyyavlenieIpreodolenie of universality and thatimpartiality thoughtnotion philosophical intheWestern Widelyrecognized ; S. Scheglova. More productive study of sexism in Russian language has been conducted by conducted been has language Russian in sexism of study productive More feminist critical the linguistics, gender institutionalized with Alongside (1996); AllaDenisova, (1996); (1991), p. 189. p. (1991), Gender modes of behaviour: analysis of textbooks for schools oftextbooks analysis ofbehaviour: Gender modes (2002); Nadezhda Azhgikhina (2002); Nadezhda Around the Around (2003). Situated Knowledges: the Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of of Privilege the and Feminism in Question Science the Knowledges: Situated Ъ Hate Speech in Russian Media: Gender Aspect [Yazyk vrazhdy vrossiyskih [Yazykvrazhdy Gender Aspect Russian Media: in Hate Speech . Power and themagicofwriting . Powerand ,Gender Dimension of Russian Media [Gendernoe [Gendernoe RussianMedia of ,Gender Dimension 14 12 hy r rte idvda researchers individual rather are They (1992); T. Barchunova. T. (1992); 10 s o vr pplr among popular very not is (98;N.Gabrielian. (1998); 11 . As expected, As . Sexism in ABC Sexism inABC Eve CEU eTD Collection 13 grammar Russian of reform systematic of impossibility difficulty/ about conclusions similar make researchers Other 283). (1995: reasons linguistic other of range the to due mostly but will’, ‘political of lack the to due only not applied be cannot languages, German or English of those to similar grammar Russian of reforms feminist that conclusion a language. makes Weiss formal findings, his in on Based used be cannot therefore and colloquial derogative/ mostly male and are endings feminine with nouns structures; grammar of female androcentrism shows nouns of analysis The grammar. Russian of ‘masculinization’ toward tendency overall an emphasizes He sexes. both denoting for category unmarked nounsbeingusedasan only, aswellfrequentinstancesofmale referring tomales extralinguistic category‘sex’. with ‘gender’ category linguistic of correlation and forms male and female parallel politics of the Russian language. Therefore, I will compare the meaning construction meaning the compare will I Therefore, language. Russian the of politics sexist Contesting field. this sexual feminist of beginning the in be well may dictionary authoritative an of definitions gap research the cover partially can dictionary challenge and examine to attempts definitions ofstandarddictionariesRussianlanguagehavebeenmade. feminist no Similarly, yet. produced been Russian equivalentof date, a Upto area. activity inthis attempts tocompilenon-sexistlanguageguidelines,either. See U. Doleshal. SeeU.Doleshal. Weiss (1991) gives evidence of instances of the word the of instances of evidence gives (1991) Weiss My analysis of the (constructed) meanings of contemporary Russian language contemporary Russian of meanings (constructed) the of analysis My much been not has there lexicon, of domain the in sexism on research to As Referring to women towomen Referring (1995). 15 A FeministDictionary 13 Tee ae en no been have There . human being [chelovek] being human has not CEU eTD Collection supin o dmnn dsore eadn te aue f agae n its and language of nature changes. the regarding underpinning discourse the dominant analysing of and assumptions reasons their participants, account into taking will placemyanalysisinthecontextofrecentdebatesonRussianlanguage. I version. previous its and dictionary of edition revised recent most the in gender of In the next chapter I will discuss the recent debate on language in more detail, more language in on debate recent the will discuss I chapter next the In 16 CEU eTD Collection 14 as (such words English, mostly foreign, of loan-translation (2) use; language day every in sanction wide received eventually and figures public other and politicians many by adopted been has and Union, Soviet of disintegration the after media the in appeared has that slang prison (1) include: These before. used been not have that words new with arguments ofthedominantdiscourseonnaturechangesinlanguageuse. examines section This linguists. ‘liberal’ by mostly supported counter-discourse (2) conservative dominant and linguists; (1) ‘conservative’ and journalists Government, the by debate: supported discourse this in discourses major two are There use. its in tendencies recent of because threat a under is language Russian that alerted level legislature the on even and linguists among system, education the within discussed was corruption’ ‘language of problem The reports. news the in and culture’, ‘speech of questions been the to dedicated programs TV have language specialized talk-shows, the in in media: of type every changes in almost discussed excessively the editions, linguistic specialized Besides 3.1. Creatingmoral panicinthelanguage debates C non-English-speaking audience and are annoying to the majority of language users language of majority the to annoying are and audience non-English-speaking the for understand to difficult speech text/ the make sometimes publications, media language”, mostly concentrating on the advertisement andmedia. - theadvertisement mostly concentratingon language”, usagesofRussian incorrect orpunctually grammatically morphologically, foreign borrowings, “unassimilated June 5,2008. For example, the law Forexample, HAPTER First, argue the participants, over the last few years, Russian has been ‘flooded’ ‘flooded’ has been years, Russian last few the participants, over the First, argue language. on debate on-going an witnessed has Russia decade last the In 3:

manager, sponsor, marketing, consortium marketing, sponsor, manager, R On the language purity On thelanguage USSIAN USSIAN D EBATES ON was passed in St. Petersburg in 2006. It prohibitedusing in2006. St. Petersburg waspassedin 17 L ANGUAGE 14 http://www.pravaya.ru/news/8102 . A great number of publications of number great A . ), which according to many to according which ), - accessed CEU eTD Collection Internet users as well as users Internet non- among popular become recently has and Fido-Net and livejournals blogs, of 17 16 15 such tendency. of instances cited frequently are generation’ ‘younger especially everyday people, of the speech in and TV-hosts, and politicians musicians, actors, as such figures ‘language public culture’/ of language the ‘speech in press, published of in mistakes decrease of Frequency competence’. overall the namely use, language in threatening tendency theother be connectedto argued to itis the debate,as many in discourse. be could this it in overtly and such clearly stated never as and implied only Only is this However, institution. damaged. cultural a as but perception, or cognition as not understood is language where metaphor a rather is this argues, 149) (1995: Cameron As perspective. linguistics the from sense any make not does however discourse, this in voiced frequently so language, the ‘abusing’ or ‘destroying’ of idea very language” Russian a of fabric of linguistic eroding least is which at corrosion, poisonous or destruction, of threat a under is language “Russian noted: Berezin journalist Fedor a As be. not should and is not it something that into Russian turning of threat a pose to seen are and language Russian proper genuine to alien erratives of mostly composed slang virtual or internet (3) and counter-part; Russian exact an have words these of most since rzhavchnoy, razyedauschey yazykovuu tkan russkogo yazyka” – Fedor Berezin (1997) FedorBerezin yazyka” – yazykovuu tkanrusskogo rzhavchnoy, razyedauschey speaker. the language and recent linguistic trends, although I find their representation partialandbiased. representation Ifindtheir although recent linguistictrends, the languageand changesof few columns on the alsoincludesa materials.GRAMOTA.RU andotherreference grammar books onlinedictionaries, which includesfree language, theRussian maintaining ‘purity’of for governmental project yazyka v postsovetskoy Rossii postsovetskoy yazyka v “[russkiy yazyk], nahodiaschiysia pod ugrozoy esli ne unichtozheniya, to vesma yadovitogo zasoreniya yadovitogo zasoreniya tovesma esli neunichtozheniya, podugrozoy nahodiaschiysia “[russkiyyazyk], GRAMOTA.RU( articlesfrom basedonthe Thisisasummary normlanguage thefluentinliterary by tointentionalcorruption subjected orexpressions Erratives-words The third type of innovation, namely virtual slang, also appears non-desirable to to appears non-desirable also slang, virtual innovation, namely type of third The 16 . . The first two types of innovation of words are regarded as regarded are words of innovation of types two first The . 18 15 that originated in the internet community internet the in originated that www.gramota.ru – accessed June 5, 2008) – a – June5,2008) – accessed Mesto irolrusskogo 17 This . CEU eTD Collection 18 slavery’, ‘white as such panics’ ‘moral most in However, punitive. and extreme are remedy to proposed measures the and levels intolerable exaggerated, to is climbs it language about anxiety for concern the of scale the panic, moral other any in As as 82). 1995: (Cameron panic’ seen ‘moral as labelled be have historians cultural can something issues linguistic over hysteria Such discourse. this for typical is nation” the tragedy of is the This (…). language the tragedy of the is not this more, any intelligibly and properly that spoken not is Russian as language iceberg View such “[w]hen catastrophe. cultural alleged some to references various making keep participants where manner, moralizing and obsessive an in discussed been has It media. is the discourse public Russian the in foregrounded been purity has language for concern this where field major the culture, mass of era the in now However, ago. centuries discourse” educated of commonplace a was language of decline alleged fight for‘linguisticpurity’aswell. this but in engage to danger, demanded also is in State Russian the language itself, nation the the that through is only not logic this to according since duty. their Moreover, of part as in involved get must citizen Russian conscious every which purity’, ‘language for fight the for need the intensively indoctrinates media Therefore, means. necessary any by protected be to ought it such as and nation Russian the of history cultural great the represent to believed is world-known classics other many and Dostoyevsky Tolstoy, Pushkin, of language the debate this In total disappearance. of jeopardy the in and rarer increasingly become to argued is pronunciation yazyka (...). Eto tragediya nacii.” - Maya Cheremisina (2001) MayaCheremisina nacii.”- Etotragediya yazyka (...). yazyka] “ Kogda na takom yazyke-aysberge, kak russkiy, perestaut govorit' gramotno i vrazumitel'no, eto ne tragediya eto netragediya gramotnoivrazumitel'no, govorit' kakrusskiy,perestaut yazyke-aysberge, “Kogdanatakom uh opans r b n mas e. s aeo age (95 x) “the xi), (1995: argues Cameron As new. means no by are complaints Such and forms grammar appropriate with language Russian the of use Proper , p.18. 19 About Russian Language [O sostoyanii russkogo [Osostoyaniirusskogo RussianLanguage About 18 , CEU eTD Collection 19 is and years ten last the over increased significantly has Russia in xenophobia and racism of level the 2006) (Charny research recent the to According new-comers. the 19 the in tradition literary Russian rich the with association its to due and nation, its of asset living a as represented be to comes language Russian Russian. genuinely something on attack alien an as social look new to made is words English mostly the foreign, by thereby language the of in Invasion formation. anxiety Russia of type of war cold enemy old external the rearticulating an and maintaining as USA Most the culture. represent of loss media and Russian instability political crisis, economic to lead will which States, United morespecificallybythe the West, ‘defeated’ by of being is afear there First, panic. moral of form a become debate this enable and Russia in language for being anxieties acceptable expressed incodedterms”. socially less and legitimate deeper of usually facade are the there “Behind concern, argues, 84) (1995: Cameron As one. real the always not is problem apparent the overpopulation, or problem’ ‘Jewish the drugs, lc, sa ad rb epe h “osaty erdc ulk emancipated unlike reproduce “constantly women” Russian who people Arab and Asian Black, of immigration increasing The within’. from ‘enemy the at points language on panic Russia asanationthroughcorruptingitslanguage. destroying is at aimed conspiracy Western alleged purity an against fight a also be language to argued for fight the Hence, Americans. over Russians of ‘superiority’ russkogovoriashih] russkogovoriashih] Aleksandr Arefyev. Aleksandr Arefyev. I think there are two kinds of anxieties that underpin the recent vocal concern vocal recent the underpin that anxieties of kinds two are there think I h scn kn o axey n hs mda eae ta nrue te moral the nurtures that debates media these in anxiety of kind second The - http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0251/tema04.php 19 Fewer Russians – Fewer Russian-speaking population [Menshe rossiyan – menshe rossiyan– [Menshe population Russian-speaking –Fewer Fewer Russians poses a threat for ethnic Russians that will soon be “displaced” by by be “displaced” will soon Russians that ethnic threat for poses a th etr, t infe te eann cultural remaining the signifies it century, 20 - accessed June 3,2008. - accessedJune CEU eTD Collection 20 Questions as such editions specialized highly in published are mostly works Their discourse dominant support who assumptions onlanguage. those also are there language: on views their in homogeneous not are linguists However, discourse. dominant the in discussed not innovations of kinds other explore as well as emergence their for reasons the and changes such of nature the study also but innovations language the recognize 3.2. Counter-discourse ofthedebate: liberallinguists from both threat outside andfromwithin. alleged for under concern language huge Russian a the such supporting is and there protecting why see to easier language is pure it If nation, link. pure missing signifies the creates nation the of pedigree that a is assumption language prevalent The countries. post-Soviet other in than higher much internet slang functions as unifying knowledge, which separates its users from non- from users its separates which knowledge, unifying as functions slang internet that demonstrates 28) (2004: Trofimova development. language influencing factors major the of one become has it that surprising not is it more years, the gaining over importance internet With dynamics. language of part inevitable an considered conferences andpaneldiscussionsdonotreceivemuchpublicityormediacoverage. Voprosy Yazykoznaniya, Otechestvennye zapiski, Russkaya rech, Kultura rechi rech,Kultura zapiski,Russkaya Otechestvennye Voprosy Yazykoznaniya, h vie f igitc xet i ti dbt i sgiiaty es influential. less significantly is debate this in experts linguistic of voice The only not linguists debates, language current of participants other Unlike Within this counter-discourse, the so much discussed linguistic innovationsare discussed the somuch this counter-discourse, Within , National Notes, Russian Speech, Culture of Speech of Culture Speech, Russian Notes, National 21 . 20 ; whereas linguistic whereas ; Linguistic CEU eTD Collection 22 21 imminent as an the languagenot changesof view present drastic Therefore, scholars 19 the of language Russian to seemed alien that English and German French, from linguistic borrowings numerous with alongside utterances, and words colloquial Many language. the Russian to the new radically in something not and is jargon slang through internet vernacular toward the transition of simplification spelling in expressed language publications andlivejournals. deliberately online in misspellings numerous of to reaction grotesque as emerged style spelling incorrect this that explains further Bushueva the Marina know spelling. to has correct one slang, internet of case the frequently is which word, single a in possible users’ as mistakes many of as make to level order in fact, high In competency. language demonstrates that game language a signify language of rather tendency decline, worrisome a as cited often are discourse dominant the in errors,which 179), thesespelling Skliarevskaya (2001: However, to according speak. they as write simply and rules the ignore mostly users internet written, are they how from differently pronounced often are vowels Russian As errors. spelling deliberate the in stress change andsoon. usersadoptedforeigntermsoraddRussianprefixesandsuffixes Russian’, ‘more sound it make to order in example, For Russian language. the of reinforces rules sense a in and involves creativity slang internet that shows analysis Her internet-users. just not groups, professional many to peculiar is separation linguistic of phenomenon Such community. the of members http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/plungyan-05.htm http://www.sovetnik.ru/pressclip/more/?id=17248 nte dsic faue f usa itre cmuiy s rtn with writing is community internet Russian of feature distinct Another Lbrl igit blee ht eea ted oad ipiiain f the of simplification toward trend general that believe linguists Liberal th etr, oa apa a itga pr o te language. the of part integral as appear today century, 21 - accessed May 30,2008. accessed - 22 - accessed June 2,2008. - accessedJune 22

CEU eTD Collection 23 Union, Soviet the of dissolution the With rules. accepted officially the within remain press, published in censorship would word written been and spoken the that ensured correctors has and radio, and television there Union Soviet the of times the in that fact the on mostly is based perception in difference The universities. to exams entry the at punctuation and spelling in mistakes of amount steady by proved be can which years, twenty past the in rather stable been has competence language of level the explains, (2005) Shmelev As unfounded. and exaggerated as linguists liberal some ofthemanddiscardingothers–willfinallyproducenewrules. preserving – changes these of all “digest” will language Russian 27), (2005: noted organism’s fact action” in in immunodefence are itself, disease as perceived be may which disease, the of social manifestations external as of “just self-regulation, for capacity its and system time linguistic the of mechanisms adaptive in of efficiency denote that innovations language transformation, emphasizes Skliarevskaya processes. linguistic regular the of intensity increased an reveals even and activity functional its retains language speech, of culture the in decline the despite language: Russian the of case the not clearly is this believes She deformed. or stopped are processes linguistic and functionality its loses language when only ‘intervention’ or corruption’ ‘language attention andresearch. special deserves which development, language of period new a as but catastrophe, deystvitel'nosti yavliayutsya realizatsiey prisposobitel'nyh, zaschitnyhsilorganizma”. realizatsiey prisposobitel'nyh, yavliayutsya deystvitel'nosti “… podobno tomu kak vneshnie protavlenita bolezni, kotorye vosprinimayutsja kak sama bolezn', v bolezn', kaksama kotoryevosprinimayutsja bolezni, tomukakvneshnieprotavlenita “…podobno The alleged sharp decline of the language competency is regarded by many by regarded is competency language the of decline sharp alleged The of speak to appropriate is it explains, 54-55) (2001: Skliarevskaya As 23 20: 8.A awl-nw igitMki Krongauz Maksim linguist well-known a As 58). (2001: 23 CEU eTD Collection printed media are controlled by the State. And those who are in open opposition to opposition open in are who those And State. the by controlled are media printed and channels TV Many 83). 1995: (Cameron power agenda-setting consequent their and opinion of arbiters and information of sources privileged as role their of because and financial important highly is which substantial media, the over control as a well as resource, administrative have contrast, in language, on discourse dominant 3.3. Dominantdiscourse inthedebate: thehiddenintentions of linguisticinstitutionstodefinewhatis‘correct’and‘proper’inthelanguageuse. the authority question do not liberal linguists However, most worrisome. and negative something as considered is language into interference excessive State’s however, State; the of prerogative a as regarded also are politics language discourse, liberal this reform. Within actionor planned not asa and yet, ratherspontaneously changes; these part in Users takeanactive to change. subject that isa alivepractice rather as their competence/incompetenceonlybecamemorevisible. of level actual the night; over competence language their lose not other did figures public and politicians that argues (2005) Krongauz Maksim Thus, language. their of ‘correctness’ the check to opportunity have not do therefore and spontaneously speak to have participants where shows, talk as such genres new of appearance being apriority. stopped competence’ ‘language and abandoned, been has censorship strict such h gvrmn hae b te rsdn, s h mi ahrns f the of adherents main the as President, the by headed government The In general, liberal linguists view language not as a set of codified norms, but norms, codified of set a as not language view linguists liberal general, In the with connected also is radio and TV on errors in increase Drastic 24 CEU eTD Collection 25 24 political weakens Russia’s language, which dominant as status losing its of danger in is Russian Union, Soviet of disintegration the After tongue. mother their as language international of different a speaks population most and language minority ethnic an compose Russians where a regions as few a within itself Russia Russian in as well as promote countries CIS the in communication to order in steps certain this involving and purity particular dominantdiscourseonlanguageisbeneficialtotheGovernment. language regarding panic moral creating why reasons several are there view, my In language. on debate the in panic moral maintain and and journalists other by authorities activists arebeingthreatenedandharassed governmental many investigative that her reports International with Amnesty disaffection work. governmental journalistic the to connected likely most was 1999, since Gazeta” “Novaya in Republic Chechen rights in human on column a led and army the in violence corruption, state on lot a wrote who Politkovskaya Anna influence”. so-called Western counter “to order in strategy of part a as Russia in the association and restrict assembly expression, of laws freedom recent few a International, Amnesty authorities. of reports state the the to by According threatened were journalists their governmental of the some by and programs officials, their of transcripts provide to asked repeatedly stations,“EchoMoskvy”hasbeen the mostoutspokenRussianradio instance, oneof For bodies. enforcement law from problems numerous encounter policies State the Russian Federation. http://www.amnesty.org Amnesty International. AmnestyInternational. AmnestyInternational, Firstly, a demand for language purity enables the Russian Government to take to Government Russian the enables purity language for demand a Firstly, create to able is Government media, the over power unlimited almost to Due - http://www.amnesty.org/en - accessed September 12, 2008. 12, - accessedSeptember Russian Federation: Freedom limited - the right to freedom of expression in the ofexpressionin righttofreedom limited-the Freedom Federation: Russian ofCivilSociety ofExpressionistheOxygen Freedom Federation: Russian - accessed October 1,2008. October - accessed 25 24 The murder of human rights activist rights human of murder The 25 . - CEU eTD Collection 27 26 countries. those of policies internal the in policy language via intervention political Russian justifies abroad” and Russia in language Russian the “protect to need The influence. political more gain and countries other within Russia language. in changes reversing at aimed purity is does ‘language fact in and at conservative is which aimed campaign’ were events most however, change!”; of witness the is “Russian was campaign the of slogan official The purity’. the ‘language to of questions dedicated “Verba”, program TV and radio with together words" Main "The reels television of production the was another countries; CIS the of students the for materials educational other and morphology on textbook manual, language Russian the of preparation involved which space”, educational “united for project educational - program the of website (official Year” Language “Russian 2007 declared has Putin President Russian the Thus, regions. these of politics the into Government Russian the of interference constant Russian the justify then may the language of purity for campaign The republics. post-Soviet the over influence oenet s ann Urie ht t il tk maue i ncsay o protect to necessary if measures “take will it Russian that Ukraine therefore, warning is concern”; government “triggers before) as Russian of (instead Ukrainian into films all translate to decision Court’s Constitutional that to government Ukrainian declaration a made Affairs External of Ministry Russian rhetoric, this following in abroad exhibitions and competitions, Russia conferences, linguistic numerous in resulted which China, Germany, Canada- China, Germany, among studentsin of Russianlanguage/culture abouttherole forthebestessay competitions in January2007; 2008. All information about this project was taken from its official website, from its official wastaken aboutthisproject Allinformation inParis –2007 2007;ExhibitionExpoLang in May language abroad statusoftheRussian Conferenceonthe The aim of “Russian Language Year Program” wastopromote positiveimageof The aimof“RussianLanguageYearProgram” www.russian2007.ru 26 Oe f h ms iprat at o te apin was campaign the of parts important most the of One . - accessed October 10,2008. - accessedOctober 26 www.russian2007.ru www.russian2007.ru 27 o instance, For – accessed June 5, – accessedJune ), CEU eTD Collection 2003 elections for commercial political their reminds much very which Rossiya”, “Edinaya film’ pro-governmental party by the anthem created national armsand flag, ‘educational about Russian the incorporate to planning is Education of Ministry curriculum, the new the of part through a as that noteworthy passes is It 109). 1995: who (Cameron system” [education] everyone by valued and experienced “known, is what fact in control to allows and Russia across schools secondary of programs academic 30 29 28 I society. of laws the to conformity the signifies grammar of rules the to conformity The account. into taken is authority discipline/ and grammar the between association ancient the if sense makes only which discourse, conservative present the for case the be to seems it as utility”, mere transcending reasons quasi-mystical for pursued be to subject, ‘sacred’ a is “grammar suggests, 95) (1995: Cameron As region. the common for usages instead of commandments set of a based on model grammatical (GSE) Exam State General to transition the supports and advertisements. media the in censorship of intensification as such itself, Russia in measures punitive invasive measures. such justifies in general on language with debates together Year Program” Language “Russian and threat), potential (and power political its through countries CIS other Ukraine” Russian languagein http://www.lenta.ru/story/language/ Ediny Gosudarstvenny Examen (EGE). Examen EdinyGosudarstvenny Ukraine” – yazykna zaschititrusskiy togo, chtoby merydlia “vseneobhodimye “vyzyvattrevogy”, http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/06/11/edros/ 30 h cmag drce a icesn te ee o lnug cmeec also competence language of level the increasing at directed campaign The legitimizes campaign language purity a for emphasized necessity the Secondly, . As to linguistic implications, the new curriculum adopts the prescriptive thenewcurriculumadopts the formal . Astolinguisticimplications, - accessed October 10, 2008. 10, - accessedOctober 28 . The Russian Government makes attempts to control attemptstocontrol Governmentmakes . TheRussian – accessed September 19,2008. – accessedSeptember 27 29 n 08 wih unifies which 2008, in CEU eTD Collection 31 it role the understand better To debates. current the in present discourse dominant the of language about assumptions the analyze to order in detail more in (WCIOM) 3.4. WCIOM andmany others. drugs, statelevelcorruption and women in trafficking poverty, as such problems other from away attention public the shifting is it Furthermore, public. general the of eyes the in culture Russian the ‘language alleged protecting institution effective the an as image Government’s the of improves and problem’ alleviation for measures legitimizes both language the of corruption alleged the about panic language moral of maintenance the of Thus incompetence. problem existing the ‘fix’ partially to ability Government’s the signify Year” Language “Russian within events cultural multiple all as well as GSE, the to course ofpreparation students inthe Russian bymost of‘proper’ successful adoption or books discourse overthepopulationas‘natural’andreal. grammar as certain impose (such State the enables it materials therefore, State; the codified by issued are dictionaries) the of majority The well. as politics of sphere the in ideology conservative promoting of way a as curriculum the in grammar on emphasis consequent and competence language the around panic such in interested is Government Russian the that then, argued, be could it think Wserossiyskiy Centr Obshestvennogo Mneniya – Russian Public Opinion Research Centre OpinionResearch RussianPublic Mneniya – CentrObshestvennogo Wserossiyskiy The alleged positive impact of GSE reported by the media, which demonstrates which media, the by reported GSE of impact positive alleged The I will explore two recent surveys of the Russian Public Opinion Research Center OpinionResearchCenter the RussianPublic recentsurveysof I willexploretwo 31 surveys: analysis ofassumptions regarding language 28 CEU eTD Collection 32 those of opinion influence also can but reliable, and accurate as many by perceived only not are surveys their of results The research. opinion public on information of source trustworthy a remains WCIOM Internet to access have not do who Russians many for hence portals, Internet several in only discussion under is evidence this However, standards. sociological from far technologies manipulative uses institution to the subject results, desirable receive to order is In Administration. Presidential the issues by approval political and economical social, regarding survey each that revealed 2007, November in Times” New “The publication Internet the by out carried operations, WCIOM the on investigation journalistic independent The 2004. March in WCIOM left Levada Yuri and Rutgayzer Valeriy Grushin, Boris Zaslavskaya, Tatiana as such sociologists Russian prominent of leadership the under established team former the the whereby to director, new close a as but appointed was background Administration Presidential sociological any without Fedorov Valery political analyst young A capital. state 100% with company stock joint a into transformed unbiased and reliable generalpublicaswell. institution notonlyinAcademebutamong highly of reputation the gained it this, of Because Russia. in centers development and research sociological loaded politically least the of one remained and ESOMAR Ethics of Code the with accordance in objectivity scientific of principles the to commitment the declared It Russia. in research opinion public of this of background the to institution. turn now will I language, on debates current in plays www.korrespondent.net/119321/wciom/d/ However, in 2003 shortly before the presidential election of 2004, WCIOM was WCIOM 2004, of election presidential the before shortly 2003 in However, center leading the become has years the over and 1987 in found was WCIOM – accessed May 23, 2008. – accessedMay 29 32 CEU eTD Collection 36 arkhiv/item/single/10144.html?no_cache=1&cHash=fd781860cc 35 34 all First, language. 33 Russian to alien and negative something as innovations these way represent formulated The were usage chapter. words’ new thisof frequency the of on questions beginning the in described words in new changes i.e. recent language, toward attitudes and usage explored set first The questions. below, enablesresearcherstoinfluencetheresultsofsurvey. detail more in describe will I which of examples techniques, manipulative openly of Employment 2000-2003. in team old the by used that from drastically differs surveys recent the of methodology the However, website. their on available archives all with 2000, since weekly WCIOM by conducted were Federation Russian of population adult the of representative sample a with mini-surveys regular Such 2008. 20, May Language” Russian on (GSE) Exam State General Protected?” Be It Should to influencepublicopinionandpromotegovernmentalagenda. and order in language regarding articulates discourse state the of assumptions that prevailing distributes machine ideological State the of part as considered be may Parliament the to GSE the on report his in Fursenko Andrey campaign language” Russian of “Year the within the press-conference at presented were below will analyse I surveys which two the of Findings discussion. under issue the on stand clear a have not do who yazyk v elektronnyh SMI] yazyk velektronnyh Conference dedicated to the beginning of the competition ofthe tothebeginning Conferencededicated “Sdaem ediny gosudarstvenny ekzamen po russkomu yazyku” porusskomu ekzamen ediny gosudarstvenny “Sdaem zaschiscat?” Nuzhno liego “Russkiy yazyk: http://vedomosti.ru/arhiv/040908 The first survey on the ‘protection of the Russian language’ included two sets of sets included two Russian language’ the of ‘protection the on survey The first titled was discussion present the to relevant survey First – http://newsru.com 35 was conducted on May 13, 2008, and the other, the and 2008, 13, May on conducted was - accessed September 10,2008. -accessedSeptember - – accessed September 5, 2008. 5, – accessedSeptember http://wciom.ru/arkhiv/tematicheskii- 33 and later used by the Minister of Education of Minister the by used later and 30 “Russian language in the Internet media” [Russkiy media”[Russkiy intheInternet language “Russian - ibid. – accessedJune8,2008. 36 was conducted a week later on later week a conducted was 34 . Therefore, WCIOM WCIOM Therefore, . Rsin Language: “Russian “Passing CEU eTD Collection 39 38 37 words of corruption intentional (1) detect you when react you do “How the to opposed deviation, a frequent useofwordsthatsignifytradition. as rather appear usage such makes new which of usage words, seldom the emphasize survey the of findings Thus, them. of most to familiar more sounded have must which aphorisms”, and sayings folk “proverbs, and lyrics” song and films works, literary from “quotes of use higher much reported respondents contrary, the On usage. their affirmed have would respondents and more sayings folk proverbs, lyrics; song aphorisms?” and films works, literary from quotes words); (obsolete archaisms region; your in widespread language Russian of dialect slang internet slang; cant; thieves words; foreign style; computer elevated on); so and “Olbanian” language, (“scum” slang; professional life: everyday your in these question, first the answering when categories those of use no to little reported respondents the of majority the Accordingly, slang). prison (denoting language “scum” the to equated slang, Internet (3) slang, computer (2) unclear), rather are slang category this professional of (1) (components include: These category. each of meaning unclear rather with connotations negative has which “slang” word the by denoted were innovations vyrazheniya?”, translation mine. translation vyrazheniya?”, krylatye pogovorki, poslovitsy, kino,slovaizpesen; proizvedeniy, tsitatyizliteraturnyh upotrebleniya); vyshedshyeiz (slova, regione;arhaismy vVashem yazyka,rasprostranenny russkogo sleng (feniu);dialekt blatnoy inostrannyeslova; vysokiystil; leksiku(mat); nenormativnuyu “olbanskiy”it.d.); (yazyk “padonkov”, slang the present in generalandlater communities. mistakes in Russian”. It is intentionally spelled with an error, with anerror, spelled Itisintentionally mistakes inRussian”. making sneer atpeople isnowused asa “uchi albanskiy” so thissentence “learn Albanian”and was toldto he Eventually (Russian). with ascripthecouldnotread userconfronted American livejournal ignorance ofan “Ispolzuete li Vy v svoey povsednevnoy zhizni …: professionalny sleng; kompyuterny sleng; internet-sleng sleng;internet-sleng sleng;kompyuterny …:professionalny zhizni v svoeypovsednevnoy “IspolzueteliVy language tomeanRussian thishascome meaning is“Albanian”, theinitial “although AsdefinedinWikipedia, usedintheinternet of internetslangrarely versions one ofthemostcynic whichis “yazykpadonkov”, The next question in the first set was concerned with the attitude of the speaker: ofthespeaker: wasconcernedwiththeattitude inthefirstset The nextquestion 39 . Should the types of innovation havebeenformulateddifferently, many Shouldthetypesof (of erratives) (of erratives) in particular. The origin of this new meaning is the naive isthenaive ofthisnewmeaning Theorigin in particular. 37 31 n “Olbanian” and Olbanian . 38 ad 4 ‘hee cant’ ‘thieves (4) and , D yu s ay of any use you “Do (which most (which CEU eTD Collection n yuh ln ad lo ih eaie connotations) negative with also and slang youth and 41 40 easy it taking to – usages such of unawareness – annoyance covert results. deliberately distorts as it sociological research in such isinadmissible as answer, and desired the to suggest tends that manner a in phrased i.e. question, leading clearly a is ‘improperly’. This used when upon reacted and guarded be use must language the nature, negative their words using whereas presupposes again once innovations language denoting English) in “abuse” equals here language foreign of use excessive (2) “corruption”) oftheword slang, withnegativeconnotations the Internet likely signifies the reportonTVandradio. in mentioned was reaction evaluation/ negative of frequency only annoyance”), their “are who ofthosewho“do notconceal showtheirannoyance”and13-21% bothered butdonot those of 22-26% to opposed entry, each for 47% answers to 39% of from percentage (varying most received - easy it taking – option last the Although ‘abuses’ such majority. toward by the new terms of toward usage intolerance and implying non-acceptance supersensitive is society that stated report the in findings the of outline brief The answer. negative a choose to respondent a urges also of four) out (two evaluation negative of prevalence with together neutral) to evaluation negative (from answers of order exact such Besides, reaction. tolerant of degree maximum being the indifference with use language such approval of no be can there ya otnoshus k etomu spokoyno; ya etogo ne zamechau; noanswer” etogo nezamechau; spokoyno; ya ketomu ya otnoshus v pismeilirechi” oshibki nenamerennye terminami; inostrannymi zloupotreblenie vyrazheniy; “Menia eto razdrazhaet i ya ne skryvayu etogo; menia eto razdrazhaet, no ya ne vyskazyvayu razdrazheniya; razdrazheniya; yanevyskazyvayu etorazdrazhaet,no etogo;menia ya neskryvayu razdrazhaet i “Menia eto slovi zhargonnyh slov;ispolzovanie iskazheniya namerennye esliobnaruzhivaete: “Kak vyreagiruete, The proposed answers for this question varied from overt annoyance – through – annoyance overt from varied question this for answers proposed The detect and not and ad 3 jargon, (3) and ; notice te usa epeso “xesv usage” “extensive expression Russian (the 32 or observe . ms lkl dntn pio slang prison denoting likely (most , and the word the and , ?” 40 h wr slcin for selection word The react 41 . . Apparently, . imply that imply that ; CEU eTD Collection positive valueof‘languagepurity’isimplied. the nature; ‘deliberate’ its or struggle such of necessity the here: question in is what 45 44 43 42 words” foreign children” in language for love “cultivating (21%) purity?” language the of protection effective most the ensure could think language?” Russian of purity the for struggle (deliberate) dedicated titled was ieaue more” literature language” the watching following the into down broken categories: were (45%) question. answers the received change the or However, findings reject to researchers compels rate response non- such Usually formulation. the understand with/ agree not do respondents that (b) or topic, sensitive a not are use language toward attitudes however, use), drug or sexuality regarding topics as (such question the of sensitivity high a (a) either signify can rate non-response high Such question. this to answer no gave people of 55% be protected. must ‘language purity’ that implies already it as leading is also question imperative literaturu", “zapretit iskazheniya russkih slov”, “ne ispolzovat inostrannye slova”, “drugoe”. slova”, inostrannye “ne ispolzovat russkihslov”, “zapretitiskazheniya literaturu", izuchatrusskuyu gluboko “bolshechitat, yazyku detiam”, krusskomu “privivatlubov mestah”, obshestvennyh v nenormativnoyleksiki ispolzovanie na “vvestizapret semye, sleditzarechyu”, govorit v “pravilno “Za chistotu Russkogo yazyka nuzhnoborotsia!” yazyka “ZachistotuRusskogo “Bollee gluboko izuchat russkiy yazyk v shkole, vnedriat novye programmy”, “vvesti cenzuru v SMI”, vSMI”, “vvesti cenzuru novyeprogrammy”, vnedriat russkiyyazyk vshkole, izuchat “Bollee gluboko yazyka?” russkogo zaschitu chistoty effektivnuu bynaibolee obespechili Vashvzgliad[sic] “Kaki emery,na yazyka?” borbuzachistoturusskogo vesti celenapravlennuu sleduetli “Kak Vyschitaete, Second question was open-ended and formulated as formulated and open-ended was question Second The second set of questions concerned the need for guarding the language. It language. the guarding for need the concerned questions of set second The “moig esrhp n h media” the in censorship “imposing , 42 Prt o Rsin agae hud e Protected!” Be Should Language Russian of “Purity “teaching Russian on a deeper level at schools, adopting new curricula” new adopting schools, at level deeper a on Russian “teaching I satd ih question a with started It . (2%) and (2%) (4%) , “prohibiting the corruption of Russian words” Russian of corruption the “prohibiting , “other” (6%) (1%) “rhbtn osee agae n public” in language obscene “prohibiting , 45 . It is remarkable that the first category is in fact in category is first the that is remarkable It D yu hn, t s eesr t pt p a up put to necessary is it think, you “Do 33 (9%) (5%) “paig rpry n h family, the in properly “speaking , “edn ad tdig Russian studying and “reading , “Which measures do you do measures “Which hc ras s an as reads which 43 (3%) . It is not clear not is It . “o using “not , 44 (5%) . This , CEU eTD Collection 47 46 language” Russian enrich slang jargons/ and languages means” possible all by achieved be must language the of purity statements: following the with agreed respondents of 60% over general in that found WCIOM technique, manipulative this Using instead. one another choose and statement whole the reject could to them it compel that so unacceptable it of part a find would respondents most that way a such in formulated was pair each of statement One most. with agrees she statement which choose to respondent had where the statements, allegedly opposite pair of the cannotbeconsideredrepresentative. they couldhavebeenarbitraryandtherefore i.e. respondents, 1600 of sample the in significant statistically not are corruption’) ‘word of prohibition and words foreign of abolishing (particularly, 5% than less have which categories Those Exam. State General of promotion governmental the in used later be could figures higher with formulation the of part second the that so mine), and schools at better Russian “teaching twofold: prt o te agae hud e civd y l psil mas ad “protecting and means” possible all by achieved be should language the of “purity paraphrased: or partially cited were formulations moreover, report; the in included themselves” people society, of concern language for battle purity” the in measures take language, Russian of purity the guard language” Russian develop harm slang jargons/ should and it society; the intervention” in any without situation independently real the reflects always language drugih yazykov, jargonov obogashaut russkiy yazyk”. jargonov obogashaut yazykov, drugih storony”. vmeshatelstvaschyey-libo bez samostoyatelno, dolzhenrazvivatsia ion situatsiu vobshestve, “Zaimstvovaniya iz drugih yazykov, jargonov nanosiat usherb russkomu yazyku” vs. “Zaimstvovaniya iz vs.“Zaimstvovaniya russkomu yazyku” nanosiatusherb yazykov,jargonov izdrugih “Zaimstvovaniya realnuu otrazhaet “Yazykvsegda borotsia” vs. yazykaneobhodimo zachistotu oberegat, “Yazyk neobhodimo The remaining three questions were structurally similar. Each question offered question Each similar. structurally were questions three remaining The opsd to (opposed Lnug sol nt e sbet o h sae oto; t s a is it control; state the to subject a be not should “Language Lnug ms b gadd poetd; the (protected); guarded be must “Language ) 46 34 ) . “dpig od fo ohr languages other from words “Adopting , (opposed to (opposed h ‘oneig saeet wr not were statements ‘countering’ The adopting new curricula new adopting “Adopting words from other from words “Adopting ) 47 , and opsd to (opposed Te tt must state “The ” (emphasis ” “The CEU eTD Collection the Parliament, with reference to these findings these to reference with Parliament, the in speech his Fursenko during Education Minister of the by an argument used as fact in was assumption latter The problem. this fix entirely can GSE of curriculum new the following that (2) and tasks; easiest with cope to unable be to reported are they that low, so allegedly is population most curriculum” of competence language school (1) that signifies from questions simple eight to answers right the give to able were Russians of main 4% “only that The was findings the tasks. of message examination language Russian the from taken exercises eight 51 50 49 48 alleged culturalcatastrophe. the with avoid to order in purity’ language the with ‘language intervene to Government of for power unlimited campaign the support to represented is population of society” not and state the for concern a is language Russian of the‘puregenuineRussianlanguage’. language”. Russian speaking repository a as look to made were that documents “knowing/ codified these is it Consequently, to equated was books, grammar and the dictionaries in rules codified the knowing exercises, i.e. these answers’ to ‘correct language” Russian of knowledge “the measure to were argued and report) the in analysis ‘phonetic’ called incorrectly was (which analysis morphological meanings word punctuation, spelling, rules, grammar of knowledge shkolnoy programy” - shkolnoy programy” 10, 2008. “znanie russkogo yazyka” “znanierusskogo yazykuiz porusskomy voprosov na vosemneslozhnyh pravilnyotvet rossiyansmoglidat “Tolko4% gosudarstva, aneobshestva” yazyka –delo “Ohranarusskogo http://vedomosti.ru/arhiv/040908 The other survey, The other http://www.regnum.ru/news/fd-central/ryazan/cultura/1002576.html “Passing the General State Examination the GeneralState “Passing - accessed September 10,2008. - accessedSeptember 35 50 . The given exercises inspected the inspected exercises given The . 51 48 Teeoe gvn the giving Therefore, . . Altogether, majority Altogether, . ” offeredrespondents 49 Sc statement Such . - accessed September - accessedSeptember CEU eTD Collection nation toprosper. the in orderfor preserved and mustbe nation pedigree ofRussian It isthe correction. and condemnation for calls competence language low by or innovations of adoption unacceptable by either be caused use must language Improper users. it language by such detected as and wrongful as viewed is language pure this of change any mighty’ Thus, innovations. and linguistic by damaged easily ‘great be to believed this is language Russian However, materials. reference the in institutionalized is language perfect absolute this surveys, WCIOM of analysis the from clear becomes it as and time, over unchanged remaining users, language of independently allegedly exists which language’ Russian ‘genuine the be to argued is grammar and proper lexicon rich with literature classic of language The form. timeless pure a has language ‘correct’ that is language on discourse dominant the of sources other as this that battle for‘languagepurity’isonlyameanstopursuingsomeotherhiddengoals. demonstrates campaign purity’ ‘language the of vindication is message main which document the of negligence such think I analysis). morphological and some phonetic mentioned already confusing or conjunctions, with with adverbs as (such together terms linguistic mistakes, grammar and punctuation contained numerous media” Internet the findings in language these “Russian of conference the summary at presented that striking of is measurement it the Moreover, for competence. sufficient language be cannot questions eight asking that clear Altogether, the ironic underpinning assumption present in these surveys as well surveys as these in present assumption underpinning ironic the Altogether, is it objective, research the with methodology used the of compliance to As 36 CEU eTD Collection explanatory dictionaryinthecourseoflinguisticdebate. language Russian the of changes the analyze further will I dictionaries, of production n re ose hte hs supin bu lnug aeafce the affected have language about assumptions these whether see to order In 37 CEU eTD Collection 54 53 52 web free the internetcommunity in access beingmostpopularamongRussian-speaking available is version full Its kind. this of publications authoritative most the of one it made which language Russian modern of dictionary explanatory edition. stereotypical word in alternatives permitting category usage” developing a to normativity strict “the from changed was concept Dictionary’s years. lexicographic forty over and occurred stylistic which changes grammatical, reflect to order in modified was significantly dictionary the 1991, in censorship of abolishment and country the in climate were political editions of change the With following content. the in change its no with reprints i.e. stereotypical, 1990 to Up 1964. since Shvedova Natalia by edited dictionaries ofmodernRussianlanguage. Dictionary Language 4.1. OzhegovRussianLanguage Dictionary C C leain n h 19s A sae i te rfc t te itoay Skvorcov dictionary, the to preface the in stated its As to 1990s. prior dictionary the the in of alteration concept the recreate to was goal His L.Skvorcov. http://www.delonomer.ru/delo21_2.htm “ot strogoy normativnosti k razvivausheysia kategorii, dopuskayushey varianty ispolzovaniya slova”– ispolzovaniya dopuskayushey varianty kategorii, krazvivausheysia “ot strogoynormativnosti Yazyka Ozhegova. Slovar Russkogo www.ozhegov.org ONSTRUCTION OF ONSTRUCTION OF HAPTER t a frt ulse i 14 b is uhr egy zeo, n hs been has and Ozhegov, Sergey author its by 1949 in published first was It of editions two chose I analysis my of purpose the For h nx mdfcto of modification next The 53 Te oue f h 19 eiin a hl a lre s t previous its as large as half was edition 1991 the of volume The . 4:

– accessed October 10, 2008. 10, – accessedOctober D ICTIONARY (hereafter ORLD M EANINGS eutmt eiin f 92 eae # bestseller #1 a became 1992 of edition penultimate - accessed June 8, 2008. - accessedJune8, P ORLD ORLD ROJECT , n o te ot uhrttv explanatory authoritative most the of one ), a udrae i 20 b is e editor new its by 2007 in undertaken was 38 T : RACING 52 : 1992vs.2007 C HANGES INTHE zeo Russian Ozhegov 54 . CEU eTD Collection language” to preface his in stated principles Ozhegov’s to committed Being wordsandillustratingexamples. thenumberofdefined dictionary, therefore,reducing the of volume original the to back going was edition, new the of change important 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 of “maintenance of process 55 ongoing this in dictionary the of role leading special a and authority the emphasized Skvorcov and Ozhegov Both functioning. and ‘pure’ remain to system this for order in users language by followed be to rules are There their side. misuseson abuses/ possible guardedfrom must be ‘purity’ its integrityand and users, its from separate system a as portrayed is It meaning. fixed its has word Russian writing” or speech in of deviations] [such purity and correctness the language” from “deviate might users language competence” language and the register enhancing “to was task linguist’s that preface normativity oflinguisticmaterial” usage” word contemporary “reflect simply not dictionary should the that believed editor new the edition, 2007 in reprinted partially and prescriptive” and normative “more dictionary make and format previous the to return to necessary it considered competence [tobe]anationwideduty” “obnaruzhite ih v rechi ilinapisme” “obnaruzhiteihvrechi yazyka” russkogo otpravilnogoichistogo “otkloneniya kulturyrechi” povysheniyu “rukovodstvopo materiala” lingvisticheskogo “ocenivatnormativnost slov” ispolzovanie “otobrazhatsovremennoe “zabota o chistote yazyka – eto delo vsegonaroda” yazyka –etodelo “zabota ochistote osobennosti” yazykovye “registrirovat iobyasniat “rekommenduyushiy” ipresriptivnym” “bolee normativnym n hs to rfcs lnug i cery eadd s cd wee each where code a as regarded clearly is language prefaces, two these In 61 59 , the author made a request to all readers to notify him if they “detected they if him notify to readers all to request a made author the , for manual “a as serve can dictionary the that so mine) (emphasise 55 n nt o “permissive” so not and 58 . Similarly, its original author Ozhegovarguedinhis . Similarly,itsoriginalauthor 63 62 ( a h blee “anann te language the “maintaining believed he as , ORLD 60 39 mn te ouain Hwvr as However, population. the among , 2007:6-8). 56 57 s 92 dto. Another edition. 1992 as bt ahr eaut the “evaluate rather but , explain ORLD h fcs of facts the 1960 edition 1960 CEU eTD Collection acln i awy mnind is. o isac, et o h dfnto of definition the to next instance, gender, For first. one mentioned always than is more masculine concerns definition a or rule a when notes: explanatory dictionaries. with adjective instance, For form. neutral or feminine the the in given if is adjective exception: an then use, one of out with is form masculine forms, neutral and feminine of endings appropriate these pointshavenotbeenmadebyotherresearchers: know, I as far As conventions. sexist these contest also should it produced, be to is dictionary feminist the If meanings. the in genders reflected hierarchy of conventional word meanings the sexism of not of sexism of display 4.2. Formalsexism indictionary clearly identifiedasarepresentativeoftheconservativediscourse. new the so debates, linguistic recent the in expressed those to similar very is language about assumptions of set Such well. as State the of role leading and authority the asserted consequently, editors, 2007) in and 1960 in (both State the by funded was production dictionary that Provided competence”. language muzh hs irrh o gamtcl edr rmis rsn i cmet or comments in present remains genders grammatical of hierarchy This (1) Hierarchyofgrammaticalgenders ‘conventional’ or ‘formal’ out point to want I analysis, my with proceed I Before Adjectives are given in a nominative case of masculine form, followed by the by followed form, masculine of case nominative a in given are Adjectives hsad ol rfr t wmn tu i gvn n fmnn fr in form feminine a in given is thus women, to refers only [husband] ORLD, which is also typical for other Russian dictionaries. It is It dictionaries. Russian other for typical also is which zamuzhniaya per se per ; however, it foregrounds and naturalizes the naturalizes and foregrounds it however, ; 40 mrid oet, hc i paronymous is which covert], [married/ ORLD dto cn be can edition orphan CEU eTD Collection 67 66 65 64 editions of 4.3. Analysisofdictionary definitions Russian dictionaries. most in fixed is usage such yet prescribed, overtly nowhere is convention such that noteworthy is It gentlemen”). and “ladies loan-translated the for except on, so and mother” and “father female”, and “male girls”, and “boys women”, and (“men female then and male first order: hierarchical same the in listed always are they comment, specify thatagivennouncanbeusedtodenoteeitherfemaleormale. to order in feminine for afterwards and gender masculine for abbreviation an is there Doch/syn, zhena/muzh, mat/otec (materinstvo/otcovstvo), sestra/brat. mat/otec(materinstvo/otcovstvo), zhena/muzh, Doch/syn, Devushka/yunosha. muzhchina. Zhenschina, seks(seksualnost). Pol, gender, ieie we bt sxs r mnind oehr n n eape nt or note example, one in together mentioned are sexes both when Likewise, (2) Hierarchyofsexes n re t tae hne i te osrce maig o gne i te two the in gender of meanings constructed the in changes trace to order In    ORLD wife/ husband,mother(hood)/father(hood), male: female/ denoting forms parallel two genders: gender sex/ [biological] muzhik [guy, bloke], young woman/ young man young woman/ young bloke], [guy, muzhik , Imadearathernarrowlistofwordstobeanalyzed: woman/ man / sexuality 65 ; 41 ; 64 baba [dame, old woman]/ old [dame, baba and 66 sister/ brother. , daughter/ son, daughter/ 67 CEU eTD Collection msuiiy) I il opr te ifrne ihn ah ar denoting pair each within difference the compare will I ‘masculinity’). ‘femininity’ and well as ‘gender’ (as meaningsof to deconstructthe in order examples illustrative and definitions the of assumptions underlying the examine I analysis. my the loan-translation from English loan-translation from the replacing of tend recent a also is There connotations. sexual have not does as is translated sexualityit when referringto as translated is it males) and (females sex biological the to refers it when remains pervasive”:theyareoftenusedinterchangeablywithinthebroaderaudience. terms the of conflation “the However, character. natural purely not and cultural its word the constructed socially distinguish gender and sexuality 4.3.1. Sex,gender represented, andthechangesintheseintegratedmeaningsfrom1992to2007. are ‘man’ and ‘woman’ way the of picture broader the i.e. ‘masculinity’, ‘femininity’/ of meaning ‘integrated’ the about conclusion a make will I analysis, the on Based edition. 2007 1992 to same from the remained changed/ entry has each whether and book her from aeo’ udrtnig f hi itreain s eeoe in developed Sexuality as interrelation their of understanding Cameron’s h Egih word English The terms the between distinction the on literature of body vast a is There for entry the of analysis Cameron’s use I and sexuality 20: 1-4) (2003: sexuality Language and Sexuality and Language rather than rather . h epaie te e tnec wti sca sine to sciences social within tendency new the emphasizes She n h Wsen eiit huh; oee, wl follow will I however, thought; feminist Western the in sex s rnltd s w dfeet od it Rsin (1) Russian: into words different two as translated is sex gender gender for denoting sexual desires, in order to underline to order in desires, sexual denoting for from biological from (2003: 2-7) as methodological guidelines for guidelines methodological as 2-7) (2003: when it concerns social behaviour of women social behaviourof concerns when it 42 seks . Therefore, the word the . Therefore, sex sex in ocs Ofr Dictionary Oxford Concise , as well as preference for preference as well as , agae and Language pol eae male female/ in Russian in pol , (2) but (2) , pol sex by , CEU eTD Collection o o mc ue ad h adjective euphemism the and use, much of not were words these so inappropriate, era considered was sexuality about directly speaking Soviet the in However, sexuality. to connected all and desires drives, sexual 68 word” the of meaning the explain better to intended expressions common “most signify sexualityorrelationtoreproductivesystem. to mostly used is adjective derivative its whereas man’; a ‘being or woman’ sociocultural a ‘being or dimorphism biological the to refers only and connotations sexual words the polovoy Now ‘sexuality’. ‘sex’/ words using actually without relations sexual of speak to way polite a was This connotations. sexual the gained it time with However in as such sexes: the to connected issues the used todenotebothbiologicalandsociallyconstructedphenomena. word the However, men. and ‘basic word’ only if (1) the undefined word is derivative from the ‘basic’ given with a with given ‘basic’ the from derivative is word undefined the (1) if only word’ ‘basic defined the with entry same the in definition, separate a without given be can word into English,whereas Taken from the ‘technical instruction forusers’, the‘technical instruction Takenfrom ORLD noun the that situation paradoxical rather a is it Thus, word The and polovoy seksualny provides most words with both a definition, and illustrative examples – examples illustrative and definition, a both with words most provides seks (a derivative from derivative (a polovoy n t drvtv adjective derivative its and r ue a snnm ad r bt tasae a ‘sexual’ as translated both are and synonyms as used are gender has additionalmeaningsas‘genital’and‘reproductive’. ORLD is not widely accepted yet, so that so yet, accepted widely not is pol esan [sexual] seksualny 43 ). At first this adjective this first At ). (2007), p.13. (2007), polovoy vopros [a woman’s question] woman’s [a vopros polovoy seksualny a rpae b the by replaced was r ue fr denoting for used are pol polovoy os o have not does pol referred to referred is often is 68 . A . . CEU eTD Collection Silny p. Silny p. 71 70 69 organ] usage: conventional proper/ its explain better to meant expressions used commonly most are instruction is anadjectiveandnotanoun. noun adjective Therefore, definition. its referencetoadifferentgrammaticalcategory”. and definition, nelig supin f h cmlmnaiy f h sxs wmn n mn are men and women sexes; the of complementarity the of assumption underlying physiologically and “genetically are sexes that fact The physiology. male and female in different so are that genitals and characters sexual namely is it that illustrate examples these Apparently, opposed”. physiologically and “genetically are which sexes, two the of one to related something zhenschin, samcov i samok), organizmov. samok), organizmov. zhenschin, samcovi publication: Kazhdiy iz dvuh geneticheski i fiziologicheski protivopostavlennyh razriadov zhivyh suschestv (muzhchin i (muzhchin zhivyhsuschestv razriadov ifiziologicheski protivopostavlennyh geneticheski Kazhdiyizdvuh yearof followed bythe abbreviation byits ofthe dictionary will eachedition designate HereafterI p.9. Ibid, pol (o muzhchinah; shutl.) || pril. (o muzhchinah;shutl.) . Therefore, considering the lack of separate definition, separate of lack the considering Therefore, . The adjective is provided with two examples, which according to the technical the to according which examples, two with provided is adjective The adjective an contains also entry The Now, ifweturntothe , except for its “different grammatical category”, in other words the fact that it that fact words the other in grammaticalcategory”, its“different , exceptfor ORLD-92 ORLD-92 (men and women; male or female) of living beings or organisms or beings living of female) or male women; and divisions (men opposed physiologically and genetically two of either (2) the undefined word gives a different shade of meaning “only due to due meaning “only of different shade a wordgives the undefined (2) for 1992 edition and for 1992edition ooy pink [eul hrces, ooo ogn [genital organ polovoy characters], [sexual priznaki polovye polovoy. ORLD-92 Muzhskoy, zhenskiy pol. Prekrasny ili slaby p. ilislabyp. Prekrasny zhenskiypol. Muzhskoy, polovoy ORLD-07 Polovye priznaki, p.organ. Polovye priznaki, 70 opposed entry for ut ae h sm maig s t basic its as meaning same the have must for 2007 edition, accordingly. for 2007edition, 44 polovoy, (mhss ie rfr t the to refers mine) (emphasis ” 69 pol , which does not have a separate a have not does which it readsas polovoy 71 : (o zhenshinah; shutl.). (o zhenshinah;shutl.). must refer to refer must CEU eTD Collection 75 74 73 72 is definedas contain it. widely usedyet,and2007editionsimplydoesnot humour.) (men, sexes complementarity: logic of word the of usage the illustrate to given examples the itself, apparently they which attract eachother(asinRussiansaying,“oppositesattract” to due opposite fact in but different only not be to argued “all that relates to the sphere of sphere the to relates that “all stereotypes offemininityandmasculinity:men=power,womenweakness;beauty. traditional two these through sexes the of complementarity the emphasizes again once dictionary, the to preface the in stated clearly moreover, was, which kind, this of material reference any of attribute as dictionary the of normativity the it, meaning with thesameexamplesofgenitalsandsexualcharacteristics. Vse to, chto otnositsia k sfere polovyh otnosheniy ksfere Vseto,chtootnositsia isamok). izhenschin,samcov (muzhchin zhivyhsuschestv razriadov Kazhdiyizdvuh pritiagivautsia” “protivopolozhnosti Prekrasny ili slaby p. Prekrasny ilislaby Now if we turn to the entry for entry the to turn we if Now adjective The The h word The Although ORLD-07 76 and female) either oftwodivisionslivingbeings(menandwomen;male : 74 ORLD-07 . Despite the note ‘humorously’ as possible indication of not actually not of indication possible ‘humorously’as note the Despite . gender (o zhenshinah; shutl.). (o zhenshinah;shutl.). polovoy entry for s o dfnd n ihr dto. n 92 h wr ws not was word the 1992 In edition. either in defined not is does not label women and men opposite in the definition the in opposite men and women label not does sas gvn n h sm nr ihn dfnto and definition no with entry same the in given also is pol fair sex, weaker sex weaker sex, fair polovoy is somewhatshortened Silny p. Silny p. seeks . relations” 45 (o muzhchinah;shutl.) [sex=sexuality] 75 . The adjective The . (women; humour.), (women; 73 : 72 ). , ORLD-92 pol mly h same the employ sexually [sexual] sexually defines it as it defines stronger sex stronger CEU eTD Collection ifr ny y hi gamtcl aeois te at ht h word the that fact the categories, grammatical their by only differ Therefore, lifeofthetwosexes(whentogether)mustalsobeconnectedtosexuality. 76 for entries the to turn we if However, word’. ‘basic the of definition the in reflected been not has which not logical be will it omnipresence, its moreover, heterosexuality, compulsory of notion the embody words that assume we if way, this Only definition. a require not does it that self-evident so sexes is two the of attraction word’ ‘basic its as entry same the in arranged instead was but sexuality, to connection implied its to reference the with separately defined [sexual] seksualny unite thembythedefinitionareboundtosexuality. can that relations any that but opposite only not are males and females Allegedly, sexes. the between attraction the is so and sexuality, to connected are – relations related to seksualny reference to heterosexuality. Thus, heteronormativity is implicit and beyond question. reference toheterosexuality. Thus,heteronormativityisimplicitand beyond 1. Otnosiashiysia k sfere polovyh otnosheniy. 2.s silno vyrazhennym polovym vlecheniem. polovym vyrazhennym otnosheniy.2.ssilno ksferepolovyh 1.Otnosiashiysia Considering that words given in the same entry without a separate definition separate a without entry same the in given words that Considering The the – sexes two the between relations that suggest definitions These word The polovoy n i nt eie sprtl, o e a asm i i as something also is it assume can we so separately, defined not is and ORLD-07 1 o eie n adjective an define to relatedto seksualnost [sexuality] seksualnost woman relations orwithstrong s eie smlry s in as similarly defined is nr for entry polovoy and man relations. seks in both editions of editions both in e ad oe, ae ad females and males women, and men polovoy s isn. oee, t drvtv adjective derivative its However, missing. is is given in the same entry with the adjective the with entry same the in given is 46 polovoy 2 withstrong eaaey eas i hs meaning a has it because separately ORLD-92 attraction. ORLD pol, polovoy “eae to “related : implies that mutual sexual mutual that implies we will not find an overt an find not will we attraction polovoy polovoy already a not was polovoy life”. CEU eTD Collection Pogovorim kak m. smuzhchinoy kakm. Pogovorim 79 78 77 word the that awkward seem may It reproduce. to ability their through defined are women moreover, sexes; vs. man 4.3.2. Woman words denotingmale-femaledifference. h cno hv cide” rvds s t ol eape h epeso “childless expression the example only its as provides children” have cannot who yunoshi. – ne oboshlos bez zhenskogo uchastiya; shutl.) 2. Lico zhenskogo pola, vstupivshee v brachnye otnosheniya. vstupivsheevbrachnye pola, Licozhenskogo shutl.)2. zhenskogouchastiya; ne oboshlosbez stala zhenschinoy. stala zhenschinoy. muzhchinoy. Zh.-mat. Ischite zhenschinu! Ischitezhenschinu! Zh.-mat. muzhchinoy. 1. Lico, protivopolozhnoe zhenschine po polu. po zhenschine 1.Lico,protivopolozhnoe aspossible. totheoriginal want tokeepitasclose butI this translationisratherclumsy Irealize ikormitihgrudyu. detey ta, k-rayarozhaet muzhchine popolu, 1.Lico,protivopolozhnoe The entryfor The entryfor of definition the at look closer a take us Let The first meaning The first Syn vyros, uzhesovsemm. Syn vyros, could not do without a woman; humour.) woman; a without do not could c i a acln wy Msuie epr Mns conversation Men’s temper. Masculine way. (productive) masculine a in Act – manly adj. up, alreadyaman. should) man a 1 day (March8).Femininekindness.temper – womanly adj. entered maritalrelationship.– it in woman a is There 1 adult person as opposed to a boy, youngster – youngster boy, a to opposed as person adult them suckles and || pril. a person of the opposite sex to a woman – awoman opposite sexto of the a person a person of the opposite sex to a man, she, who bears children bears who she, man, a to sex opposite the of person a Zhenskiy. man woman childless (kak podobaet muzhchinam) 2. Takoe vzrosloe lico, votlichie otmalchika, vzrosloelico, muzhchinam)2.Takoe (kak podobaet in thesame of each entry is pointed once again at the opposition of the of opposition the at again once pointed entry is each of Male sex. Male handshake Male sex. Male Zh. pol. Zh. bolezni. Mezhdunarodny zh.den (8Marta) zh.den Mezhdunarodny Zh.bolezni. Zh. pol. in || pril. mnt-a talk man-to-man a Female sex. Women’s diseases. International Women’s International diseases. Women’s sex. Female ORLD-92 78 (govoritsia kak namek na to, chto kakoe-n. neyasnoe, zaputannoe delo zaputannoe delo neyasnoe, na to,chtokakoe-n. (govoritsia kaknamek . – . given in the same edition and defined as “someone as defined and edition same the in given muzhskoy. A woman is equal to a man. A woman-mother. A man. a to equal is woman A a hn ht oesaytnld matter tangled shady some that hint a (as Bud muzhchinoy! Bud muzhchinoy! ORLD-92 reads 47 M. pol. M. pol. She becameawoman. 77 edition reads : a mn hud talk) should men (as (vedi sebia tak, kak podobaet muzhchine). (vedi sebiatak,kakpodobaet woman (hard, strong). (hard, 2 Be aman! a female person that person female a and The son has grown has son The 79 : man, Manly gait. Manly (behave as (behave as as well as other as well as Zh. ravnopravna s Zh. ravnopravna 2 such Ona CEU eTD Collection in the first place by their genitals, thus, the example the thus, genitals, their by place first the in as a Soviet solution to ‘the woman’s question’, were removed from removed were question’, woman’s ‘the to solution Soviet a as emancipation women’s denote apparently which Day”, Women’s “International and other differencesbeing“aproductofnature and notnurture”(Cameron,2007:1). and these all with words” to action prefer men but talk, to like “women that myths common the with correspond examples These kindness. and care to ability with – female strength, productivity/ with equated is here Male should”. “men as something do to means actually it what of explanation further no give examples the as is male), dictionary, the of addressee the i.e. reader, alleged the that suggest we if men to only known possibly, (or, everyone to known apparently behaviour ‘manly’ of code special a having as shown are Men behave. and talk hands, shake walk, they way the tempers, in opposite) (and different be to shown are men and women examples These definitions). these previous in well; as differences other from cause must differences genetic and know physiological already we (as genes their of and because physiology only not opposite are men and women that suggest adjectives because suchproblemsarenotconsideredasdeterminativetotheirbeing. but system, reproductive their with problems have never men because as not suppose expression such no is There all. at entry the in mentioned not is procreate to ability men’s hand, other the On system. reproductive women’s or entry previous the from ability it follows as Also, children. her through defined is woman a Therefore, woman”. t s o bcue dtr of editors because not is it It is notable that notable is It both the firstmeaningof Examples for ORLD-92 ORLD-07 illustrative examples “A woman is equal to a man” a to equal is woman “A examples illustrative 48 atd o e rd f oitss Soviet Sovietisms: of rid get to wanted woman pol women’s diseases women’s and , women and men are different are men women and , man and for their derivative and fortheir e’ diseases men’s ORLD-07. inability must refer to refer must o have to I think I I , CEU eTD Collection 83 zhensky. 82 81 80 some introduced even and edition previous the of sexism preserve to managed woman for entry An edition). this of objectives declared the of one was it (as shorter much havesextobecomeadults. [first] sexualrelations:girlsmustgetmarried/ for euphemism a is believe I which relationship’, marital ‘entering through defined is females of maturity whereas adults; become to grow must boys age: the through because theydenoteasteptowardgenderequality. ORLD-07. for (in theentry euphemism Muzhskaya ruka. Muzhskaya Vzrosly chelovek, lico, protivopolozhnoe zhenschine po polu.||pril. zhenschinepo chelovek, lico,protivopolozhnoe Vzrosly muzhchine popolu. Lico,protivopolozhnoe tenormorechildren. to mothersof medal andtitleawarded InUSSR, “Mat-geroinia”– “Otecsemeystva” hs to eiiin srl hv fwr eit xmls hwvr they however, examples; sexist fewer have surely definitions two These An entryfor thattheyare wewillfind definitionsof2007edition, thesame Now ifweturnto meaning second The Zh. bolezni Zh. bolezni reads t em mr pasbe ht hs eape wr rmvd exactly removed were examples these that plausible more seems It polovoy adj. manly woman a to sex opposite the of person a being, human adult an –Women’sdiseases adj. womanly as opposedtoagirl,youngster. 1 82 a person of the opposite sex to a man. a to sex opposite the of person a : father man denoting ); moreover,Sovietism, in – Male sex.Man’scoat.hand. ORLD-07 s o smercl ihr Mtrt o mls s defined is males of Maturity either. symmetrical not is sexual Zh.-vrach. Zh.-vrach. reads as remained, as well as well as remained, 49 2. Vzroslaya, v otlichie ot devochki, devushki. ||pril. devushki. votlichieotdevochki, 2. Vzroslaya, Heroine Mother 83 : muzhskoy Woman-doctor. father of the household the of father 81 . M. pol. Muzhskoe palto. palto. M. pol.Muzhskoe was in fact insertedto was infact 2 mature, 80 CEU eTD Collection example of a of example they coincideor,infact havegainedunequaladditionalmeanings in the whether examine I Below meanings. mirror-like have to expected be may such as pair core the to addition in ‘masculinity’, and ‘femininity’ of meaning constructed the of picture forms maleparallel 4.3.3. Female/ is agoodexampleofthis:therearedoctorsandwomen-doctors. women. humans and category: thereare gender unmarked masculine makes human as defined be/ is male that never fact the can And being. human woman adult an a become definition by Consequently, woman. of a person to a sex the = opposite implies being human coma adult by an synonymic: separated are line male one defining expressions in written is definition male the that fact The woman. a to compared mature is man a teenager; a or girl a to compared word the of meanings Similar human. to equivalent an becomes man basically so being’, word and reliability(asin‘ahelpfulhand’). the from example the definition the in this actually stating without function reproductive biology/ her through woman a defining of way elegant an is men from women distinguishes of example The more. man woman Analysis of the pairs of words denoting ‘woman’ and ‘man’ will show a broader a will show ‘man’ and ‘woman’ denoting of words pairs the Analysis of the of meanings Two change. significant another reflect definitions Revised oa/man woman/ are now integrated into the one, where ‘person’ is changed into a ‘human a into changed is ‘person’ where one, the into integrated now are ean wfl. eie dfntos ugs ta a oa i mature is woman a that suggest definitions Revised twofold. remain hand as a male distinguishing feature seems like a ghostly presence of presence ghostly a like seems feature distinguishing male a as . Words in each pair are differentiated only by the gender and gender the by only differentiated are pair each in Words . ORLD-92 oe’ diseases women’s ad vn ihu saig infe ml strength male signifies shaking without even and , 50 s h only the as lutain f oehn that something of illustration Woman-doctor ORLD per se. per . The The CEU eTD Collection are confined to (1) “ (1) to confined are desirable. offend themisnotonlycommon,butinfactproper/ to order in woman’ ‘a men calling that suggests edition 2007 for principle cardinal normativityasthe emphasison that level.Repeated downgraded to to be would want man no and sex, second the indeed are women that suggests woman’ ‘a called be to man a for offensive is it that fact the However, examples. previous in as femininity woman] 88 87 86 85 84 the of explanation that Note nonsense. talk and chatter to colloq.)” propensity women’s invention; pure rubbish, (nonsense, tales wives’ hidden form” for offensive is woman’ ‘a man a calling (3) features; feminine inherently are power will of lack and timidity (2) character; strong have and daring, and confident be should men (1) things: three (iron.)” wimp man, weak-willed timid a to “referring to reference their and entry the However, men, accordingly. and women word the of nature colloquial the denoting similar, rather in same chap “babyi skazki (vzdor, vymysel; razg.)” vymysel; “babyiskazki(vzdor, onnichego” “muzhik “delnyonmuzhik”, nasmeshka” “tonkaya,skrytaya (iron.)” slaboharakternommuzhchine “orobkom “obidnaya shutka, izdevka” “obidnaya shutka, ” 87 Examples of mostly used expressions given for these entries in both editions both in entries these for given expressions used mostly of Examples h frt w pit rifre h cmo mts bu msuiiy and masculinity about myths common the reinforce points two first The First pair presents a colloquial form for denoting the sexes: the denoting for form colloquial a presents pair First o fml and female for ORLD-07 for muzhik, 85 , where as compared to compared as he is a decent/ able guy, a man of action of man a guy, able decent/ a is he presenting reliability and action as inherently male; and (2) and male; inherently as action and reliability presenting ne/gibe sneer/ muzhik ironical gy bloke] [guy, s eie s sbl ser ie xrse i the in expressed gibe sneer/ “subtle as defined is is “offensiveandhumiliatingjoke” ORLD-92. 51 o ml.Tee nre rmie the remained entries These male. for Both definitions ( definitions Both baba 84 Sc seiiain suggests specification Such . has an additional meaning of meaning an additional has ” 88 , baba for “ that guy is not a bad a not is guy that 86 baba and . baba, muzhik [dame, old [dame, denoting are ) “old old CEU eTD Collection 93 92 91 90 89 essentially different. meanings the However, of symmetric. editions both be by suggested should definitions their principle in so sex, either of youngsters denote to used were words these Originally, editions. two pair the of changes the compare and age lexicographer infactmeantit. tales wives’ gornichnaya v barskih domah. 3. Obrashenie k molodoy zhenshine (razg.) zhenshine Obrasheniekmolodoy 3. domah. gornichnaya vbarskih discussion as domah (ustar.) 4. Obrashenie k molodoy zhenshine(razg.) kmolodoy 4.Obrashenie domah (ustar.) vbarskih sluzhanka,gornichnaya 3. Molodaya vbrak. esheenvstupivshee zrelosti,no dostigshee polovoy young man young translation into English translation into 1. Lico zhenskogo pola, dostigshee polovoy zrelosti, no eshe en vstupivshee v brak. 2. Molodaya sluzhanka, sluzhanka, 2.Molodaya en vstupivsheevbrak. zrelosti,noeshe polovoy dostigshee 1.Licozhenskogopola, Here masculine. follows 4.2:feminine inSection of thewordsasmentioned order Notetheconventional Thewords 1. Lico zhenskogo pola v vozraste, perehodnom ot otrochestva kyunosti. ototrochestva perehodnom vvozraste, 1. Licozhenskogopola young woman young woman The updatedversionin The definitionof younger of men and women denoting words of pair a analyze will am I Now respectively. Because of multiple meanings of English meanings ofEnglish multiple respectively.Becauseof devushka devushka young woman/man young house. yet. married got 1 yet. married got not has but puberty women young and men 1 woman (archaism) house manor in housemaid xrsin s o ogr akd hmru’ aprnl ti time this apparently ‘humorous’, marked longer no is expression female [person] that has reached the age of puberty but has not has but puberty of age the reached has that [person] female eae pro] t h ae rm dlsec t youth. to adolescence from age the at [person] female is not the same as the defined word under discussion word under is notthesameasdefined and [ molodaya zhenshina]. 3 yunosha 92 addressing ayoungwoman(colloq.) (colloq.) young woman in order to emphasize that they refer to youth andnotchildren. referto to emphasizethatthey inorder I discuss here are translated intoEnglish as I discussherearetranslated ORLD-07 2 zeo Rsin agae Dictionary Language Russian Ozhegov yug adevn, osmi i manor in housemaid maidservant, young a 91 . 2 in such person that has reached the age of age the reached has that person such is significantlychanged 52 ORLD-92 young woman young girl, runsas I chose to translate the words under words the I chosetotranslate 3 4 yug maidservant, young a [devushka] Yunoshi i devushki Yunoshi i drsig young a addressing 90 and girl, young woman girl, young : 93 young man young , butinfactaliteral : . 2. Takoe lico, 2.Takoe . rv t be to prove Young and 89 guy, in the in CEU eTD Collection h word the maturity” to adolescence 94 in that is here, notable is What were. they age girl boy/ criteria. in editions, both of definition a in constitutive of definition the as similarly person the of maturity in females orbothsexes. both although observed, be can human with male substituting of tendency same the Again male. an as – 2007 in whereas man, young boy/ a to opposed for entry the of changes man s rvosy n h ety for entry the in previously as euphemism a as here used is marriage that take we (if sex have or and/ married get to expected is she whereupon life sexual for readiness puberty, i.e. only reaches she maturity), is more, (or what youth reach believed to is not woman young a apparently In maturity. by followed is it males for whereas youth, by followed allegedly is adolescence females for However, otrochestva kzrelosti. Muzhchina v vozraste, perehodnom ot otrochestva kzrelosti. ototrochestva vozraste, perehodnom Muzhchinav ORLD-92 t h ae rm dlsec t mtrt” o ” to maturity” to adolescence from age the at The third meaning of meaning third The of meaning first The here. note to points more few a are There of definition the Meanwhile, being used when addressing slaves in the North America, no matter what matter no America, North the in slaves addressing when used being on man young “eaea h g rmaoecnet ot” eest h g n/or age and/ the to youth”) refers adolescence to age from the (“female at man and n oh dtos ny niae te g ad r auiy f a of maturity or and/ age the indicates only editions both in young man young 94 man: epai mn) Tee hne ae ymti t the to symmetric are changes These mine). (emphasis young woman young n 1992 in woman ORLD-07 young man young in Russian can only refer to males and never to never and males to refer only can Russian in . lhuh e sxaiy aia sau is status marital sexuality/ her Although ). man 53 with reference to housemaid is similar to similar is housemaid to reference with uh enn i rmvd altogether, removed is meaning such wslkws dfnda an as defined likewise was is changed only by one word, from “ from word, one by only changed is  ORLD-92 ORLD-07 Chelovek v vozraste, perehodnom ot vozraste, perehodnom Chelovekv hmn being human a young man young this meaning is marked as marked is meaning this t em t b te only the be to seems it adult human being human adult in the same edition. same the in t h ae from age the at young woman young dl male adult . Thus, . a CEU eTD Collection 99 98 97 96 95 other wordsof turning toward tendency the Generally, son environment” or and/ nation (his) her to intrinsic characteristics of bearer a as man) (a woman “a as reads men and women of definitions The category. marked a women making and human with male substituting of tendency above mentioned the around concentrated makes womenamarkedcategoryanddefinesthemthroughbiology. both this sense, a In sex. their to reference the by addressed be should who women of editions both the well, as men to regard in term entry the to meaning similar include dictionaries other although sex, their on based women for signifies thatiftherestillarefemalemaids,itisokaytocallthem‘girls’. in use, of out word i.e. archaism, changed: parents” his to relation in boy a or man parents” (his) her to relation in [person] (male) female “a as reads meaning first The identical. are men “chelovek kak grazhdanin i aktivny chlenobschestva” iaktivny “chelovekkakgrazhdanin obschestva” kak aktivnychlen “zhenschina roditeliam” ksvoim muzhchina pootnosheniu “malchikili roditeliam” ksvoim pola pootnosheniu “licozhenskogo(muzhskogo) “zhenschina (muzhchina) kak nositel kharakternyh chert svoego naroda, svoeysredy” naroda, chertsvoego nositel kharakternyh kak “zhenschina (muzhchina) is defined as “a human being as a citizen and an active member of society” of member active an and citizen a as being human “a as defined is o lts un o hne i te nre for entries the in changes to turn let’s Now term addressing the provides speech informal that suggests meaning last The young man young daughter ORLD-07 95 Hwvr in However, . is defined as “a woman as an active member of society” of member active an as woman “a as defined is . So notwithstanding the common usage of a similar addressing similar a of usage common the notwithstanding So . . ORLD-07 ORLD-07 96 . The second meaning in meaning second The . male 54 97 h dfnto of definition the I 20 eiin oh eiiin are definitions both edition 2007 In . into hs oe s eoe. paety it Apparently removed. is note this ua being human ORLD agtr son daughter/ ORLD-92 suggest that it is namely is it that suggest son s yia fr many for typical is s hne it “a into changed is ORLD-07 for women and women for Te are They . for both for 98 , and , 99 . CEU eTD Collection eain o h mn wmn se h) s are to” married is (he) she (woman) man the to relation in man) (a woman “a is it heteronormativity: imply both and mirror-like are definitions 104 103 102 101 100 human unless instruction), user the to according dictionary the in words other many case for is the (as it expressions set as explained merely not meanings and separate as out carried be would they why clear not is it Therefore, examples. the in given words the to limited are and exceptional rather are meanings these Both fathers’. gap’ ‘generation word the Second, children”. many of “father a not raising woman child out-of-wedlock” alone a “a explanation with mother” “single expression the First, notions. the on concentrate only changes ofthetwoeditions. will I Instead, full. in here them cite not will I definitions, in meanings multiple have words generally andnotonlywithregardtohermaritalstatus. wife as defined becomes woman and status, marital his to regard with only husband her to relation however, same; the remains definition attributed to attributed children” many of “mother a is there Similarly, fathers. single be cannot there In Russian, ‘problem of fathers and children’ or simply ‘fathers andchildren’. simply and children’or offathers InRussian,‘problem mat” “mnogodetnaya vnebraka” rebenka,rozhdennogo vospityvaushaya –zhenschina, “mat-odinochka muzhu)” otnosheniukee zhenschina(po “zamuzhniaya v brake” ona/on sostoit skotorym/oy (zhenschine), kmuzhchine pootnosheniu “zhenschina(muzhchina) In is distinction male-female with associated pair Another pair the in changes analyze us let Next ORLD-92 mother husband 104 , n () epe f oe a i ‘h Cuc Ftes ad ‘city and Fathers’ Church ‘the in as power of people (2) and ), : (1) fathers (in plural) as people of previous generations (as in (as generations previous of people as plural) (in fathers (1) : sexist few a with though symmetric, rather were definitions the )” 101 102 epai mn) Teey mn ean dfnd as defined remains man Thereby, mine). (emphasis is only provided in the entry for only providedinthe is ORLD-92, wife 55 is described as “a as described is and due to the cumbersomeness of the of cumbersomeness the to due and ie husband wife/ father has additional meanings not meanings additional has 100 In . mother ohr father mother/ married . ORLD-07 In ORLD-92 , so apparently , soapparently woman (in a (in woman h male the 103 . these Both and CEU eTD Collection 108 107 106 105 ORLD-92 not fallintothisdifferentiationisremoved. does that everything and restored, are authority wisdom/ embodying men and care ORLD-07 the of in head a family)” as (mother matron family/ the books” of “mother “father’s of example into the changed Likewise, are authority) and love both (signifying order” love” “mother’s into changed are motherhood) paternal better a for important are power to understanding oftheword. relation male and male for substitute a as the biologicalfunctiononly. word the of meanings additional the words, in definitions both for provided something” of source or origin an “being of meaning and nun, “matsemeystva” nakaz” “otchiy “otcovskayazabota”, “materinskieobiazannosti” “otcovskiy” “materinsky”and Moreover, from the other pair of the mirror-like meanings ( meanings mirror-like the of pair other the from Moreover, adjectives the for given examples The There isalistofsignificantmodificationsbothentriesin 105 s lo rsre ol i te eiiin of definition the in only preserved also is father h taiinl oin o prnho wt wmn moyn empathy/ embodying women with parenthood of notions traditional the ORLD-92 r atrd “ohrs epniiiis (infig oil aue of nature social (signifying responsibilities” “Mother’s altered. are  s il fr mn) in monk) a for title as “lubiashaya mat” “lubiashaya s elcd y afcint mother” “affectionate by replaced is  “materinskaya lubov” “materinskaya  “otcovskieknigi” 56 ORLD-92 mother 106 ohrs maternal mother’s/ ad fte’ cr” n “father’s and care” “father’s and , ol te atr s eand The retained. is latter the only , are sorted out narrowing down to down narrowing out sorted are father 108 in in ORLD-07. mother ORLD-07. ORLD-07. and as title for a for title as n other In father’s/ o in So, 107 . CEU eTD Collection oa (a) r wf (ubn) s ohr(ahr o oes children” one’s of (father) mother as (husband) wife a or (man) woman 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 dismissed fromthedefinitionofmen. 07 previous the from clear in So, fatherhood. is to authority attributed is such feature word the meanings of it As fathers. for inherent feature certain a to it alludes therefore, and stranger a rather but husband one’s not address to used is here that signifies polite as represented is man a for term addressing such that fact manners” good with accordance in norms, social accepted with “compliant is marriage to description reference additional the The since eliminated. children having to connected longer no is father a called being man, for Yet children”. even one’s of mother children, “as explanation without her to reference a indicate to continues mother’ ‘a woman calling wife” or woman old an for term addressing ORLD-92. heteronormative subordinates inthefatherlymanner” babies” its to relation in animal male transformed into “a into transformed the rest, for instance, two lesbian women (mother and mother) who raised children together. together. who raisedchildren andmother) women(mother twolesbian the rest,forinstance, “sobludayushiy pravila prilichiya, vospitanny,uchtivy” pravilaprilichiya, “sobludayushiy muzhchine” kpozhilomu “vezhlivoeobrashenie ilikzhene” zhenschine “obrasheniekpozhiloy svoihdetey” k materi(otcu) kak ilikzhene(muzhu) (muzhchine) zhenschine “obrasheniekpozhiloy notinclude anddoes andfather)only, couples(mother it referstoheterosexual because Itisheteronormative osvoihpodchinennyh” zabotitsia “tot,ktopo-otecheski detenysham” ksvoim “samecpootnosheniyu h rfrne o ilg rmis eemntv fr eiiin f oe ad is and women of definition for determinative remains biology to reference the iia raoig ut ae asd h cags f h mirror-like the of changes the caused have must reasoning Similar word the of meanings two Yet oee, in However, 111 meanings of meanings polite addressing term for an old man” old an for term addressing ORLD-07 mother h fml dfnto ws hree t “an to shortened was definition female the 110 ), areexcludedin 109 father and 57 o epty “h pro los fe his after looks person (“the empathy or ) polite father wih eoe t booia ntr (“a nature biological its denote which , sd n hs nr i dfnd as defined is entry this in used 113 as “an addressing term for an old an for term addressing “an as wees ae eiiin was definition male whereas , ORLD-07. 114 (emphasis mine). So, mine). (emphasis 112 on in found 115 ORLD- father The . CEU eTD Collection 118 117 116 for a companion, a comrade” views, same the holding person “a of meaning the First, few things. the for except similar very remained editions two the of entries the definitions. Basically, entire the citing without entries, these in modifications three of notice to earlierconceptoffatherowinghischildrenuntiltheyreachlegaladulthood. child” examples to According feeling. a as nor condition, as neither defined Lost:25). (Cameron destiny is biology female that asserts again whichonce nurture children to instinct determined women’s biologically unchanged. Theentryfor 92 ntne f lmntn te xmls hr wmn r dsrbd s politically/ as described socially active. are women where examples the eliminating of instance materi osoznanie ee sviazi s detmi. sviazisdetmi. materi osoznanieee Edinomyshlennica, tovarisch Edinomyshlennica, rodovikormleniya. beremennosti, vperiod 1.Sostoyaniezhenshiny “krovnoe rodstvo mezhdu otcomi ego detmi” “krovnoe rodstvo must have been considered appropriate by the editors of 2007 as they were left were they as 2007 of editors the by appropriate considered been have must brother 117 Now, the last pair to analyze in this section is section this in analyze to pair last the Now, i.e. instinct’, ‘maternal of notion sexist a out carries definition this Therefore, of definitions The , something that can be recognized and affiliated. It is a status, which refers which status, a is It affiliated. and recognized be can that something , 118 , and was removed from the entry for entry the from removed was and ahrod s a lo rltosi/kn ewe te ahr n his and father the between kin relationship/ blood “a is fatherhood attributed to both words in words both to attributed mother senseofparentagetoherchildren. n besfeig nursing. breastfeeding/ and 1 odto o a oa-ohr uig rgac, hl birth child pregnancy, during woman-mother a of condition motherhood motherhood Chuvstvo materinstva. reads as (maternity)/ ORLD-92 58 aent care Maternity 116 : sister , remained unchanged in the entry the in unchanged remained , fatherhood itr brother sister/ Fatherhood, Zaschita materinstva. materinstva. Zaschita in A feelingofmotherhood ORLD-07. 2 n nrni t a to intrinsic an ORLD (paternity) n h cnrr is contrary the on . I will only make only will I . s eiiin and definition ’s This is another is This 2. Svoystvennoe of ORLD- CEU eTD Collection 122 121 brat) vash/ih theirbrother(nash/ your/ our/ 120 119 someone calling since sex second the as showed implicitly again are they marked, only not are Women unmarked. as represented are nouns masculine case, the not is it when of gender the from clear is it since category marked a as presented again are women Moreover, “they”. through defined are women “I”, through defined are males where women: ‘Othering’ I “you, as and and explanation they further we, “you, requiring as it expression defines set a as but word the of meaning activity. charity in available wounded” and sick of care takes who degree, medical a with man “a as defined “you and alike” and remove the note “condescending”. However, the comment “about comment “about However, the “condescending”. note removethe alike” and “you and word the meanings other all from expression the whereas men, and expression the if only reasonable be would This women”. “about comment a make to necessary it considered editors however, miloserdiya. “vash (nash, ih) brat – vy, ty (my, ya) kak i vse drugie mne, vam, nam, impodobnye” mne,vam, ya) kakivsedrugie –vy,ty(my, “vash(nash,ih)brat podobnye” vy (my,oni)idrugie ozhenschinah: –snishoditelno “vasha(nasha,ih)sestra gender: by InRussian,differentiated i ranennyh; sestra zabotitsaobolnyh k-ry medecinskim obrazovaniem, s –muzhchina Bratmiloserdiya a rtie. hrfr, usn i peetd s n xlsvl female exclusively an as presented is nursing Therefore, retained. was ORLD-07 Lastly, of meaning the Secondly, their sort ORLD-92 ORLD-92 w ad alike” and we , modifies explanation of these expressions making them mirror-like: them making expressions these of explanation modifies is describedascondescending. itr brother sister/ was removed from the subsequent edition, whereas edition, subsequent the from removed was os o gv te expression the give not does n aie aotwmn condescending)” women; (about alike and our/ your/ their sister (nasha/ vasha/ ihsestra) (nasha/vasha/ theirsister your/ our/ 122 brother of charity of brother for denotingmen. for our sister our brother, hc sx olciey h dfnto rfr to; refers definition the collectively sex which brother 59 t ny ees o ae. hrfr, even Therefore, males. to refers only it our brother our to women only. However, as it is clear is it as However, only. women to epai mn) Hr w observe we Here mine). (emphasis mirror-like to mirror-like could apply to both women both to apply could u sort our sister of charity of sister for denoting women and for denoting 120 s separate a as 121 for sister of sister sister, and 119 CEU eTD Collection 123 “mother ofthefamily”)havebeeneliminated from or care” “fatherly as (such categories these into fall not do which edition 1992 from examples All responsible. and wise mature, reliable, as shown are they actions: their through defined are men hand, other the On talkative. and kind caring, as shown are they skills: verbal and empathy their through defined are salient. Women more much made been has it edition; 2007 in remained only not has communicate and act they from proceeded could bedefinedasfollowing: edition.Inshort,they moresalientandsystematicin2007 ‘masculinity’ becomemuch of the meaning integrated and ‘femininity’ edition, of meaning integrated an between 1992 differences in present Although ‘masculinity’. and ‘femininity’ of meanings and‘masculinity’ meaningsof‘femininity’ 4.3.4. Changesinthe female asopposedtomaleremainsimmutable. for women” indicating male criticism by Deborah Cameron: “Men are from Earth, Women are from Earth” in Earth,Women arefrom “Menarefrom Cameron: criticism byDeborah it.Alsosee who didnotread forthose reference even became a familiar years, andasaresult more thanten Politics This is a title of the book on cross-sex communication by John Gray (1992), which remained a bestseller for which abestseller remained Gray(1992), byJohn oncross-sexcommunication thebook Thisisatitleof (2006); omn yh ht oe ad e ae udmnal dfeet n h way the in different fundamentally are men and women that myth Common (2) MenarefromMars,womenVenus has sexuality and function reproductive their through women Defining (1) Femalebiologyasdestiny integrated reconstruct to me enables pairs male female/ the of Analysis The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak DifferentLanguages? Speak MenandWomen Really Venus:Do The MythofMarsand sister relationtobiologyhavebeencleanedup. ORLD-92 is unchanged. So despite some improvements, the markedness of markedness the improvements, some despite So unchanged. is to ORLD-07. 60 diinly ay eiiin o examples or definitions any Additionally, ORLD-07 123 . On Language and Sexual On Language (2007). CEU eTD Collection whereas in whereas being human definition Cameron’s in found be could feature to (1992:241). This according scope, in broader and frequent more neutral, as well. 07. in omitted havebeen caringparents) or fathersas orcompanion" as comrade in clear-cut more in present partly though men to one public and women man), mature, active and responsible. Women, on the contrary, are regarded as a as regarded are contrary, the on Women, responsible. and active mature, a man), imagine you ‘human’ read hear/ you when (supposedly human to equivalent an words, other In men. to order and women of in complementarity modified polarity/ and between differences drastic systematically emphasize are entries most where 2007, in intensified considerably are patterns these time, same the At mirror-like. and symmetric are difference female-male regarding entries its of many above, described ‘differences’ Moreover, consistent. more much became it Professions related to domestic sphere and/ or nurturing are defined as female, as defined are nurturing or and/ sphere domestic to related Professions h dsicin ewe to oan, ih rvt oe en atiue to attributed being one private with domains, two between distinction The (3) WomeninthePrivate,menPublic In thepair (4) WomanasMarked,ManHuman o ntihtnig h fc ta 19 eiin ipas l fu tps of types four all displays edition 1992 that fact the notwithstanding So, female ORLD-07 in a few analyzed entries as well as some others not discussed here, discussed not others some as well as entries analyzed few a in is remainedunchanged. woman-man ORLD-07. they make a coherent vivid picture, according to which men are are which men according to picture, coherent vivid a they make ORLD-92 Contrary examples from previous edition (such as “sister as (such edition previous from Contrary examples , the latter is represented as an unmarked category, i.e. asanunmarked , thelatterisrepresented otis eaae eit xmls n definitions, and examples sexist separate contains 61 ORLD-92 male as well; however in 2007 edition 2007 in well; however as s ytmtcly hne into changed systematically is ORLD-92 eoe much becomes ORLD- CEU eTD Collection 124 that fact the Considering been. have may declarations those reality from far however discourse, official of part a fact in was men with equality their for question a and domain, public the in and force work the in active were women where era Soviet to opposed as Russia tsarist patriarchal of made tolook‘natural’andtrue. are the dictionary,such meanings authoritative powerof intoaccountthe men. Taken i.e. general, in people and ‘citizens’ for meant is domain public whereas children, and husbands their of care take they where domain private the to belong to argued are women Thus, other. the on care, and nurture to ‘instinct’ natural their and hand, one the on infantilism immaturity/ and capacity intellectual limited include allegedly features distinguished female Consequent being. whole their of determinative being function reproduction and sexuality their namely differences, biological their within lie to argued is status ‘exceptional’ their of nature The humans. of subtype certain women’s oppression. power of existing reinforcement and patriarchal more the even into men and women of between dynamics changing the at aimed are language the of politics sexual State that concluded be can it revision, definitions’ the of consistency and character house publishing state the by issued institution, and state i.e. Russian Philology, Academy of Professor of by the compiled ONIKS Mir i Obrazovanie, Moscow. Obrazovanie, ONIKSMiri Such representation of women is by no means new. It goes back to the times the to back goes It new. means no by is women of representation Such 124 62 ad aig no con te systematic the account into taking and , Ozhegov Russian Language Dictionary Language Russian Ozhegov is CEU eTD Collection classic world famous Russian literature (mostly 19 (mostly literature Russian famous world classic The of purity’. texts the ‘language in also and for dictionaries, books, campaign grammar in codified the language Russian on centred is debate the in discourse dominant The role. leading the plays Government Russian the which in language, Russian the on debates recent the of context the in analysis my placed I gender. of Dictionary Language Russian Ozhegov dynamics betweenwomenandmenreflectedinthelanguage. and dictionaries power prevailing the the changing for effective more in is true, and ‘natural’ institutionalized as presented meanings word of contestation that case, In language. in sexism of elimination guarantee cannot alternatives ‘neutral’ with expressions sexist of replacement mechanical therefore, contextual; always but fixed not is meaning out, pointed 16) (2006: Cameron Deborah As itself. language of nature the about understood been has much language, sexist reform to attempts different Through lexicography. feminist of creation the to discourse political official the in problem social a as recognized being sexism from results, significant brought C not followed, the language is argued to be under a threat of being destroyed, and so and destroyed, being of threat a under be to argued is language the followed, not is are rules meanings, the if however, nation; word the of prosperity’ and and ‘health guarantee to use believed grammar ‘proper’ of rules institutionalized the with compliance strict i.e. purity’, ‘Language language. Russian genuine’ and ‘true the be HAPTER aaye pis f od dntn ‘eae ad ml’ f w eiin of editions two of ‘male’ and ‘female’ denoting words of pairs analyzed I My researchwasanattemptofsuchcontestation. have language ‘the’ of politics sexual for concern feminist of decades Three 5:

C ONCLUSION in order to examine the constructed meaning constructed the examine to order in 63 th -mid 20 -mid th centuries) is argued to argued is centuries) CEU eTD Collection 125 the in shift gender orderofRussiansociety. drastic such for justification a as used been has language recent on obsessive debate the Therefore, itself. country the within language the of politics sexual anti-feminist conservative of part a as also but language, Russian of status ‘language alleged of problem the strengtheningthe forgainingpoliticalinfluencewithin CISthrough corruption’ notonly around centred panic moral using been has State Russian the Thus, nature. their in patriarchal of more much become have gender constituents as ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ of meanings constructed new the that so changed, methodically been have edition 1992 of examples and definitions sexist Separate gender. of construction meaning the in changes systematic drastic 1992 edition. I previous its with construction, dictionary the the of meaning edition 2007 of revised dictionary recent most influence this the compared the on trace debates To of used. discourse be conservative should words how prescribe to but did, allegedly edition 1992 previous as usages common the show to not words other normative” more become “to revised been also has analysis, my for chose I language. Russian pure’ and ‘genuine mentioned this reflect to order in revised been have dictionaries Government, the to engageintothe‘fightforlanguagepurity’ tobeobliged itself.Therefore,everyconsciousRussiancitizenisargued is thenation ORLD nlss f h udrinn asmtos n h rvsd nre revealed entries revised the in assumptions underpinning the of Analysis by launched recently purity, language the for campaign nationwide the Within (2007: 6). (2007: Ozhegov Russian Language Dictionary Language Russian Ozhegov 64 which , 125 in , CEU eTD Collection men inRussia. and women between arrangement prevailing the in change advocating for activity political organized feminist towards an step necessary first isa research believe such I language. the of politics sexual State the of understanding deeper years, a create recent would in revised been have which dictionaries, Russian similar other Moreover, of sexes. analysis between dynamic power the in interconnected closely of ORLD I think the analysis of the revised meanings of sexuality of meanings revised the of analysis the think I would significantly supplement my findings as gender and sexuality are so are sexuality and gender as findings my supplement significantly would 65 in these two editions two these in CEU eTD Collection Belchikov Y. A. (2005) A. Y. Belchikov Barchunova, T.(1995)“SexisminABC” (2003) N. Azhgikhina, oehl U (95. Rfrig o oe” I R Gie (ed.), Geiger R. In women”. to “Referring (1995). U. Doleshal, yazyka.]” russkogo sostoyanii [O Language Russian “About (2001). M. Cheremisina, Enemy” the for Searching or Pains Phantom Russia: in “Xenophobia S. Charny, ______(2006) (1992). D. Cameron, Ili krosavchegi! [Preved, F-word” Or Krasavchegi! “Hallo (2006) M. Bushueva, A. Arefyev, International. Amnesty B Dolgushin, D. (2007) “Old and New in Russian Language” [Staroe i novoe v russkom v novoe [Staroe i Language” Russian in New and “Old (2007) D. Dolgushin, (2002). Denisova, A. (2007) ______(1995). IBLIOGRAPHY 28, 2008). 2008). http://www.owl.ru/win/womplus/2002/denisova2.htm In izvestnoe slovoiztrehbukv]in May 30,2008). – veka] XX godov 90-h jazyke literaturnom russkom v processah stabilizacionnyh [O http://www.library.cjes.ru/online/?a=con&b_id=351&c_id=3406 rossiyskih SMI], http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0251/tema04.php – mensherusskogovoriashih] October 1,2008). – Federation. Russian the in expression intersubjective process. multidisciplinary v rossiyskihSMI:gendernyapsekt]– Hampshire andLondon:MacMillanPress. http://www.sovetnik.ru/pressclip/more/?id=17248 yazyke] no. 3,2006. in poisk vraga], boli ili fantomnye v Rossii: [Ksenofobia Different Languages? O sostoyaniirusskogoyazykasovremennosti: Materialydiskussii Fewer Russians – Fewer Russian-speaking population [Menshe rossiyan [Menshe population Russian-speaking Fewer – Russians Fewer . In On LanguageandSexualPolitics. Verbal Hygiene. h Mt o Mr ad eu: o e ad oe Ral Speak Really Women and Men Do Venus: and Mars of Myth The http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/gramota/28_519 Rodnoe Slovo Hate Speech in Russian Media: Gender Aspect [Yazyk vrazhdy vrazhdy Gender Aspect[Yazyk in RussianMedia: Hate Speech Gender Dimension of Russian Media [Gendernoe izmereniye [Gendernoe Media Russian of Dimension Gender Association ofRussianJournalists. Russian Federation: Freedom limited - the right to freedom of freedom to right the - limited Freedom Federation: Russian eiim n Lnusi Theory. Linguistic and Feminism 1990s. of Language Literary Russian in Processes Stabilizing perspecitive: perspecitive: New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Hildesheim; Zuerich;NewYork,277-298. London andNewYork:Routledge. , Novosibirsk,27-37. – Zapoljarnyj Vestnik Philological 66 EKO , http://www.amnesty.org/en vol. 3,133-154. London andNewYork:Routledge. (accessedMay30,2008) object, . – (accessedJune1,2008) – onmls Basingstoke, Houndmills, Zerkalo Nedeli acse Jn 3, June (accessed cognitive (accessed May (accessed eeec in Reference (accessed , Moscow. (accessed subject, , vol. 5, , CEU eTD Collection zeo, . (2007) S. Ozhegov, hee, .. 20) Fle lr ad el rul”[ohaa rvg i trevoga [Lozhnaya Trouble” Real and Alarm “False (2005) A.D. Shmelev, (2007) M. K. Pozdnajev, Naeraevskaja, Semeneva, A., schools”. textbooks for of analysis of behavior: “Gender models (1998) S. Scheglova, writing. of magic the and Power Ъ. the Around (1992) I. Sandomirskaya, (2003) I. Rylnikova, (2004) A. Kirilina, (2004) V. Plungjan, XX the of half second the in ideas linguistic of evolution “The (1995) E. Kubryakova ______(2006) (2005). M. Krongauz, and Feminism in Question Science the Knowledges: “Situated (1991) D. Haraway, Skljarevskaja G. (2001). “Russian Language in the beginning of Twenty-first Century. Century. of Twenty-first beginning the in Language “Russian (2001). G. Skljarevskaja (2001 E.V. Dzjakovich O.I, Kuznecovoj, B. Sirotininoj, Rsky ay: uho i g zshsa?, Sam dn gosudarstvenny ediny “Sdaem zaschiscat?”, ego li Nuzhno yazyk: “Russkiy Gnene sldvny v igitk i eri kommunikacii.] teorii i lingvistike ROSSPEN. v issledovaniya [Gendernye bvtla – obyvatelia] peh utr. Hrsaa eh i rdeieaunj rceaa kul'tura.] rechevaja sredneliteraturnaja i http://www.gramota.ru/biblio/magazines/gramota/kultura/28_114 rech' [Horoshaja Culture. Speech http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/shmelyov-05.htm podlinnaya – vyrazhatsia] (accessed June1,2008) ne [Proshu Conference Materials In vol. yazyku” russkomu arkhiv/item/single/10144.html?no_cache=1&cHash=fd781860cc po ekzamen – http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/plungyan-05.htm [Zachem Obrazovanie. century” in http://www.strana-oz.ru/?numid=23&article=1042 2008). Haraway in Perspective”, Women Partial of Privilege the 2001, 177-202. jazykam] slavianskim po [Issledovanija Languages Slavic on Research June 3,2008). 2008). June 8,2008). usi yzk ahl XI tlty: tsoai, rbe, esetv]in perspektivy] problem, stostoyanie, stoletiya: XXI mire: nachala meniayushemsia yazyk v Russkiy [Slovo Perspectives” Problems, Situation, Current http://www.owl.ru/win/womplus/2003/01_02.htm oe o Rsi a te un f 02s cnuis Itrainl Scientific International centuries: 20-21st of turn the at Russia of Women 7 , no.2,44-60. .NewYork:Routledge. Word Savers.[Spasatelislov]. Language andscienceendoftheXXcentury my Public Discussion: Sexism in the Media the in Sexism Discussion: Public http://planetadisser.com/see/dis_261848.html beda] edr tde i Lnusis n Cmuiain Theory. Communication and Linguistics in Studies Gender h d W Mk Ntoa Cru o Rsin Language? Russian of Corpus National Make We do Why delaem usa Lnug Dictionary. Language Russian oe o a usa Ihbtn.[aek rasserzhenogo [Zametki Inhabitant. Russian a of Notes (pp.206-209).Ivanovo. in nacionalny Otechestvennye http://www.newizv.ru/news/2007-08-10/74305/ 67 – – “Korpus http://wciom.ru/arkhiv/tematicheskii- zapiski ). Perfect Speech and Literary and Speech Perfect ). Please, watch your language your Please, watch (accessedJune1,2008). (accessed June1,2008). acse Jn 3, June (accessed (accessed June1,2008). russkogo ocw OIS i i Mir ONIKS Moscow: – Zhenshina Plus, vol.1. Plus, Zhenshina – and Cyborgs, Simians, , . Moscow,144-238. vol. (accessed June 1, June (accessed

yazyka”?] 2 Moscow: eeis, Heresies (accessed (accessed (23) , vol. 6 vol. , – – . CEU eTD Collection Russian LanguageYearCampaign– – edition 1992 Dictionary, Language Ozhegov Russian GRAMOTA.RU – Websites D. & Grochowski, M. In Russian. and Polish in districtions Sexus (1991) D. Weiss, (2004) G. Trofimova, Muenchen. October 10,2008). (Eds.), Funkcionirovanie Weiss Rossii: v internet-epohi vkus russkogo jazykavInternete], [Yazykovoy Language www.gramota.ru od ae hscas o a aln mind ailing an for physicians are Words agae n h Ea f nent Fntoig f Russian of Functioning Internet: of Era the in Language (accessedJune5,2008). Moscow:RUDN. www.russian2007.ru 68 www.ozhegov.org (accessedJune5,2008). p. 449-466). (pp. (accessed