Abstract
In the last years, the discussion on feminine nouns of professions, jobs, charges, and roles has gained attention once again, both in the media and in academia. For instance, in 2020 the German language dictionary Duden triggered a public debate by changing ca. 12,000 entries referring to professions and jobs. Each profession/job now has two entries with two separate definitions: one for the masculine form (e.g. Lehrer), and one for the feminine form (e.g. Lehrerin). In Spain, in the same year, the Real Academia Española (RAE 2020) conducted an analysis on the language of the Spanish Constitution, on feminine profession nouns and on the use of the generic masculine. In Italy as well, several scientific and non-scientific publications have covered this topic recently (Cavagnoli & Dragotto 2020, 2021; Fusco 2012; Gheno 2019). In lexicography, scientific analyses on the representation of feminine nouns in dictionaries date back to the 1970s, while in terminology there has not been a major debate so far. In 2012, Bengoechea and Cabellos (2012) published a glossary on women’s professions and job titles challenging classical rules of lexicography and terminology science for the first time. Their glossary aimed at giving visibility to existing differences between men and women by treating them equally also graphically and by applying guidelines on language sexism in the lexicographical task. They also proposed feminine nouns even if not yet documented. Later on, Bengoechea (2017) analyzed how IATE, the European Union’s interinstitutional terminology database, dealt with feminine agentives, i.e. “linguistic forms that indicate an agent, like job titles, etc.“ (Bengoechea 2017:200). She concluded that very few measures had been taken to implement non-sexist language in private or public terminology databases.
Following up on Bengochea’s work, between 2020 and 2021, we studied how some terminology resources represent feminine terms: IATE, TERMDAT, LinguaPC, TERMCAT, Euskalterm, FAOTERM, Termium Plus, and Le Grand dictionnaire terminologique (GDT). We can mostly confirm Bengoechea’s results. Most of these terminology resources treat this topic marginally; only a few have developed a strategy to try and represent both masculine and feminine agentives systematically and equally. On a few termbases (LinguaPC, TERMDAT, and TERMCAT), we carried out a deeper analysis on selected terms, that is, types of agentives we had identified also in bistro, our Information system for legal terminology. Our aim was to explore ways to represent and integrate feminine agentives into our resource. In particular, we considered the following aspects:
* Lemmatization of feminine agentives: The core of terminology science is the concept, which, as such, is not related to gender (see, for instance, the analysis carried out by TERMCAT 2015:4). In order to add gender-related information to a terminology database with the aim to give visibility to feminine agentives, the database’s structure needs rethinking. Several configurations may fulfill this purpose. Feminine agentives may be recorded in a separate entry, following the semasiological approach. The feminine agentive may also fit in the same entry as the masculine. This can be done either 1) by recording the feminine form as a synonym of the masculine, even though feminine and masculine agentives cannot be considered synonyms in a narrow sense. Or 2) by recording the feminine agentive together with the masculine agentive in a single field, as if they were a single item of information, even though such approach violates the principles of data elementarity and term autonomy (ISO 26162-1:2019, Drewer & Schmitz 2017: 126, 131).
* Types of agentives and degree of syntagmatic complexity: A preliminary enquiry on national and international gender-equality and plain language guidelines (e.g. Bianciardi & Parisi 2017, Giorcelli et al. 2015, Robustelli 2012, Europäisches Parlament 2008, Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei 2009) led us to define six main categories of agentives: professions, jobs, job titles, educational qualifications, functions, and roles. In our dataset, over 6,000 masculine terms in German and Italian fall under these categories. We also identified some residual categories, such as neutral forms, collective nouns, epicenes, and false friends, that is, terms including agentives that actually do not refer to a person (e.g. bolletta a madre e figlia). After this first classification, we then categorized our dataset according to the degree of syntagmatic complexity, ranging from simple and complex terms (e.g. difensore and difensore civico respectively), over complex terms where the agentives is an object (e.g. Anhörung durch den Haftrichter), to generic masculine being part of document names (e.g. Akte des Verteidigers) or of names of institutions (e.g. Agenzia esecutiva per la salute e i consumatori), to mention but a few.
* Symmetrical representation of sexes (see Begonchea 2017:216): equal representation of feminine and masculine forms, for instance given by similar graphic evidence.
Finally, we identified five different lemmatization models that are either currently used in terminology databases or were elaborated by us. After presenting them, we will discuss both their advantages and disadvantages in terms of compliance with the terminology principles (e.g. term autonomy, data elementarity), level of lemmatization according to syntagmatic complexity (e.g. recording feminine agentives only when they occur as simple terms or as complex terms or also when they are part of complex terms), redundancy, readability, clarity of the terminological data/entry, and sustainability of terminological work. In addition to that, further aspects such as definition writing and contexts– especially in relation to feminine agentives that are not yet widely used – will also be considered.
Taking into account the aforementioned issues, in this paper, we will illustrate our ongoing analysis, focusing in particular on the lemmatization models, while contributing to discussions and reflections on gender equality in terminology science and practice.