The debate about gender-fair language is among the most polarised concerning the intersection and interaction of language and political ideas. Part of the debate in german-speaking contexts are different forms usable and used for gender-inclusive language, e.g. using both a feminine and a masculine form (Lehrerinnen [teacher; fem.] und Lehrer [teacher; masc.]) instead of just a masculine one with a supposedly generic reading (Lehrer [teacher; masc.]), capital I (LehrerInnen) or other typographic signs before attaching the feminine suffix (e.g. Lehrer*innen, Lehrer:innen, Lehrer_innen). Due to the spread of gender-inclusive language as well as potential indexicality of the speech forms (Kotthoff 2020), we assume that there is high pressure to position oneself (vgl. Dang-Anh/Scholl 2022; Schneider 2020).
Based on data from discussion formats in german public broadcasting (Deutschlandfunk) and interviews we conducted, subtler and very explicit positionings and forms of stancetaking towards gender-inclusive language will be presented and analysed. The debated forms can be seen as shibboleths, eliciting not only stances on the respective usage of gender-fair language, but are furthermore read as stancetaking on issues of justice, gender and equality and language's role, due to different assumptions about who uses which forms and whether these, for example show support of a struggle for equality. The difference between more subtle and more open positionings, with the latter being more frequent due to polarisation of the debate, can be exemplified by context and the linguistic means used to position oneself: While first data shows that e.g. categorized self-references (Whitehead/Lerner 2021) are used to position oneself in a more subtle way and suggest, among others, gender as a motive for certain stances, topoi, hypertrophic language use (Felder 2018) and some cognitive metaphors, e.g. those equating gender-inclusive language with violence or rape, are very much "in your face" when it comes to evaluating the discursively constructed notion of gender-inclusive language use that the speakers are taking a stance on.
References
Dang-Anh, Mark; Scholl, Stefan (2022): Politisches Positionieren in der NS-Zeit: Zur sprachlichen Bearbeitung von Identitätsdilemmata in Eingaben und Zellengesprächen. In: Heidrun Kämper und Albrecht Plewnia (Hg.): Sprache in Politik und Gesellschaft: De Gruyter, S. 123–140.
Felder, Ekkehard (2018): Anmaßungsvokabeln: Sprachliche Strategien der Hypertrophie oder der Jargon der Anmaßung. In: Martin Wengeler und Alexander Ziem (Hg.): Diskurs, Wissen, Sprache. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter (Sprache und Wissen, 29), S. 215–240.
Kotthoff, Helga (2020): Gender-Sternchen, Binnen-I oder generisches Maskulinum, … (Akademische) Textstile der Personenreferenz als Registrierungen? In: LO 103 (3), S. 105–127.
Schneider, Jan Georg (2020): Geschlechtergerechter Sprachgebrauch im Deutschen: grammatische, pragmalinguistische und gesellschaftliche Aspekte. In: Georg Albert, Lothar Bluhm und Markus Schiefer Ferrari (Hg.): Political Correctness. Kultur- und sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte. Marburg: Tectum. S. 45–72.
Whitehead, Kevin A.; Lerner, Gene H. (2021): When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation. In: Lang. Soc., S. 1–24.
