Element contents
Gendered Neologisms and Social Transformation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2026
Summary
This Element investigates the emergence and social significance of gendered neologisms – new lexical formations that encode gender within existing expressions, such as 'mansplaining', 'girlboss', or 'manny'. Situated at the intersection of sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and morphology, the Element explores how such words arise in response to changing social realities and how they participate in contemporary debates about gender, identity, and power. Drawing on corpus-assisted analysis of journalistic and public discourse, the study examines both the structural formation and the evolving meanings of these neologisms. The findings reveal that gender markers such as 'man-' or 'girl-' rarely function as simple descriptors; instead, they carry metaphorical and evaluative meanings rooted in cultural expectations and gender stereotypes.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009785785Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 27 August 2026
References
Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brekhus, W. (1998). ‘A sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus’, Sociological Theory, 16(1), pp. 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budziszewska, M., Hansen, K. and Bilewicz, M. (2014). ‘Backlash over gender-fair language: The impact of feminine job titles on men’s and women’s perception of women’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(6), pp. 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14544371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlacu, S., Cappelletti, D., Marzadro, S. and Tondini, A. (2024). ‘The cost of a vowel: How the gender-marked job title affects ratings of female lawyers’, Economics Letters, 234, 111494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1998). ‘Gender, language, and discourse: A review essay’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23(4), pp. 945–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of mars and venus: Do men and women really speak different languages?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, S. X. and Zeng, N. (2024). ‘“Work, sleep, make money”: Girlboss memes, feminine precarities, and the endurance of the “problematic” girl’, in Mazzarella, S. R. (ed.) The Routledge companion to girls’ studies. London: Routledge, pp. 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eble, C. (2004). ‘Slang’, in Finegan, E. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.) Language in the USA: themes for the Twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. (2021). The myth of the modern matriarchy: How power, privilege, and patriarchy persist. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Formanowicz, M., Bedynska, S., Cisłak, A., Braun, F. and Sczesny, S. (2013). ‘Side effects of gender-fair language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), pp. 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formanowicz, M., Cisłak, A., Horvath, L. K. and Sczesny, S. (2015). ‘Capturing socially motivated linguistic change: how the use of gender-fair language affects support for social initiatives in Austria and Poland’, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, [online]. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01617/full.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1892/1994). ‘On sense and reference’, in Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56–78. Reprinted in: Harnish, R. M. (ed.) Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 142–160.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. and Hyams, N. (2002). An introduction to language. 7th ed. Boston: Heinle.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. (1990). ‘Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics’, Sex Roles, 23(11), pp. 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, R. (2007). ‘Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(2), pp. 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hornsby, J. (1995). ‘Disempowered speech’, Philosophical Topics, 23(2), pp. 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, J. (2000). ‘Feminism in philosophy of language: Communicative speech acts’, in Fricker, M. and Hornsby, J. (eds.) The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1972). ‘Verbal communication’, Scientific American, 227(3), pp. 72–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, D. (1998). ‘Gender-linked derogatory terms and their use by women and men’, American Speech, 73(4), pp. 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leszko, M., Cisłak, A. and Formanowicz, M. (2025). ‘Assessing the use of feminine professional titles among women in Poland: Insights from two representative surveys’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 44(5), pp. 704–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X251328681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A. and Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2019). ‘Reducing a male bias in language? Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies’, Sex Roles, 81(2), pp. 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1978). ‘What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine’, Journal of Communication, 28(1), pp. 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01576.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). ‘What’s in a name?: social labeling and gender practices’, in Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (eds.) The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (2006). Marriage and marriage: Why defining is seldom ‘just semantics’, in Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds.) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn (Studies in Language Companion Series 80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.13mcc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, J. (1981). ‘The myth of the neutral “man”’, in Vetterling-Braggin, M. (ed.) Sexist language: A modern philosophical analysis. Totowa: Littlefield and Adams, 100–115.Google Scholar
Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M. and Elias, C. (1978). ‘Sex bias in language use: “Neutral” pronouns that aren’t’, American Psychologist, 33(11), pp. 1032–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucchi-Faina, A. (2005). ‘Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality’, Social Science Information, 44(1), pp. 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405050466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). ‘Indexing gender’, in Duranti, A. (ed.) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–358.Google Scholar
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). ‘Girlboss, n’, in Oxford English Dictionary. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3409574762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely: Unlearning the lies of the fathers’ tongues. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., Akbaş, G., Hekanaho, L. and Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2023). ‘Are gender-neutral pronouns really neutral? Testing a male bias in the grammatical genderless languages Turkish and Finnish’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(4), pp. 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221146229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottenberg, C. (2014). ‘The rise of neoliberal feminism’, Cultural Studies, 28(3), pp. 418–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, A. (2018). ‘Feminism, psychology, and the gendering of neoliberal subjectivity: From critique to disruption’, Theory & Psychology, 28(5), pp. 619–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318797194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safire, W. (1979). ‘On language machisma; Fungible; Be advised’, The New York Times, 9 December [online]. www.nytimes.com/1979/12/09/archives/on-language-machisma-fungible-be-advised.html.Google Scholar
Sawer, M. (2016). ‘Femocrat’, in Naples, N. A. (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. [online]. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M. and Moser, F. (2016). ‘Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, [online]. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025/full.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). ‘Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description’, in Basso, K. H. and Selby, H. A. (eds.) Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Steinem, G. (1983). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, K. (2014). ‘Clickbait, normcore, mansplain: Runners-up for Oxford’s word of the year’, Time, [online]. www.time.com/3590980/clickbait-normcore-mansplain-oxford-word-runners-up/.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1993). ‘There is no unmarked woman’, The New York Times Magazine, 20 June.Google Scholar
Tokarczuk, O. (2017). Flights. Translated by Croft, J.. London: Fitzcarraldo Editions.Google Scholar
Waugh, L.R. (1982). ‘Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure’, Semiotica, 38(3–4), pp. 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by Carroll, J. B.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. and Ng, S. H. (1988). ‘Sex bias in visual images evoked by generics: A New Zealand study’, Sex Roles, 18(3–4), pp. 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2009). ‘Speech acts and the autonomy of linguistic pragmatics’, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 5(1), pp. 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wronski, L. (2021). Axios|Momentive Poll: Capitalism and Socialism. [online]. www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/axios-capitalism-update/.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this Element complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.