Preview

Nauchnyi dialog

Advanced search

Linguistic Rigidity of Gender Binomials

https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-68-83

Abstract

This article examines the linguistic rigidity of the components of gender binomials, particularly the pairs “man and woman” and “husband and wife.” The study draws on texts from the media, specifically a newspaper subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus. The objective of this research is to uncover the social factors influencing the degree of linguistic rigidity within these gender binomials. It has been established that the specific structure of a binomial (the primacy of the male gender versus the secondary status of the female gender, or vice versa) reflects entrenched social hierarchies in society based on gender differences and stereotypes. Additionally, it has been found that the irreversibility or reversibility of a binomial may depend on the degree of phraseologization, grammatical number (singular/plural), as well as prosodic features. Key themes have been identified in which the female gender is preferred in the initial position of the binomial. A high degree of linguistic rigidity has been noted in the examined binomials, following the established model with the male gender in the first position. Temporal segments have been identified during which a decrease in this rigidity is observed: from 1990 to 1994 and from 2014 to 2021, particularly highlighting an increase in the proportion of binomials featuring the female gender in the first position. Prospects for further research into gender binomials as significant units of linguistic encoding of sociocultural experience are also proposed.

About the Authors

M. V. Milovanova
Volgograd State University
Russian Federation

Marina V. Milovanova - Doctor of Philology, Professor, Department of Russian Philology and Journalism

Volgograd



E. V. Terentyeva
Russian State Universityof Social Technologies
Russian Federation

Elena V. Terentyeva - Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Media Communications 

Moscow



References

1. Abdoullahi-Guilani, M., Hua Tan, K. (2017). Application of Binomials in English and Persian. Akademika, 87(1): 153—163. DOI 10.17576/akad-2017-8701-11.

2. Benor, S., Levy, R. (2006). The Chicken or the Egg? A Probabilistic Analysis of English Binomials. Language. Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 82(2): 233—278.

3. Bolinger, D. (1962). Binomials and pitch accent. Lingua, 11: 34—44.

4. Bub, A. S. (2019) Cognitive processing of collocations-binomials of the Russian language (experimental study). Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 442: 5—13. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/442/1. (In Russ.).

5. Bub, A. S. (2020) The influence of the type of bilingualism on the process of cognitive processing of multicomponent nominative units (experimental study). Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 461: 13—22. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/461/2. (In Russ.).

6. Bub, A. S., Rezanova, Z. I. (2018) The degree of stability of the binomials of the Russian language in relation to the parameters of particularity and predictability of elements. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 437: 15—22. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/437/2. (In Russ.).

7. Bubenhofer, N. (2009). Sprachgebrauchsmuster. Korpuslinguistik als Methode der Diskurs- und Kulturanalyse. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 388 p.

8. Fenk-Oczlon, G. (1989). Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics Journal, 27: 517—556.

9. Gaweł, A. (2017) Zur Ikonizität deutscher Zwillingsformeln. Linguistik Online, 81 (2): 25— 43. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.81.3645. (In Germ.).

10. Hirschauer, St. (2014) Un/doing Differences. Die Kontingenz sozialer Zugehörigkeiten. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 43 (3): 170—191. (In Germ.).

11. Hirschauer, St., Nübling, D. (2021) Sinnschichten des Kulturellen und die Aggre gatzustände der Sprache. Humandifferenzierung. Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft: 58—83. (In Germ.).

12. Kochneva, M. M. (2023) Evaluation of the idiomaticity of Russian binomials using the methods of corpus and experimental linguistics. Socio- and psycholinguistic research, 11: 59—66. (In Russ.).

13. Malkiel, Ya. (1959). Studies in Irreversible Binomials. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 8: 113—160.

14. Mollin, S. (2014). The (Ir)reversibility of English Binomials: Corpus, constraints, developments. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 254 p. DOI: 10.1075/scl.64.

15. Müller, G. (1997) Beschränkungen für Binomialbildung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 16 (1): 5—51. (In Germ.).

16. Nübling, D. (2017) Personennamen und Geschlechter/un/ordnung. Onymisches doing und undoing gender. Un/doing Differences: Praktiken der Humandifferenzierung. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft: 307—335. DOI:10.5771/9783845292540-308. (In Germ.).

17. Petrova, V. A. (2018) Structural and semantic features of binomial formations in the English language. Scientific notes of NovSU, 3 (15): 1—3. (In Russ.).


Review

For citations:


Milovanova M.V., Terentyeva E.V. Linguistic Rigidity of Gender Binomials. Nauchnyi dialog. 2025;14(7):68-83. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-68-83

Views: 20


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2225-756X (Print)
ISSN 2227-1295 (Online)