Gender and dictionary: russian perspective

Universidade do Minho Instituto de Letras e Ciências Humanas Polina Vladimirovna Solonets May 2021 Gender and Dictionary: Russian Perspective Polina Vladimirovna Solonets Gender and Dictionary: Russian Perspective UMinho|2021 Universidade do Minho Instituto de Letras e Ciências Humanas Polina Vladimirovna Solonets May 2021 Gender and Dictionary: Russian Perspective Supervised by Professor Álvaro Iriarte Sanromán Master Thesis European Master in Lexicography ii DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas internacionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho. Licença concedida aos utilizadores deste trabalho Atribuição-NãoComercial CC BY-NC https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who supported and inspired me not only during the work on this dissertation, but also during the whole course of my master programme. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people involved in European Master in Lexicography: professors, administrative staff as well as each and every member of the Consortium, who contributed to the development and organization of the programme. My grateful thanks goes to the EMLex Coordinator, Professor Stefan Schierholz and the whole EMLex Consortium for providing financial support and organizing our curriculum and the learning process in the interesting and efficient way. I appreciate this opportunity. Secondly, I would also like to express my warmest thanks to my coordinator at UMinho Idalete Maria Silva Dias as well as my coordinator at Roma Tre University Martina Nied Curcio for hosting and welcoming me at their universities. I am sincerely grateful to my academic advisor Álvaro Iriarte Sanromán for supervising this thesis and for helping me understand all the intricacies of the correct APA style academic referencing. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge the help provided by Prof. Elsabé Taljard, whose memorable keynote speech at Afrilex 2019 sparked my initial interest in the topic. This research would not be possible without the immense help from Prof. Dr. Carolin Müller-Spitzer, who guided my first steps and inspired me to conduct an initial research on the topic during my internship at Institute for the German Language. I would like to say thanks to my EMLex classmates, who became my true friends, for sharing this journey with me. Without you it would have been different. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family for their continuous support and unceasing encouragement. To my son Pol and my husband Marsel for accompanying me to Portugal, Italy, Germany and Austria and being my main motivation to move forward. iv STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho. v Gender and Dictionary: Russian Perspective ABSTRACT The problem of gender bias in dictionaries has been lately getting more and more attention in the public as well as academic discourse, as numerous examples of gender stereotypes found on dictionary pages have been reported and discussed not only in the academic communities, but also in newspapers, social media and other news outlets. However, this problem has hardly been researched in Russian lexicography. This master dissertation aims at analysing major monolingual dictionaries of Russian, published during 20th – 21st centuries to detect the presence of any gender bias in them and describe it by comparing the representation of woman and man in the corresponding dictionary entries. The analysis results show an abundance of gender stereotypes in the dictionaries as well as certain patterns in the depiction of female and masculine gender roles. The problem of biased gender representation in monolingual dictionaries of Russian requires a more profound critical evaluation and research. Moreover, it is necessary to revise dictionary lexicographic data to eliminate any gender stereotypes present there. Keywords: feminist dictionary, gender bias, gender stereotypes in dictionaries, sexist lexicography, women and dictionary making. vi Género e Dicionário: uma Perspetiva Russa RESUMO O problema do viés de género nos dicionários tem vindo a receber cada vez mais atenção do público, bem como do discurso académico, uma vez que numerosos exemplos de estereótipos de género encontrados em páginas de dicionários têm sido relatados e discutidos não só nas comunidades académicas, mas também em jornais, meios de comunicação social e outros meios de comunicação. Porém, este problema quase não foi estudado na lexicografia russa. O objetivo desta dissertação de mestrado é analisar os principais dicionários monolingues de russo, publicados durante os séculos XX - XXI para detetar a presença de qualquer preconceito de género nos mesmos, e analisá-la comparando a representação da mulher e do homem nas entradas correspondentes dos dicionários. Os resultados da análise mostram uma abundância de estereótipos de género nos dicionários, assim como determinados padrões na representação dos papéis de género feminino e masculino. O problema do viés de género nos dicionários monolingues de russo requer uma avaliação e uma investigação mais profundas e críticas. Além disso, é necessário rever os dados lexicográficos dos dicionários para eliminar quaisquer estereótipos de género presentes nos mesmos. Palavras-chave: dicionário feminista, estereótipos de género em dicionários, lexicografia sexista, mulheres e a criação de dicionários, viés de género. vii Table of Contents DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY iv ABSTRACT v RESUMO vi List of Figures ix List of Tables x CHAPTER 1 1 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. Research objectives and scope 2 1.3. Literature Review 3 1.3.1. Monolingual Dictionaries of English 3 1.3.2. Monolingual Dictionaries of German 13 1.3.2. Monolingual Dictionaries of Russian 17 1.4. Terms and Definitions 20 1.5. Structure of the Thesis 22 CHAPTER 2 23 2.1. Research Methodology 23 2.2. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by D.N. Ushakov, also known as Ushakov’s Dictionary 26 2.2.1. General Information 26 2.2.2. Dictionary Analysis 27 2.3. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Y. Shvedova 34 2.3.1. General Information 34 2.3.2. Dictionary Analysis 36 2.4. Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language (in 17 volumes), later on the Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language 41 2.4.1. General information 41 2.4.2. Dictionary Analysis 43 2.5. Small Academic Dictionary by A. P. Evgenieva 54 4 subjectivity (Gershuny, 1975, p. 939). Although men are also negatively impacted by sex-role stereotyping, this phenomenon is more harmful to women, who are traditionally depicted as subordinate and inferior to men. Moreover, the dictionary constructed a decidedly negative picture for feminine words in contexts where the already negative stereotype is illustrated. For instance, not only is she always shown as incompetent and irritating, but also she is depicted so even in such stereotyped feminine contexts as cooking, talking and emoting. The author also notes the lack of interchangeability of gender roles as depicted in the dictionary (although men do appear in domestic context as husbands, women never do as their partners in the business world) and how it fixes behavioral possibilities according to static stereotypical concepts. When women and men do change places and acquire the qualities typical of the opposite group (e.g. a male portrayed as a helpless victim or an aggressive, dominant female), it is always seen and evaluated negatively. Interestingly enough, it is more serious for a male to possess feminine characteristics than for a female to have masculine ones, as in the androcentric world of white supremacy it is viewed as the loss of status vs. gain of status, respectively. From the quantitative perspective, female gender is stereotyped in 75% of sample sentences and it is also often rendered linguistically invisible in relation to male gender. Masculine words outnumber feminine words by around 2:1 and masculine gender sentences appear almost thrice as often as feminine ones (Gershuny, 1975, p. 941). All in all, the dictionary takes part in promotion of an eternal cycle of rivalry and hostility between men and women, of one sex dominating the other. However, Gershuny uses the example of this particular dictionary to make a more general and profound statement about a high status dictionaries have received in our society and about the perils of blind faith into the dictionary word: Cloaked in the virtues of an avowed descriptive objectivity and traditional authority, the dictionary is potentially one of the most dangerous carriers of cultural bias and prejudice. In the guise of linguistic objectivity, the modern dictionary then appears neutral to editorial preference, poetry and politics. (Gershuny, 1975, p. 938) Criticism of the dictionaries self-proclaimed objectivity and language authority is an essential point of feminist lexicographic critique on the whole. As Patricia C. Nichols rightly mentions in her review of ‘ A Feminist Dictionary’ (1988), Anglo-Saxon societies traditionally lack any official language academies, delegating the responsibilities of unofficial authorities to dictionaries and handbooks instead, which often have pernicious consequences: 5 …Unrecognized and unexamined for the role they play, they often exercise power in irresponsible ways […].Claiming to be dictionaries and handbooks of the language, they have actually been compilations of and comments on the language as used and experienced by men. (Nichols, 1988, p. 601) The article with a meaningful name ‘“Women are alcoholics and drug addicts”, says dictionary’ (Kaye, 1988) focuses on the gender ideology present in Collins COBUILD Dictionary , at that time a freshly published, innovative, corpus-based dictionary, a real highlight of descriptive linguistics, implementing what appears to be deliberate attempts to avoid sexism. For this purpose, the use of they/them/their for indefinite pronouns was applied instead of generic use of such words as he or man. However, in case of illustrative sentences the efforts to avoid sexism and sex-role stereotyping were not so consistent. The author points out the unbalanced character of the dictionary examples and asks whether it was possible to select more neutral illustrations. Female character is once again shown as romantic, emotional, obedient, feeble-minded. But the most disturbing portrayal is of woman as an alcoholic and drug addict, which often emerges from an extra information, which could have easily been omitted (such as sample sentences of the headwords that are not related to drugs or alcohol). The drawback of this research, however, is that does not include any precise description of the methodology involved, so it is not clear how many example sentences were analyzed and how they were selected. One of the first systematic, computer-assisted research into the gender bias in monolingual dictionaries of English is presented in the paper ‘A Study of Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Oxford English Dictionary 2E’ (Fournier and Russell, 1992). Using special software tools, developed at the University of Waterloo (Canada), the scholars were able to analyse the large and culturally significant textual database of the electronic Oxford English Dictionary 2e as well as sub-files of gender-related definitions or quotations. The main research question of their analysis was - ‘to what extent does the dictionary, which, in its focus on the past, describes and reflects cultural values, also encode the stereotypes of the present and perpetuate sexual stereotypes for future users of the dictionary?’ (Fournier and Russell, 1992, p.13). In the course of a relatively sophisticated study the textual data was analysed on two levels – overt and systematic. The overt level analysis consisted in the examination of the definitions and illustrative examples found by searching under key headwords susceptible to gender stereotyping (e.g. searching under such headwords as strong-minded, woman, female, etc. ). The authors report that in most cases the results of this analysis type are revealing and in line with the previous works on the 6 topic, showing the overt sexism of the society as well as of the dictionary editors. Thus, for instance, the choice of quotations under the lemma woman betrays a negative attitude towards women: The distance could not be greater between the neutrality of the definition, and the extreme sexism of these quotations, which depict a being who is unremittingly a demonic sex-object lacking the capacity for higher (religious) reasoning, and doomed to be controlled by men. (Fournier and Russell, 1992, p.15) Sometimes, however, gender bias is present on the definition level, when lexicographers deliberately describe a sexist word sense or word usage without labeling it as such. Because of the efficiency of the computer-assisted corpus search, the scholars were able to test some of the earlier statements about the nature of the OED. For example, they checked such word pairs as king and queen, husband and wife, etc., in which the most important/ positive word is supposedly always placed first, and their opposites with the inverted word order, finding out that the male figure in the first position was indeed represented more frequently than the female one. In the course of the systematic analysis more elaborate and diverse search methods were employed, aiming at building gender-specific subcorpora: a corpus containing quotation text dealing with women exclusively, a quotation text corpus having reference to men and the same types of two gender-specific corpora for definition texts. The research show that women are twice as often described in relation to their appearance and looks than men are. Domestic sphere proved to be another great reference point for woman as well as feelings. Men’s functions and characteristics turned out to be less narrowly focused. The research showed a greater degree of stereotyping in the representation of women than in that of men, even though on the whole, the subcorpora with reference to men was twice as large as the female ones. Another important finding is that the quotation text contained a greater amount of sex-role stereotyping, whereas the definition corpora and thus, the language of lexicographers themselves turned out to be more neutral. The article ‘Punctuating the Dictionary’ (Kramarae, 1992) criticizes the existing practice of dictionary making from the feminist grounds, highlighting its most harmful theoretical aspects. Pointing out the fact of women’s separation and oppression from their language, the author states that despite recent minor improvements of the most blatantly sexist examples, the ‘misogynist makeup of the dictionary’ is left unaltered (Kramarae, 1992, p. 136). The very lexicographic and editorial practice itself, the very basic form and functions of the men’s dictionary have negative implications on the linguistic creativity and understanding of the language. Moreover, the stress on dictionaries as the best and only authority on language use is false and harmful: ‘I am concerned about the firm, widespread, 7 and, I argue, damaging belief that dictionaries are the records of language use’ (Kramarae, 1992, p. 137). The article mentions five damaging effects caused by men’s dictionaries. Firstly, it is limitations on imagination, as traditional dictionaries are not designed by women or for women’s exercise of imagination. Moreover, they set forth a category system, which is not only hostile for women, but is referred as the only system. This system does not encourage ideas or new connections or any playfulness about how we could write and talk. ‘Experts’ often ridicule feminists who suggest alternative spellings or meanings. Secondly, men’s dictionary promote absolute authority of their products by portraying lexicographers and dictionary editors as diligent recorders of the language facts. The publishers have been telling the public for many years that they are the authority, trying to win the market through claims of the authority and completeness of their specific dictionary and also by pointing out objectivity of their lexicon. But in fact, as Kramarae rightly points it out, we do not know ‘who collects what information from what sources’ (Kramarae, 1992, p. 140). What we do know, however, is that speech of women and minorities is often not included and editors quote from each other’s work extensively. The third damaging effect of the men’s dictionaries is the illusion of agreement they promote. That illusion states that there is a general agreement of speakers about word meanings and thus, it neglects the flux and change of the language, as at any certain point in time lexicographers and editors can easily determine most frequent meaning. The fourth damage of traditional androcentric lexicography is its inclination to the language standardization and thus, its proprietary interest in the language use. As a result of it, linguistic diversity stays hidden and people who do not speak dictionaryproper English feel oppressed and separated from the language. The valid question to ask, however, when we speak about a necessity for the language standardization is ‘standardized according to whose specifications? Effective for which persons speaking what class form?’ (Kramarae, 1992, p. 145). The fifth damage of traditional dictionaries is related to their focus on the written language: ‘Most dictionaries contain mostly the words, meanings and experiences of published authors, mostly male authors or “statesmen”. Mostly dead males’ (Kramarae, 1992, p.146). By using a literary standard and quotation material based largely on this type of literature, dictionary compilers help maintain ‘class structure and the supremacy of the male educated class’ (Kramarae, 1992, p.146). Therefore, the author comes to see (and not without the reason) dictionaries as an instrument of social control, stating that women still have to win their linguistic rights and their linguistic visibility. Although the article was published 22 years ago, most of its criticism stays true nowadays. The fact that women’s language creativity is normally restricted by normative linguistics and lexicography is supported by the history of the coinage of the word womyn , as presented in the article 8 ‘Womyn: the Evidence’ (Steinmetz, 1995). Serving as an alternative spelling of the word women, this feminist invention was firstly coined in 1970s in order to avoid the word ending –men. It firstly found its way into a dictionary in 1991, being included in Random House Webster’s College Dictionary and thus becoming the subject of great public discussion, criticism and controversy. The other ‘feminist’ entries such as herstory and waitron, also included in that dictionary edition raised no questions, as by that time both had already been published in other lexicographic works. However, the entry womyn turned out to be so controversial that it actually made editors from other publishing houses explain their reasons for not including this word into their lexicons. It was stated, for example, that the word had a restricted use in the ‘literature of women’s issues’ and that when it did occur in general literature, it was always accompanied by a gloss or enclosed in shudder quotes, which proved that the word in question was not widespread enough (Steinmetz, 1995, p. 430). The debates around the spelling in question led to RHWCD editors’ decision to reveal their citational evidence in this case. The body of citations that constituted the evidence covered the years from 1976 to 1994 (later citations included to show the word’s continuous use after the dictionary publication). The list contained 49 quotations from 29 sources covering the span of 19 years and represented only a fraction of actual number of times womyn was mentioned in print. For example, the Nexis/Lexis electronic database gave back about 250 cases of womyn for the same time period, which justified the inclusion of this spelling into the dictionary from the lexicographic standpoint. The discussion around the word womyn shows how lexicography can never be neutral or objective and how it is always a matter of personal choice and decision (that of a lexicographer or of a publisher) and in fact, also a matter of one’s politics: …Dictionary users have the right to wonder on what grounds the Random House editors made the decision to enter womyn into their dictionary. Did the citational evidence justify the entry? Or was the entry politically motivated, a reflex of the editorial staff's feminist leanings? Of course, the converse can also be asked: if the evidence does favor entering womyn , were the dictionary editors who decided to exclude it politically motivated, that is, resisting what they perceived to be a brazen manipulation of English spelling to advance the feminist cause? The answer to either question lies in the evidence and how it is interpreted. (Steinmetz, 1995, p. 430) In the article ‘Women’s Rights – Children’s Games: Sexism in Learner’s Dictionaries of English’ (Prechter, 1999) several editions (7 books in total) of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 9 Current English , the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary are tested against the presence and reinforcement of gender stereotypes. In short, the article concludes that no continuous progress has not been made in the development of non-sexist learners’ dictionaries of English, as the dictionaries under inspection promote stereotypical representation of women and men by portraying a restricted view of women as being active only in a limited set of fields (finding a male partner, maintenance of romantic relationship with men, etc.) and also by portraying men as courageous and reliable, yet independent and strong minded, close to crime and aggressive (male aggressiveness is depicted in a positive way by the dictionaries) (Prechter, 1999, p. 60). The article ‘Telling it Straight? Dictionary definitions of women’s genitals’ (Braun and Kitzinger, 2001) focuses on the analysis of dictionary entries for lemmas vagina and clitoris, using entries for penis as a comparison, in 12 specialized medical dictionaries and 16 general purpose English language dictionaries covering the time span from 1989 to 1998. The results of the analysis show that vagina and clitoris are overwhelmingly defined by their location in a female body without any mentioning of the function these organs perform, whereas penis is always defined in terms of its function. Therefore, any reference to sex or sexuality is omitted from the vagina’s and clitoris’s definitions. Moreover, women’s genitals continue to be described in relation to an implicit penile norm, when male bodies are viewed and understood as norm and female bodies are under-represented, their functions are omitted or they are defined in terms of male bodies, as it is the case with clitoris that is often portrayed as a female counterpart of the penis. On the whole, it is possible to conclude that generally the entries in question portray female sexuality as passive and male sexuality as active. They depict women’s genitals as absence and men’s genitals as presence. They also state that genitals are used for heterosexual sex only. In fact, these definitions present sexist stereotypes as a biological facts and therefore, serve to remind how dictionaries construct our image of body and also a limited idea of gender: ‘The process of definition is not value-neutral, and dictionaries ‘give the values they select stability and authority’ (Landau 1985, p. 269; Gershuny, 1977, as cited in Braun and Kitzinger, 2001, p. 215), values which are often socially/politically conservative. ‘The construction of authorless definitions furthers the seeming authority and ‘factual’ nature of these definitions’ (Potter 1996, as cited in Braun and Kitzinger, 2001, p. 215). The article ‘This Is What a Dictionary Looks Like: The Lexicographical Contribution of Feminist Dictionaries’ (Russell, 2011) gives tribute to feminist dictionaries printed in the period between 1970 and 2006. The list of works covered by such a term consists of 18 books and includes, among others, 10 such texts as A Feminist Dictionary (Kramarae and Teichler, 1985) , Encyclopedia of Feminism (Tuttle 1986) , The Nonsexist Word Finder: A Dictionary of Gender-Free Usage (Maggio, 1987) , Womanwords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Patriarchal Society (Miller, 1989) Wimmin, Wimps and Wallflowers (Herbst, 2001) , etc. Surprisingly enough, all of these innovative lexicographic project received little attention in the world of ‘big lexicography’, even though they are ‘ambitious revisions of lexicographic theory and practice worthy of historical documentation and contemporary consideration’ (Russell, 2011, p. 1). Nowadays they continue to be neglected – neither cited, nor mentioned in the historical lexicographic accounts. Thus, for example, they are excluded from Cowie’s (2009) Oxford History of English Lexicography, described by the publisher as the fullest account of English language lexicography. The book covers fifteen centuries of lexicographic practice and mentions dictionaries in ‘botany, chemistry cant, catch-phrases, ecclesiastics, engineering, farming, forenames, geography, geology, husbandry, law, maritime terms, mathematics, medicine, mineralogy, music, physics, place names, regional dialect, rhyme, slang, surnames, and zoology’ (Russell, 2011, p. 3). However, not a single feminist dictionary is included in any list, chapter or catalogue of other references. Despite the invisibility of feminist dictionaries, today it would be especially worthy to take their ideas and perspectives into account and see what they have to say about traditional lexicography. Feminist dictionaries propose and enact innovative principles of lexicography, using criticism as a point of departure from traditions of lexicography, which, in their opinion, absent women ‘as a significant component of the humanity’ and construct ‘women, men, and relations between the two in damaging ways’ (Russell, 2011, p. 9). So what are the principles of feminist dictionary making? Firstly, editors and lexicographers should disclose the circumstances of dictionary production, such as people involved in the process and their perspectives. It needs to be done to break that neutral authoritative tone adopted by dictionaries today and show compilers’ personal biases. For example, feminist dictionaries openly declare their feminist biases, striving to show that their creators are shaped by and dependent on specific institutional, economic and sociocultural circumstances. They also aim at demonstrating the scholarly and economic settings of dictionary production with their own biases (Russell, 2011, p. 12). Secondly, dictionaries should ‘foster active, opinionated, and exploratory dictionary consumption’ (Russell, 2011, p. 13). This principle highlights the importance of readers’ personal perspectives and opinions, their participation in the contents interpretation and meaning creation. Feminist dictionaries are a sight of exploration and inspiration. They invite their users to the active dictionary use, to adding to the dictionary by constructing definitions in such a way that leaves quite a bit of work to readers, making 11 them ask questions, see conflicts, feel confusion. Thirdly, ‘a dictionary should highlight meaning as a universal and collaborative construction, highly embedded, frequently personal, commonly contested, and only partly linguistic’ (Russell, 2011, p. 15). Feminist dictionaries view word meanings not as objective facts, but as existing in conversation and often in contest with one another, situated within social practices and personal decisions, as a matter of opinions and experiences. Therefore, meanings are never neutral. All in all, this paper shows how feminist dictionaries engage in a serious, systematic reconfiguration of dictionary genre. One of the latest articles investigating the problem of gender stereotypes found on the dictionary pages is ‘Linguistic Turn and Gendering Language in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary’ (Arimbi and Kwary, 2016). It focuses on the analysis of the imbalance in gender representations found in the example sentences in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 3rd Edition . The methodology used for the research purposes consists in sorting out the examples bearing labels ‘approving’ and ‘disapproving’. Within the resulting example sentences the ones were sorted out that contained words woman/ women and man/ men in them. It resulted in 11 sample sentences labelled ‘approving’ for man / men, 5 examples labelled ‘approving’ for woman/ women, 29 sentences labelled ‘disapproving’ for man/ men and 19 sentences labelled ‘disapproving’ for a woman/ women. As the next step, the resulting sentences were analysed to see how they represent woman and man. The principle of opposition is widely used in the depiction of two genders. Men are generally better depicted than women. They are characterized as urban whereas women as earthly and rural. They symbolize culture, whereas women symbolize nature. They possess emotional maturity whereas women are just emotional. The gender hierarchy is constructed by creation of different identities for women and men. Continuing the opposition, women are depicted as sexually passive whereas men as dominant and active. Women who are not sexually passive perceived as morally bad. Men are associated with self, whereas self is non-existent for women (there is a self-made man, for example, but there is no such thing as a self-made woman). ‘Man is self, while woman is other’ (Arimbi and Kwary, 2016, p. 172). The article 'Toward a Feminist Historiography of Lexicography’ (Russell, 2018) critically reflects on the historically established way we have got used to perceive and interpret the history of lexicography. The fact that men still dominate the dictionary scholarship despite many women being involved in it is related to our construction of dictionary making history. It is a common belief affirmed in many historical accounts that for many centuries, just until recently, lexicography has been fully driven by men. Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, Peter Mark Roget, George Smith, James Murray, Joseph 12 Wright are among the greatest and most respected ‘fathers’ of lexicography. Exclusion of women (who have been present but invisible) led to field picture that ‘favors, not just certain practitioners (i.e., men) but certain practices (i.e., modes of dictionary making we might call masculinist); it also disregards lexicography as a system of sociality interlocking with and sometimes benefitting from other systems of sociality (like gender, like sexism)’ (Russell, 2018, p. 170). Feminist historiography offers the ways to unmask and deroutinize some of the gender biases of past and present, critically reevaluate our histories so that there is room for a more inclusive understanding of many modes of dictionary making. It is important to understand that any history is a series of constructions and thanks to the prevailing masculinist tradition of dictionary making many female participants were forgotten, underappreciated, villainized and marginalized. Russell writes: But there are actually lots of women to be found in the history of lexicography. Some of the names that appear in dictionary discussions and collections include Elizabeth Elstob, credited with writing a Latin–English grammar in 1715 (e.g., Percy 2010); Sarah Sophia Banks, known to have penned lists of British dialect terms between 1779 and 1814 (e.g., Ruano-García 2016); Hester Piozzi, credited with publishing the 1794 British Synonymy after years of playing patron to Samuel Johnson (e.g., Berglund 2009); Charlotte Yonge, attributed with writing a historical dictionary of Christian names in 1863 and with assisting in the making of the OED (e.g., Partridge 1978); Hope Emily Allen, remembered as an editor of the ill-fated Early Modern English Dictionary (e.g., Cassidy 1989; Hirsh 1988, 99–130); and Margaret Sinclair Ogden, recalled as an editor of the Middle English Dictionary whose “eminence […] was not always easy for male colleagues to accept” (Adams 2005, 706). Other women who occasionally bear mention contributed to large-scale male-edited lexicons. The women who volunteered to read for the OED, for example, are widely recognized as having joined ranks that included a handful of women staff members as well as a number of editors’ wives, daughters, and sisters-in-law. (Russell, 2018, p. 172) However, they and their contributions stay invisible for larger lexicographic histories. Their work is viewed as not quite lexicographical: ‘Their dictionaries are “really” grammars, thesauruses, 13 encyclopaedias, novelties, nonstarters; while their contributions are “really” ancillary or obligatory’ (Russell, 2018, p. 173). Thus, feminist historiography lets us see how the idea of dictionaries as exclusively male domain is continually constructed by our histories and how we can deconstruct it as such by taking another perspective. I have given special care to making such a detailed overview of the previous works on the topic for several reasons. On the one hand, the fact that the problem of gender bias in English lexicography is so well-studied gives us an opportunity to understand and evaluate this problem in all its intricacies and aspects. Many of the patterns described above are quite universal and can be encountered in lexicographic practices of other languages. On the other hand, this account gives us a good understanding of the current state of affairs and general context, so that one can see the importance of the topic of gender bias in dictionaries. I believe, that taking feminist perspective of dictionary-making into account is crucial for the future of theoretical and practical lexicography. 1.3.2. Monolingual Dictionaries of German The article ‘ “Sie sah zu ihm auf wie zu einem Gott” – Das Duden-Bedeutungswörterbuch als Trivialroman’ ["She looked up to him as to a god" - The Duden - Bedeutungswörterbuch as a light novel] (Pusch, 1996) analyses the example sentences found under letter A (86 pages in total) in 1970 edition of Duden-Bedeutungswörterbuch . From the quantitative perspective out of 1100 people mentioned on these pages there are 920 men and only 180 women, which makes men’s dictionary presence five times more stronger than women’s. From the qualitative perspective the lexicographically depicted images of man and woman are not not free from the gender bias and they promote a set of unreflected gender stereotypes of both men and women. Male reference points are society, profession, business, world, whereas female reference points are man, children and family. Woman is often portrayed as uneducated, naïve and annoying, sometimes even fat and sweaty, sometimes haughty and silly (Pusch, 1996, p. 232). Female world is limited to house and garden, while male world goes far beyond the household and it is all about adventures, success and attention. Interestingly enough, in the dictionary world woman can never communicate with other women. Her only connections are children and her husband/boyfriend. The characters depicted by the dictionary, both male and female, are so schematic and stereotypical that the author of the article ironically compares the dictionary to a Trivialroman , a simple and light entertaining novel type. It is funny how the same headwords are illustrated differently depending on, whether the subject in question is he or she. For example, under abbrausen one finds 20 far. Therefore, present thesis will surely make an important contribution in the study of the problem of gender stereotypes in the Russian lexicography. 1.4. Terms and Definitions This section provides a brief overview of the main terms used in the dissertation and their definitions. In this paper I differentiate between sex and gender in the standard manner, when sex is viewed as a set of biological attributes present in humans and animals, such as chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Although sex is usually defined as binary (male or female), it is also a well-known fact that it is not limited to the binary opposition and a variation of different biological attributes is possible. Gender is used to refer to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, identities and expression modes of girls, women, boys, men and diverse people. Person’s gender identity affects their self-image as well as how they perceive others, how they act, interact and communicate and also ‘the distribution of power and resources in society’ (What is gender? What is sex?, 2020). Although traditional gender ideology views gender as static and binary, it is neither this or that. Gender is a spectrum and it is fluid, possible to change over time. ‘There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society’ (What is gender? What is sex?, 2020). The differences between sex and gender are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Differences between Sex and Gender Source: Adapted from American Women’s Association Website (https://www.amwa-doc.org/sghc/) According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), a gender stereotype is a ‘generalised view or preconception about attributes, or characteristics that are or 21 ought to be possessed by women and men or the roles that are or should be performed by men and women. A gender stereotype is harmful when it limits women’s and men’s capacity to develop their personal abilities, pursue their professional careers and make choices about their lives’ (Gender Stereotyping, n.d.). We have already seen many common examples of gender stereotypes present in the dictionaries when women and men are ascribed certain personality traits by reason of their membership in the social group of women or men. European Institute for Gender Equality defines gender bias , or sexual discrimination , as ‘prejudiced actions or thoughts based on the genderbased perception that women are not equal to men in rights and dignity’ (Gender bias, n.d.). It is true that women suffer much more from gender bias than men. However, it is important to remember that sexual discrimination can be aimed at men, too, as well as at any gender-non-conforming person. As to lexicographic terminology, I would like to define some of the terms used in my work. In this thesis the terms lemma and headword are used interchangeably and are understood as ‘the position at which an entry can be located and found in the structure of a reference work’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 83). The terms dictionary article and entry are also used as synonyms in the meaning ‘the basic reference unit in a dictionary’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 50). Other important terms are prescriptive and descriptive lexicographic approaches: Dictionaries are often perceived as authoritative records of how people ‘ought to’ use language, and they are regularly invoked for guidance on ‘correct’ usage. They are seen, in other words, as prescriptive texts. Lexicographers have for long been uncomfortable with this idea – at least from the time of James Murray, the founding editor of the Oxford English Dictionary – and we see ourselves as working firmly within the tradition of descriptive lexicography. For us, a dictionary is a description of the vocabulary used by members of a speech community (for example, by ‘speakers of English’). And the starting point for this description is evidence of what members of the speech community do when they communicate with one another. (Atkins & Rundell, 2008, p. 2) Macrostructure is defined in the following way: …an overall list structure which allows the compiler and the user to locate information in a reference work. The most common format in Western dictionaries is the alphabetical word-list 22 (although there are other ways of ordering the headwords, e.g. thematically, chronologically or by frequency)’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 91). Microstructure is ‘an internal design of a reference unit. In contrast to the overall word-list (macrostructure), the microstructure provides detailed information about the headword, with comments on its formal and semantic properties’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 94). On the pages of this work a reference will be made to comment on form and comment on semantics: according to Dictionary of Lexicography , comment on form provides information about spelling, grammar and pronunciation, whereas comment on semantics contains information about definition, etymology and usage (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 23). Sense is ‘one of several meanings that can be established for a word or phrase and covered by a definition in a reference work’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 125). Definition is ‘a component part of microstructure of a reference work which gives an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase or term. The definition provides an essential function: it is the place where compilers locate and users find semantic information’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 35-36). Example is ‘a word or phrase used in a reference work to illustrate a particular form or meaning in a wider context, such as a sentence. Examples can either be based on objective evidence […] or be invented by the compiler’ (Hartmann & James, 2002, p. 53). Corpus is ‘a collection of texts, of the written or spoken word, which is stored and processed on computer for the purpose of linguistic research’ (Renouf, 1987, p. 1). Sinclair (2004) sees corpus as ‘a collection of pieces of language text in electronic form, selected according to external criteria to represent, as far as possible, a language or language variety as a source of data for linguistic research’). 1.5. Structure of the Thesis This thesis is divided into three chapters. Following the introductory part, stating the research objectives and presenting its topic as well as social and lexicographic context around it, the thesis deals with the practical dictionary analysis in the second chapter by critiquing the major monolingual dictionaries of Russian published in 20th and 21st centuries. The third chapter draws general conclusions and summarizes previous theoretical and practical research on the topic. 23 CHAPTER 2 2.1. Research Methodology Monolingual dictionaries of Russian, published during the 20th – 21th centuries serve as the research material of the current project. Due to the lexicographic data type typically contained in the monolingual lexicons their comment on semantics can provide a rich material for the gender-focused analysis. As it has rightly been noticed in the critical literature (Nübling, 2009, p.594) a monolingual lexicography serves as a big stage for the gender display. The current research does not take into account any monolingual Russian dictionaries published in the 19th century for several reasons: firstly, some of them have been of a mixed type containing both Russian and Old Slavonic lexemes ( Dictionary by the Russian Academy , the first edition published during 1789-1794, the second edition published during 1806-1822); secondly, later on more modern editions that did not include any Old Slavonic lexemes still presented a mixed macrostructure type consisting of both standard Russian and dialectal words ( Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by Vladimir Dahl, printed during 1863-1866); thirdly, some of the later lexicographic works applying a stricter criteria for the macrostructure candidate headwords were not completed ( Dictionary of the Russian Language, Compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences by Yakov Grot, started in 1891). Therefore, the present analysis will focus on six major lexicographic works published in the Soviet Union as well as modern day Russia and covering the scope from 1934 to the present day. Many of these dictionaries have been republished and reedited for many decades. Thus, for example, Ushakov’s Dictionary (Ushakov, 1935-1940) underwent many editions and is still being widely used. Hence whenever possible, different editions of one and the same dictionary will be analysed and compared to see if any major changes occurred in-between. Figure 2 demonstrates a detailed timeline showing the milestones of the Russian monolingual lexicography. The present research follows the methodology suggested by the German scholar Damaris Nübling in her paper ‘ Zur lexikografischen Inszenierung von Geschlecht ’ [‘On the Lexicographic Staging of Gender’] (2009). Thus, for each dictionary a focus of the analysis will be on the comparison of a dictionary article for the lemma muzhchina [man] with a dictionary article for the lemma zhenshchina [woman]. The articles will be compared from the place distribution perspective as well as qualitatively. Special attention will be paid to the analysis of the sense definitions and the example sentences. 24 Figure 2. Russian Monolingual Dictionaries in Time Source: Solonets (2020) When a dictionary user consults a dictionary, what they expect from the reference tool – and this is what modern dictionaries normally aspire to achieve – is maximum neutrality and distance from any kind of ideology. Needless to say, such an endeavour is hardly attainable, as any dictionary is a product of its time (Nübling, 2009, p.595). The further analysis seeks to examine the place of each dictionary on the scale between gender neutrality and gender bias. We will see how the dictionaries in questions present a social construct of gender for men and women, what social roles they attribute to each 25 gender and if they reproduce any gender stereotypes. We will also see what means are used to reproduce gender stereotypes, if any, and how exactly gender bias is embedded into the lexicographic data. My approach to the gender-focused analysis follows the gender theory as it was expressed by West and Zimmerman in their paper ‘Doing Gender’ (1987), which perceives gender not as an innate characteristic of a person, but rather as a psychologically ingrained social construct that is actively utilized and reproduced in the daily communication. According to this theory, gender is a performative act, intended to establish a gendered behavior as naturally occurring. We constantly do gender through our daily actions and behaviour: the clothes we wear, the make-up we put on, the way we speak is all an act of doing gender, which ultimate goal is to meet gendered societal expectations and by managing to do so, to acquire a status of a successful society member. Gender is performed in interactions and our behaviours are assessed based on the socially accepted conceptions of gender. West and Zimmerman highlight the interactional level on which gender is performed and reinforced. From that perspective, monolingual dictionaries can be viewed as a perfect scene for the lexicographic doing gender (Nübling, 2009, p.595, 628), as they on the one hand, reflect and reproduce the conceptions of gender existing in the society and, on the other hand, by doing so, they reinforce these stereotypical notions and in this sense they should definitely be considered as a powerful means of doing gender. The article ‘Undoing Gender’ (Deutsch, 2007) emphasizes the importance of undoing gender, an action which refers to ‘social interactions that reduce gender difference’ (Deutsch, 2007, p.122). When we undo gender, we aim at thwarting gender stereotypes at interactional as well as institutional level. Such resistance to gendered social interaction is viewed as an important source of change. The opposition of doing and undoing gender will serve as a crucial point for the following analysis. 26 2.2. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by D.N. Ushakov, also known as Ushakov’s Dictionary 2.2.1. General Information 2 This is one of the major dictionaries of the Russian language. Published in 4 volumes over the period 1934 – 1940, the first dictionary edition included 85 298 headwords (not including 5054 headwords used for cross-reference purposes) and survived numerous reprints, still being regularly reissued and revised. Its appearance filled a gap in the description of a modern early 20th century Russian, as none of the miscellaneous lexicographic projects of the 20th century attempted before had not been brought to a conclusion. The dictionary aimed at the description of the contemporary literary 3 Russian language, covering the scope from early 19th century to the current moment in time and including ‘classic literature words from Pushkin 4 to Gorky and also words of common scientific, business and book language, formed in the 19th century’ (Ushakov, 1935, p. 5). Another important goal pursued by the authors was the inclusion and lexicographic treatment of the rapidly growing new vocabulary brought on by the revolution and socio-political change in the country, for example, numerous neologisms formed by word blending, generally acclaimed technical terminology and sociopolitical terms. In the dictionary preface the authors stated that the dictionary was intended to reach a broad circle of readers aiming at the prescription of the correct language use in such areas as pronunciation, grammar, orthography and stylistics: ‘the dictionary can serve as a weapon in the struggle for the quality of the language […], for the language purification’ (Ushakov, 1935, p 5). The lexicographic team involved in the dictionary creation process consisted of the leading linguists, lexicographers and philologists of that time under the guidance of Dmitry N. Ushakov, an experienced lexicographer and editor. Although during their lexicographic work the scholars agreed to take into accountant previously published monolingual dictionaries, it was specifically pointed out that the new dictionary was not envisaged as a mere compilation or repetition of already existing lexicons. Therefore, the team had to build their own corpus of texts in the form of index cards, on which the quotations and other lexicographic data were written down. Different types of printed materials were 2 The information in this section comes from various sources: Nikitin (2004, 2016a, 2016b); Basovskaya (2013, 2014); Ushakov (1935). 3 All dictionaries to be analysed in this chapter are dictionaries of literary (or in other words, standard) Russian. There is no agreement among scholarly community about what exactly is considered to be a literary language. Russian linguist and lexicographer V. V. Vinogradov defined it as a ‘common written language of a nation or nations, the language of official and business documents, school, science, journalism, fiction’ (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 329). Other authors define it as a standard form of Russian, written and oral, which main feature is its normativity. (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 77) 4 All the dictionaries analysed in this chapter cover the Russian language starting from Pushkin (early 19th century), a Russia’s national poet, famous for his contribution to the modernization and development of Russian (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p., 81). 27 used for this purpose: newspapers, classic literature of the 19th and 20th centuries, military records, political books, technical brochures, agricultural handbooks and so on. The main criterion for lemma inclusion in the dictionary was its high frequency. Thus, some of the swear words, vulgar expressions and colloquialisms made their way into the dictionary as long as they were used frequently enough. The system of lexicographic labels was developed to indicate headwords’ register. Socio-political context of that time period plays a crucial role in the understanding of the dictionary’ nature. The dictionary was developed under the strict censorship of Stalin’s regime and the first volume of the dictionary published in 1934 was almost fully destroyed by the command of the government, as it did not correspond to the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the country. After its publication the first volume received a negative review in the press, as it supposedly promoted ‘antisoviet and bourgeois content’ (Nikitin, 2016b, p. 37). The lexicographers had to defend their scholarly creation in a series of public discussions held during November-December of 1935 in Leningrad. As a result, the dictionary was claimed to be ‘a harmful act of political crime’ (Nikitin, 2016b, p. 37), the publication was suspended and the first volume had to undergo a full revision. From that time on the lexicographic process was supervised by a political editor B. M. Volin responsible for dictionary’s ideological correctness. One of the authors, V. Vinogradov was exiled to the city of Vyatka (896 km from Moscow) and did not take part in the further lexicographic work. His name was also removed from the dictionary cover. However, in the end the first volume of the dictionary was newly published in 1935, soon followed by the consequent volumes. Despite all odds and thanks to the immense efforts of the lexicographic team, it has become one of the most acknowledged lexicographic works in the country and has been reissued many times with the last edition dating back to 2014. 2.2.2. Dictionary Analysis The dictionary articles analysed below come from the first dictionary edition. The lemma zhenshchina [woman] can be found on the page 858 of the first volume published in 1935 and the lemma muzhchina [man] can be found on the page 275 of the second volume published in 1938. The original dictionary articles for these lemmas in Russian as well as their translation into English are presented in the Table 1: 28 Table 1. Entries for lemmas woman and man in Ushakov’s Dictionary (1935-1940) ЖЕНЩИНА, ы, ж.5 МУЖЧИНА, ы, м6. 1. Лицо, противоположное мужчине по полу. Женщины и мужчины в СССР пользуются одинаковыми правами. Женщина-врач. || Лицо женского пола, как типическое воплощение женского начала. С чуткостью женщины oна оказала ему помощь как раз во-время. 2. Взрослая, в противоп. девочке. Вагон для женщин и детей. || Лицо женского пола, начавшее половую жизнь, в противоп. девушке. Замужняя женщина. Она рано стала женщиной. 3. Лицо женского пола легкого поведения, кокотка (фам.). Тратить деньги на женщин 4. Женская прислуга (разг.) Нанять женщину к ребенку. 1. Лицо, противоположное женщине по полу. У нас в бригаде четыре мужчины и две женщины. Красивый мужчина. 2. Лицо мужского пола, достигшее зрелого возраста, физической и духовной зрелости. Настоящий мужчина. Скоро ты будешь уже мужчиной. WOMAN MAN 1. An individual whose sex7 is opposite to the male one. 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the female one. 5 Grammatical information about plural form and grammatical gender. 6 See the footnote 8. 7 In this dictionary and in the dictionaries that are going to be analysed further, the Russian word pol [sex] is used to define woman and man. From the dictionary context it is obvious, however, that it is not only the biological differences that are implied by this word, but also social and cultural ones associated with them. Nowadays the English word gender is more widely used to talk about certain social construct associated with people’s perceptions of 29 Women and men in the USSR have equal rights. Woman doctor // A female person, as the typical embodiment of female nature. With her woman’s sensitivity, she was able to help him just at the right time. 2. An adult female person as opposed to a girl. Carriage for women and children || A female person who has started her sex life as opposed to a girl. Married woman. She has become a woman very early. 3. A girl of easy virtue, a prostitute (derogatory). To spend money on women. 4. A female servant (coll.). To hire a woman for a child. There are four men and two women in our squad. A handsome man. 2. A male person, who is mature physically and mentally. A real man. You will be a man soon. Source: Adapted from Ushakov’s Dictionary (1935-1940) From the quantitative perspective the dictionary article for the lemma woman occupies two times more space than the one for the lemma man : it has three senses with two sub comments whereas the lemma man has only two senses. In the first sense the headwords are defined in the similar way: lemma zhenshchina [woman] – as an opposite of the word muzhchina [man] and lemma muzhchina [man] – as an opposite of the word zhenshchina [woman]. On the one hand, such an opposition used as a definition strategy may be explained by the semantic purposes. The authors may have wanted to avoid using the words zhenskii [female] and muzhskoi [male] in the corresponding definitions in order to eschew definitions containing sex, but this term is relatively new and not well-known outside the feminist / LGBT+ communities. Thus, every time when the word ‘sex’ is used in a definition, what is really meant is both sex and gender (see Figure 1). 36 Since 1992 Shvedova officially became a dictionary’s co-author and her name appeared on the book cover. In fact, by that time the dictionary had become an absolutely new lexicographic product, completely different from the original 1949 edition. Despite this fact Ozhegov’s name is still present on the cover, because the new editions continue the fundamental lexicographic principles, employed during the work on the original book: macrostructural and microstructural composition, label system, approach to lexicographic treatment of lemmata are all still the same, even though the prescriptiveprohibitive viewpoint transformed into a more descriptive approach (Dobrovolsky, n.d.). 2.3.2. Dictionary Analysis The dictionary articles analysed below are taken from the fourth dictionary edition, printed in 2006. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get access to earlier editions. Otherwise, it would have been interesting to compare the first edition of 1949 with later editions to see if there are any conspicuous changes. Not having opportunity to get access to all the necessary dictionaries is one of the greatest restrictions of this work. Following the methodology described above, the dictionary articles for the lemma zhenschina [woman] found on page 192 of the dictionary and the lemma muzhchina [man] found on the page 369 are presented in the Table 3. Table 3. Entries for Lemmas Woman and Man in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Ozhegov and Shvedova (2006) ЖЕНЩИНА, ы, ж.9 МУЖЧИНА, ы, м. 1. Лицо, противоположное мужчине по полу, та, которая рожает детей и кормит их грудью. Женщина равноправна с мужчиной. Женщина-мать. Ищите женщину! (говорится как намёк на то, что какое-нибудь неясное, запутанное дело не обошлось без женского участия; шутл.) 2. Лицо женского пола, вступившее в 1. Лицо, противоположное женщине по полу. Будь мужчиной! (веди себя так, как подобает мужчине). Поговорим как мужчина с мужчиной (как подобает мужчинам). 2. Такое взрослое лицо, в отличие от мальчика, юноши. 9 Grammatical information about plural form and grammatical gender. 37 брачные отношения. Она стала женщиной. | прилагательное женский, -ая, -ое10. Женский пол. Женские болезни. Международный женский день (8 Марта). Сын вырос, уже совсем мужчина. || уменьшительное мужчинка, -и, м11. (просторечное шутливое) || прилагательное мужской, -ая, -ое12 и мужчинский, -ая, -ое13 (просторечное шутливое). Мужской пол. WOMAN MAN 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the male one; she gives birth to children and breastfeeds them. A woman has equal rights with a man. A woman-mother. Look for the woman (used as a hint that a mysterious or puzzling situation involves a woman, humorous). 2. A female individual, who has started the matrimonial relationships . She became a woman. | Adjective zhenskii [female]. Female sex. Female illnesses. International women’s day (8 March). 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the female one. Be a man! (behave like a man is supposed to). Let’s have a man talk! (in a way appropriate to men). 2. Such an adult individual as opposed to a boy, or a young man. The son has grown up, he is already a man. || diminutive muzhchinka [a little man] (colloquial, humorous). || Adjective muzhskoi [male] and muzhchinsky [male]14 (colloquial, humorous). Male sex. Source: Adapted from the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Ozhegov and Shvedova (2006) From the quantitative perspective the dictionary articles occupy equal amount of dictionary space (approximately ten dictionary lines each) and have symmetrical structure: each lemma has two senses with more or less equal number of examples. The first sense of the lemma gives a definition, quite similar to the one found in the Ushakov’s Dictionary. Woman and man are described as opposites, as two biologically and socially polar 10 Grammatical information about adjective’s endings in feminine and neuter forms. 11 Grammatical information about diminutive’s form plural form and grammatical gender. 12 Grammatical information about adjective’s endings in feminine and neuter forms. 13 See the footnote 12. 14 In the original there are two forms of these adjective: first – standard, second – colloquial, humorous. 38 individuals. As far as this part of the definitions goes, it repeats the Ushakov’s ones word for word. However, the definition of woman gets an unexpected addition, attributing to woman such biological functions as ability to give birth and breastfeed as the most essential and defining for her. The first part containing implicit gender stereotypes is inappropriate enough, as it reproduces the stereotypical notions from 1935 right right into 2006 without a slightest change. But pointing out woman’s biological functions right in the definitions makes the definition simply wrong and invalid. Needless to say, there is a good number of women without any children, but according to such a definition they cannot be considered women any more. The same would be true for women who are unable to have children, or women who do not breastfeed, intersex people, transgender women and so on. Besides, being a poor lexicographic choice, this definition is quite misogynistic, as it reduces woman’s social role, her interests and ambitions to her biological function. Thus, it anchors a woman to the household, family and children and reproduces a traditional stereotypical perspective of a patriarchal society where woman is not to be seen outside of the family life context (Zavodskaya, 2019). The example sentence stating women’s equal rights with the men’s seems irrelevant and out of place after such a definition, as it is impossible to speak about any equality, when family, children and household are considered to be a female principal area of interest and responsibility, and other possible social roles are not even mentioned, as if there had been none. The second example ‘ woman-mother’ again points out the role allocated to a woman in the society run by men. It is worth noting that such an expression does not really exist in Russian. One the one hand, it is simply incorrect, as it is redundant (the word mat' [mother] in Russian implies a female parent and thus, it does not need the specification ‘woman’). On the other hand, such an expression can be found neither in the Russian National Corpus (https://ruscorpora.ru/new/) nor in Google. Therefore, it is doubtful that it exists and moreover, it is not clear where exactly the lexicographers found it and for which purpose they used it in the dictionary as an example sentence. The third example sentence is a cliché coming from the French expression ‘ Cherchez la femme’ and implying that a woman is a probable source of all the trouble. Although the dictionary notes this example with the label ‘humorous’, it is not quite clear what lexicographic reasoning can justify the reproduction of a negatively biased cliché on the pages of one of the most acclaimed monolingual dictionaries in the country. However, in many cases gender bias is bilateral and the examples that can be found under the first sense of the lemma man are no exception. There are two examples and both of them exploit more or less the same gender stereotype. The first one commanding somebody to be a man has a 39 lexicographer’s brief explanation (‘behave like a man is supposed to’). However, it is not explained in detail what is expected from the man’s behavior. The second refers to a ‘ man talk’, clarifying that it is a type of conversation considered appropriate for men. Once again, no explanation is provided with regards to what exactly is appropriate in the men’s conversation. One is left to guess and interpret these examples according to one’s own experience (Turina, 2020). However, as similar examples had already been used in Ushakov’s Dictionary before, it is not difficult to conceive what is really implied by these phrases. It is surprising how in 2006 the representation of ‘real’ man in the society has hardly changed (at least what concerns dictionaries) in comparison to 1930s. It still implies a strong masculine personality, most likely emotionless and cold-blooded, making a living for his family, operating in the society, solving problems, having constant man-to-man talks, involved in the important issues, while she, the one giving birth and breastfeeding, stays at home and arranges hearth and home for him. (Zadvornova, 2013, p. 34). Sense2 of the lemmas presents asymmetrical definitions. Woman is defined as someone who started ‘matrimonial relationship’, whereas a man is defined as an adult opposed to a boy. Although a woman here is once again defined through her relation to a man, it is only half of a problem. The definition is rather awkward for several reasons. Firstly, it is not quite clear what is meant by ‘matrimonial relationships’. If the authors refer to a married woman, then this definition is wrong, as in Russian the word woman is never used in the meaning of wife. One does not become a zhenchina [woman] when one gets married - one becomes a zhena [wife]. If what the authors really mean by matrimonial relationships is sexual intercourse, then this euphemism is not only quite awkward but also misleading and incorrect, as sex is not an exclusive realm of married couples. Even taking into account the fact that in the USSR there was no public discussion of any aspect of human sexuality including women’s sexuality, it is still strange that the authors failed to call things by their real name so many years later after the dissolution of the USSR (Karpov, 2020). We have seen that, for example, Ushakov’s Dictionary avoided this awkwardness. The dictionary also offers derivatives of the lemmas man and woman . The illustrative examples for the adjective zhenskii [female] are worth a special comment. Firstly, there is a negatively connoted example - female illnesses, whereas there is nothing like that for the derivative muzhskoi [male]. Unsurprisingly enough, male illnesses did not come into play. According to the example sentences, woman can either be associated with her primary biological functions (giving birth, breastfeeding) or with their degradation (female illnesses). The last example offers the name of the bank holiday in Russia – International Women’s Day, celebrated on March, 8. Around the world this day is celebrated 40 with demonstrations where women show their solidarity in the struggle for equal rights. However, in Russia there is a different tradition associated with this day. Women receive flowers, chocolate and other appropriately ‘female’ presents. They are usually praised for their femininity, elegance, tenderness and beauty on this day. For many people this day has a controversial meaning, as it is one time in the year when all gender stereotypes of the patriarchal society come to a climax. The younger generation disapproves of such a tradition viewing this celebration as meaningless and misogynistic. Their reason that women would rather have more equality all year round (and not only one day a year) is difficult to argue with (Anistratova, 2020). Being aware of the cultural aspects of this date in Russia, makes it easier to see negative associations and connotation behind this seemingly neutral example sentence. Among the derivatives of the word man there is one that stands out, namely a diminutive form muzhchinka , which can be roughly translated as a small man, or little man. It is a colloquial expression, used to talk about a man who is not real man enough or not masculine enough and does not correspond to a traditional perception of the appropriate male behavior or outlook. The dictionary consistently reproduces one and the same stereotype of male role model. The examples of the first word sense point out the importance to be a real man and behave in accordance with the normative gender perceptions existing in the society. Anyone diverging from this cliché is considered a ‘muzhchinka’ , not man enough. Although the dictionary indicated this derivation as humorous, it can potentially be of a derogatory nature as well, depending on the context it is used in (Osmak, 2012, p. 61) Summing it up, we can see that one of the latest dictionary editions of one of the most famous and acclaimed dictionaries of Russian contains a good number of bilateral gender stereotypes. These stereotypes are present not only in examples, but also in definitions. They portray women exclusively in the family and household context viewing them entirely through their biological functions. Men’s representation is also heavily loaded with gender bias. Unfortunately, as there are no digital copy of the first dictionary editions available, it makes it impossible to compare this dictionary with earlier ones and to analyse the differences if any. 41 2.4. Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language (in 17 volumes), later on the Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language 2.4.1. General information 15 The first 17-volume edition of this dictionary included 120 480 headwords (Kruglikova, 2012, p. 179). It was published in the period from 1948 (1950) 16 to 1965. The dictionary project was firstly envisioned and discussed in 1937 due to a necessity to create a profound lexicographic work, which would provide contemporary Russian language with a comprehensive description, with special focus on the new vocabulary, that emerged after the Revolutions, the Civil War and the creation of the new Soviet State. However, the project realization was postponed by the WWII. The dictionary describes the Russian literary language starting from Pushkin time to the present day (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 117). Later the dictionary was revised and reedited twice. The second edition occurred in 1991 and was supposed to increase its size in comparison to the previous one reaching up 20 volumes and including a block of new vocabulary. However, due to the social and financial instability in the country in the given period the processes was not completed and the project was terminated after the fifth volume. The third edition has started in 2004 and still continues up to the present moment. So far 26 volumes have been issued and lexicographic work is expected to be accomplished in the near future ( 'Slovar sovremmenogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka’ [Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language], 2020). This dictionary is of a normative character and it ‘maintains and focuses on several norms: grammatical, morphologic, syntactic, semantic, orthographic, orthoepic, wordformational, wordcombinational, phraseological, idiomatic, stylistic, syntagmatic and paradigmatic metamorphosis, correct mode of expression in reading-writing-speaking strategies of contemporary Russian literary language etc.’ (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 16). The dictionary structure is not strictly alphabetical: the word nesting is widely applied, as the lexicographers did not aim to create simply a ‘list of words’, but were determined to show the ‘system of word usages, related etymologically and semantically’, pointing out that even though the alphabetical word order ‘helps to conduct dictionary enquiries faster’, at the same time it ‘disrupts natural relations 15 Information in this section comes from various sources: Karamian and Golovan (2012); Kruglikova (2012); Kosteva (2014). 16 Two dates are provided here as the dictionary staring point, because the critical literature reviews on the topic mention two different dates. 42 between words’. (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 121). The example of such nesting is illustrated in Figure 4 for the lemma maetnost. Figure 4. Word nesting in the Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language in 17 volumes (1950-1965) Source: Chernyshev (1948-1965) Unlike the Ushakov’s Dictionary and Ozhegov’s Dictionary, this lexicon is of a more descriptive approach: the earlier lexicographic works called for the use of only one supposedly correct option, whereas this lexicon recommends a more appropriate option without the strict prohibition. It also lists obsolete, colloquial, regional and vulgar forms using the system of lexicographic labels to specify the peculiarities of their use (Kruglikova, 2012, p. 184). As the authors point out, the dictionary only provides advice and recommendation and it does not serve to prohibit any word usages or, on the contrary, to force their implementation in the language’: ‘Following a necessity to express a thought in the context of artistic and scientific creativity of dialectal words, obsolete expressions and neologisms can be reinvented and reused’ (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 121). The other important aspect of this dictionary project is a wide use of citation and illustrative examples in order to help the readers to 43 understand the meaning and the specifics of the use better as well as to provide a proof for each sense (Chernychev, 1950, volume1, p. XIII). During the work on the first three volumes of the first edition the editors had to confront the influence of Marrism, also known as Japhetic theory. This new study about language origin, developed by a Stalin’s Georgian compatriot N. Marr, was a pseudoscientific but ideologically correct school of linguistics, firmly established in the USSR in the period from 1920s to 1940s and supported by the government: ‘The Japhetic theory rejected, among other things, the Indo-European, Semitic, FinnoUgric etc. language families. Academician Marr claimed that all the world’s languages were derived from a Japhetic proto-language, spoken at one time in the Caucasus. Marr advanced the fantastic claim that all words of all languages go back to the four elements sal, ber, jon, rosh’ (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 115) . This theory crippled the developments of the Soviet lexicography for many years to come, as all the lexicographic decisions and strategies had to be in line with the Marrist ideology 17 . It had destroyed the first volume of Ushakov’s Dictionary by strongly criticizing it and later it affected the quality of the first three volumes of this new lexicographic endeavour and they had to be fully revised before the publication, which eventually became possible only in 1950 after Marrism’s official dethronement (Nikitin, 2016, p. 27). The latest dictionary edition is claimed to be fully cleared from the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology, after many lexemes were revised to ensure that they would be treated in a neutral, objective way. It is also claimed to be the most comprehensive monolingual dictionary of Russian, encompassing the time period from the early 19th century to the early 21th century (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 179). The initial dictionary size was declared to be 150 000, but it is surely going to be exceeded. The editorial team states that the new lexicon follows the principles of the original edition, but at the same that it is rather a new independent lexicographic work than simply a reedition of the previous volumes (Kruglikova, 2012, p. 179). The latest volumes of the third dictionary rely both on the card index (inherited from the original edition and greatly expanded since then) and digital corpus of texts, even though the latter became beneficial only for the later volumes (Karamian & Golovan, 2012, p. 180). 2.4.2. Dictionary Analysis In the following section the dictionary articles from two editions are going to be investigated: firstly, we will analyse the dictionary articles for the headwords zhenschina [woman] and muzhchina [man] coming from the original edition (from the volume 4 printed in 1955, page 82 and volume 6 17 Ushakov and later Ozhegov also had to confront the influence of marrism. 44 printed in 1957, page 1349) and then respective articles found in the 3rd and latest edition of the dictionary (volume 5 printed in 2005, page 612 and volume 10 printed in 2008, page 479). Following the methodology applied in the previous sections, the dictionary articles for the lemma zhenschina [woman] and the lemma muzhchina [man] are to be presented in Table 4 in Russian followed by their appropriate English translation. Table 4. Entries for Lemmas Woman and Man in the Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language in 17 volumes (1950-1965) ЖЕНЩИНА, -ы, ж. МУЖЧИНА, -ы, м. 118. Лицо, противополагаемое по полу мужчине. Женщине в СССР предоставляются равные права с мужчиной во всех областях хозяйственной, государственной, культурной и общественно-политической жизни. Конституция СССР, ст. 122. В любви она так нежна, во всех её отношениях ко всем столько мягкости, ласкового внимания – словом, она женщина! Гончаров. Обломов. У костра сидели двое – мужчина и женщина. Женщина подобрала ноги под юбку, засунула кисти рук в рукава драпового пальто. А. Н. Толстой. Хмурое утро. 1. Лицо, противополагаемое по полу женщине. Кто же родился мужчиною, тому рядиться в юбку странно и напрасно. Пушкин. Домик в Коломне. В направлении к Невскому шли смуглая дама и бледноватый мужчина с плохо рыжею бородою. Чернышевский. Пролог. Женщин в отряде было всего две.. Все остальные – мужчины в возрасте от 18 до 25 лет. Линьков. Война в тылу врага. || Лицо этого пола, отличающееся твердостью, мужеством. Но к чему же эта злоба, эти дрожащие губы, этот яд в глазах? Или, может быть, иначе нельзя? Нельзя быть мужчиной, бойцом, и остаться кротким и мягким? Тургенев. Накануне. 18 In the fourth volume, containing the dictionary article for the lemma woman, no numbering was used to introduce different word senses. However, the sixth volume containing the lemma man used the numbering to differentiate between senses. Therefore, the author of this work considered it possible for the convenience of the analysis to attribute the sense numbering to the dictionary article of the lemma woman. 45 2. Взрослая, вышедшая из состояния подростка. [Лизе] было тогда семнадцать лет.. И, между тем, в тот самый вечер, при мне, началось в ней то внутреннее, тихое брожение, которое предшествует превращению ребенка в женщину. Тургенев. Дневник лишнего человека. Как медленно развиваетесь вы в женщину! Перед вами свобода, жизнь, любовь, счастье – а вы разбираете тон, манеры! Где же человек, где женщина в вас? Гончаров. Обрыв. 3. Состоящая или состоявшая в браке. Противоположное: девица. [Глафира:] Поможешь мне? Ты меня видишь девушкой, посмотри женщиной, что из меня выйдет. А. Островский. Волки и овцы - Тяжело мне, доктор. Гадко мне, – ответил тихо Бобров. – Пустяки, пустяки, идем! Будьте мужчиной, плюньте. Куприн. Молох. 2. Взрослый человек, вышедший из состояния мальчика-подростка. Пете было весело оттого, что, уехав из дома мальчиком, он вернулся молодцоммужчиной. Л. Толстой. Война и мир. WOMAN MAN 1. An individual, who is opposed by gender to a man. Women in the USSR are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, 1. An individual, who is opposed by gender to a woman. For that person who is born a man it is strange and dangerous to wear a skirt. Pushkin. Little 52 1.20 An individual whose sex is opposite to the male one. Married woman. Beautiful woman. Middle-aged woman. There were two people sitting by the fire – a man and a woman. The woman hid her legs under her skirt and put her hands in the sleeves of her woolen coat. A.N. Tolstoi. Gloomy Morning. There are things, sometimes small details, that only women notice. Voevodin. This Strong Weak Woman . || A female person as the embodiment of personality traits and characteristics of this sex. How slowly you are becoming a woman. Before you lie freedom, life, love, happiness, and you talk of tone and manners. Where is the human soul, the woman in you? Goncharov. The Precipice. A woman awakening in her taught her the prettiest movements and that elusive form of coquetry she used when she wanted to be adored. N. Ostrovsky. Born by the storm. Business woman. This time she was playing a role of a business woman, the director of a company. Ganina. Golden Loneliness. 2. A female who is married or has been married. [Glafira]: Will you help me? You know me as a girl, but see what comes of me as a woman. Goncharov. Wolves and Sheep. 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the female one. For that person who is born a man it is strange and dangerous to wear a skirt. Pushkin. Little House in Kolomna. There were only two women in the detachment. The rest consisted of men aged 18-25 years. Linkov. War in the Enemy’s Rear. || An individual of this sex, who is distinguished by strength and courage. Isn’t it possible to be a man, a hero, and to remain soft and gentle? Turgenev. On the Eve. 'I feel shabby, doctor. I feel terrible,’ said Bobrov quietly. ‘Nonsense, come along! Be a man, snap your fingers at the whole thing.’ Kuprin. Moloch. Let’s be men, - said my father slightly slapping below my back and got back to (fixing) the shoes. Turin. The Front Line. (have) a man talk. (Talk) in a way appropriate to men; authoritatively, boldly. – Madam, let's have a man talk. М. Koltsov. Spanish Journal. 2. An adult human being of this sex, as opposed to an adolescent or a boy. Pete was happy because after having left his home as a boy he came back there as a dashing 20 Once again no numeration is used in this article of the dictionary. The author of this paper applied numeration to ease the analysis. 53 Do you think she is a girl or a woman? – asked me Pal Palych, when we left the house. Nagibin. Night Guest. man. L. Tolstoi. War and Peace. The Antambahoaka are probably the only people in Madagascar who preserved the tradition of the mass initiation for men. S. Kulik. When the Spirits Draw Back. Source: Adapted from the Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language (2004-present) The dictionary articles of the lemma woman and the lemma man in the new edition have symmetrical structure – two senses and one subsense – and they are equal with regard to the space distribution with the lemma woman occupying 36 lines and the lemma man – 34 lines. By and large, the microstructure of the dictionary articles did not go through any major changes in comparison with the first edition. The number of examples was increased (although the original examples were mostly preserved). The lemma woman obtained a new subcomment on sense – ‘a female person as the embodiment of personality traits and characteristics of this sex’ . In addition to that, two collocations were added. Apart from these minor changes, everything else was left without any alterations. The definitions were not revised and the articles were definitely never evaluated from the gender bias perspective. The new subcomment on sense clearly follows the lexicographic tradition of Ozhegov’s and Ushakov’s Dictionaries by depicting a socially acceptable idea of what a woman should be. Despite the editors’ claim of the dictionary’s innovative nature, the inclusion of this biased subcomment is a step back if compared to the original version, where this assumption was present only in the implicit form. The newly added sample sentences depict women through their relation to men (married woman) , judgement of their appearance (beautiful woman) and their age (middle-aged woman) . They authors made an attempt to show a woman in her professional surrounding (business woman) , but step back by saying she was just ‘ playing a role of a business woman’. Social norm of masculine behaviour is shown with the help of the collocation ‘(have) a man talk’ : according to the explanation, it is a type of a conversation that is bold and authoritative, which on the one hand, reflects the stereotypes existing in the society and on the other hand, reinforces them by reproducing them in the dictionary: ‘Fixing roles in symbol and in reality so that men do not take charge of children or do domestic work because that role is regarded as feminine and of low status and women do not seek careers and satisfying work outside the home will tend to promote an unending cycle of one sex 54 dominating the other, and perpetuating the battle of the sexes as opposed to their mutual liberation’ (Gershuny, 1975, p. 941). It is clear that a considerable time has already passed from the moment of the publication of these volumes. The lemma woman can be found in the fifth dictionary volume published in 2005 and lemma man – in the tenth volume published in 2010. From the modern perspective these two entries seem biased and bilaterally discriminating. 2.5. Small Academic Dictionary by A. P. Evgenieva 2.5.1. General information 21 This four-volume dictionary is similar to the Ushakov’s four-volume lexicon. Published during 1957-1961, the first dictionary edition contained 83 016 word. The revised and updated second edition was issued twenty years later. There was no further revised reprints. This dictionary encompassing the time period from Pushkin to the present day is, like all previously analysed lexicons, of a normative type: ‘It is a normative dictionary. The normative character of the lexicographic treatment is reflected in a) the selection of lemmata constituting the dictionary macrostructure, b) senses selection and their lexicographic description c) stylistic labeling indicating the word usage d) citation, illustrating the word usage e) grammar forms of the lemma f) word stress indication g) spelling’ (Evgenieva, 1999, p. 6). The aim of the dictionary is to ‘show the current state of the vocabulary of the literary Russian language providing the fullest description of its lexicon’ (Evgenieva, 1999, p. 6). The editors aimed at giving a lexicographic description to the new lexemes reflecting social, economic and cultural changes happening in the society in 1940s-1950s. The dictionary also contains a ‘widely used 19th century vocabulary necessary for the comprehension of classic literature, journalism and science of that period’ (Evgenieva, 1999, p. 6). The second edition aimed at reflecting the new vocabulary of 1960s-1970s as well: ‘During the work on the second edition the whole dictionary was revised. The main goal was to include new vocabulary and new word senses that appeared during the last 20 years as well as to update illustrative examples, showing the word usage in the language.’ The system of stylistic labels was also expanded (Evgenieva, 1999, p. 5). The dictionary microstructure includes a lemma, a comment on stress, a comment on grammatical forms (nouns have a comment on grammatical gender), a part of speech comment, followed by a paraphrase of meaning with a lexicographic label when applicable. The senses are 21 The information about the dictionary comes mainly from the dictionary foreword and usage instructions (Evgenieva, 1999, volume I, p. 5-14) 55 separated with || sign. Word sense is followed by the comment on the use where applicable (e.g. an impersonal verb form). The dictionary also includes idioms and collocations. 2.5.2. Dictionary Analysis The dictionary articles analysed below (see Table 6) come from the first (lemma woman ) and the second (lemma man ) volumes of the fourth edition, published in 1999. This edition is a complete copy of a second revised edition. The lemma woman is found on page 478 of volume I, whereas lemma man – on page 309 of volume II. Table 6. Entries for the lemmas Woman and Man in the Small Academic Dictionary by A.P.Evgenieva (1999) ЖЕНЩИНА, -ы, ж. МУЖЧИНА, -ы, м. Лицо, противоположное по полу мужчине. Молодая женщина. Замужняя женщина. Женщина средних лет. Женщина и мужчина имеют в СССР равные права. Конституция СССР. || Лицо женского пола как воплощение определенных свойств, качеств. Как медленно развиваетесь вы в женщину! Перед вами свобода, жизнь, любовь, счастье – а вы разбираете тон, манеры! Где же человек, где женщина в вас? Гончаров. Обрыв. Уже проснувшаяся в ней женщина подсказывала ей самые красивые движения и ту неуловимую форму кокетства, к которой она прибегала из желания нравиться. Н. Островский. Лицо, противоположное по полу женщине. На бале, говорят, как солнце вы блистали. Мужчины ахали, красавицы шептали. Пушкин. Борис Годунов. В направлении к Невскому шли смуглая дама и бледноватый мужчина с плохо рыжею бородою. Чернышевский. Пролог. || Взрослый человек этого пола в отличие от юноши, мальчика. [Я] не мог надивиться, как три или четыре года могли превратить бодрого мужчину в хилого старика. Пушкин. Станционный смотритель. Давно ли то было? А дети росли. И вот они, вправду, мужчины. У самого края советской земли ведут боевые машины. Твардовский. Семья кузнеца. || 56 Рожденные бурей. || Лицо женского пола, состоящее или состоявшее в браке. [Глафира:] Поможешь мне? Ты меня видишь девушкой, посмотри женщиной, что из меня выйдет. А. Островский. Волки и овцы. Лицо мужского пола, отличающееся твердостью, мужеством. - Тяжело мне, доктор. Гадко мне, – ответил тихо Бобров. – Пустяки, пустяки, идем! Будьте мужчиной, плюньте. Куприн. Молох. WOMAN MAN An individual whose sex is opposite to the male one. Young woman. Married woman. Middle-aged woman. Women and men in the USSR have equal rights. Constitution of the USSR. || A female person as the embodiment of certain personality traits and characteristics. How slowly you are becoming a woman. Before you lie freedom, life, love, happiness, and you talk of tone and manners. Where is the human soul, the woman in you? Goncharov. The precipice. A woman awakening in her taught her the prettiest movements and that elusive form of coquetry she used when she wanted to be adored. N. Ostrovsky. Born by the Storm. || An individual whose sex is opposite to the female one. You are said to be shining like the sun at the ball. Men were gasping, women were whispering. Pushkin. Boris Godunov.22 In the direction of the Nevsky (prospect) were walking a swarthy lady and a pale man with a thin red beard. Chernyshevsky. Prologue. || An adult human being of this sex, as opposed to an adolescent or a boy. I was surprised how three or four years could turn an energetic man into a weak elderly. Pushkin. The Station Master. How long ago did it happen? Meanwhile the children grew up. Now they are men. Driving military cars at the end of the Soviet land.23 Tvardovsky. Blacksmith’s Family. || An male individual, who is distinguished by 22 This is a poetic text in the original. 23 A poem in the original. 57 A female who is married or has been married. [Glafira]: Will you help me? You know me as a girl, but see what comes of me as a woman. Goncharov. Wolves and Sheep. strength and courage. 'I feel shabby, doctor. I feel terrible,’ said Bobrov quietly. ‘Nonsense, come along! Be a man, snap your fingers at the whole thing.’ Kuprin. Moloch. Source: Adapted from the Small Academic Dictionary by A.P.Evgenieva (1999) From the quantitative perspective both lemmas have received an equal lexicographic treatment with the space distribution of 20 dictionary lines for each lemma. It is surprising to see a strong similarity of these dictionary articles with the ones from the Great Academic Dictionary, especially with its third edition, analysed in the previous paragraph. Not only the lexicographers distinguished exactly the same word senses, but the paraphrases of meaning are presented in almost exactly the same words. Although sample sentences differ a bit, there are some of them that are used in all three dictionaries. On the one hand, it may be explained by the fact that all dictionaries were published not only by one organization - the Institute for the Russian Language, but by almost the same editorial team: Barkhudarov, Vinogradov, Obnorsky participated in the work on the first edition of the Great Academic Dictionary and later in the work on the Small Academic Dictionary. There was one lexicographic tradition, one school of thought, one approach to dictionary making and even one and the same card-index. On the other hand, it is not quite clear what would be the purpose of reprinting one and the same lexicographic definitions and similar example sentences in different dictionaries and especially in the third edition of the Great Academic Dictionary, which, in fact, has been published in another country and in another century. For example, the lexicographers currently working on the Great Academic Dictionary have claimed that the card-index containing the lexemes and citations currently includes more than 8 000 000 cards. But apparently the newly added citations have not been used during the work on these two particular dictionary articles, which still preserve sample sentences picked out in 1950s. The fact that there are very few differences between the Small Academic dictionary and its predecessor, the first edition of the Great Academic Dictionary, means that all the gender bias existing in the latter dictionary is present in the other lexicon, too. All senses are intact and thus, all depictions of stereotypical roles men and women should play are intact, too. The lexicographers transferred the lexicographic data from the previous works without any critical revision and thus all the gender bias, prejudices and stereotypes present in the first edition of the Great Academic Dictionary had made their way to the Small Academic Dictionary with impunity. 58 2.6. The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. Kuznetsov 2.6.1. General Information 24 It is a one-volume dictionary including around 130 000 headwords. Firstly published in 1998, it was reprinted several times with the last revised reissue dating back to 2014. The dictionary was developed over the period 1990-1998 by a group of Soviet-Russian linguists and scholars from the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Sergei Kuznetsov. The dictionary is largely based on the previous lexicographic works of the Soviet lexicographers with the incorporation of encyclopaedic data and data from card indexes. During the dictionary development process the computer technologies were used, as the lexicographic data was stored in the computer database. However, no corpus material was available at that time, as Russian National Corpus was created much later, only in 2004. The dictionary provides the following types of information: definition, grammar, etymology, register, pronunciation and spelling as well as illustrative examples and a comment on phraseology ( Ekspertnoje zakluchenie [Expert Report], (n.d.), pp. 2-3). The authors point out that their work continues the scholarly traditions of the Soviet-Russian lexicography, especially the ones developed during the work on the Small Academic Dictionary and the 17-volume Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language (Kuznetsov, 2002, pp. 3-4). As a matter of fact, all three dictionaries were created by a scientific group of one and the same academic organization and they are based on the selfsame card-index. Despite this fact, the new one-volume dictionary is claimed to be an independent scientific endeavour: the most comprehensive of all three, it provides a consistent and detailed description of Russian vocabulary, its word meanings, morphological, stylistic and syntactic characteristics of its lexemes. According to the critical reviews, all together these dictionaries make a triad of Russian lexicography, consisting of the one-volume dictionary, the fourvolume one and the 17-volume lexicon ( Ekspertnoje zakluchenie [Expert Report], (n.d.), p. 2). The main objective of this dictionary is to give a full lexeme description (spelling, pronunciation, etymology, derivative forms, meaning, register, collocations) and also to indicate historic, aesthetic, symbolic connotations a lexeme may have. The dictionary is aimed at lay users as well as professionals, basically, at anyone who learns Russian or is interested in the Russian language and culture (Kuznetsov, 2002, p. 3). 24 Most of the information in this section comes from the dictionary foreword (Kuznetsov, 2000, pp. 3-19) 59 The dictionary presents vocabulary of all styles and literary genres of the Russian language. The main criterion for the lexeme inclusion in the dictionary macrostructure is its use in fiction, science fiction, media as well as in oral speech. Besides general vocabulary belonging to literary Russian, the dictionary presents the basic terminology of the modern day science and technology as well as vocabulary belonging to industry, culture and social life in Russia. The key vocabulary of economics, history, philosophy, politics, art are presented in the dictionary in the ideologically free and unbiased manner. There is a significant amount of vocabulary included in the lexicon, which has never before made its way in any of the Soviet dictionaries, for example, new, recently coined words and expressions; vocabulary of astrology, parapsychology, folk medicine, religion and so on; jargon, swear and derogatory words and expressions. (Kuznetsov, 2002, p. 3) 2.6.2. Dictionary Analysis The dictionary articles for lemmas zhenschina [woman] and muzhchina [man] analysed below (see Table 7) come from the edition printed in 2000. The entry for the lemma zhenschina [woman] is to be found on page 303 and for muzhchina (man) on page 562. Table 7. Entries for the lemmas Woman and Man in the Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. Kuznetsov (2000) ЖЕНЩИНА -ы; ж. МУЖЧИНА -ы; м. 1. Лицо, противоположное по полу мужчине. Молодая женщина. Женщина средних лет. Замужняя женщина. // Лицо женского пола как воплощение определённых свойств, качеств. Превращение ребёнка в женщину. Выросла и превратилась в красивую женщину. В неловких движениях девочки всё-таки 1. Лицо, противоположное по полу женщине. Высокий, красивый, молодой мужчина. Мужчина преклонных лет. Беседа мужчин. Находиться среди мужчин. Кокетничать с мужчинами. // Взрослый человек этого пола в отличие от юноши, мальчика. Стать мужчиной. Мужчины и юноши поздравляют женщин. Вернуться после службы в армии мужчиной. 60 угадывается будущая женщина. 2. Лицо женского пола, состоящее или состоявшее в браке. Стать женщиной. Она девушка или уже женщина? 2. Лицо мужского пола как воплощение определённых свойств, качеств (суровости, твёрдости, честности и т.п.). Настоящий мужчина. Будьте мужчиной. Из него не получится мужчина. Вести себя, как мужчина. <Мужчинский, -ая, - ое. Народноразговорное и шутливое. Мужчинский голос. Мужчинский характер. WOMAN MAN 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the male one. Young woman Middle-aged woman Married woman // A female person viewed as the embodiment of certain qualities. The transformation from a child into a woman. She grew up and turned into a beautiful woman. In the clumsy movements of the child one could see a future woman. 2. A female person who is married or has been married. To become a woman. Is she yet a girl or a woman? 1. An individual whose sex is opposite to the female one. Tall, handsome, young man. Elderly man. Men’s talk Be among men. Flirt with men. // An adult male person as opposed to a boy, lad. To become a man. Men and boys congratulate women. To return from army being a man. 2. A male person viewed as the embodiment of certain qualities (sternness, toughness, honesty, etc.) 61 Real man. Be a man! He is never going to become a man. To behave like a man. Source: Adapted from the Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. Kuznetsov (2000) If we look at this lexicographic data from the quantitative point of view, we can see that each headword is treated more or less equally in regard to space distribution. The dictionary articles have symmetrical structure: each headword has two senses with the first one having a subsense and a more or less equal number of the examples. The only difference is that the lemma man includes one derivative form, whereas the lemma woman does not indicate any derivations. Let us take a closer look at the lexicographic treatment of the headwords by analysing the first sense of the respective headwords and the corresponding examples. In the first sense the headwords are defined in the similar way: lemma zhenschina [woman] - through a word muzhchina [man] and lemma muzhchina [man] - through a word zhenschina [woman]. This approach to the definition of the first sense of these headwords has been inherited from the Soviet lexicography, as this opposition has been present in each and every dictionary we have analysed and this lexicon is no exclusion, even though, it is a relatively modern one. The examples illustrating the first sense represent adjective-noun type and are of particular interest, as on the one hand, the adjectives in them seem to be quite randomly attributed having no lexicographic or linguistic reasoning behind them and, on the other hand, here the first asymmetry occurs when woman is described as married, but man is not. It is worth noting that such discrepancy not only demonstrates the secondary role of the woman in the patriarchal society where she is always defined through her relation to a man, but also shows the lexicographic weakness of the author’s approach. It is important to point out that in the Russian language, unlike English and German, there are two different adjectives for ‘married’: zamuzhniya [married] 25 can only be used in reference to a woman and zhenatyj [married] can only be used to talk about a man’s marital status. Thus, including not only zamuzhniya zhenschina [married woman], but also zhenatyj muzhchina [married man] as an 25 Zamuzhniya [married] (used for a woman) is a derivative form of a word muzh [husband] , which literally means the one behind a husband. Zhenatyj [married] (used for a man) derives from a word zhena [wife] and means one with a wife . These two words are not interchangeable in Russian, even though it is a common mistake to mix them up. 68 2.8. Preliminary Conclusions Having analysed six monolingual dictionaries of Russian, I have found out that all of them not only contain numerous examples of gender stereotypes and gender bias, but also certain patterns in the depiction of gender roles. These patterns do not change from dictionary to dictionary, from one lexicographer to another, always staying the same. In this sense, we can say that these patterns are omnipresent and they comply with an idea of ‘omnipresence of gender as a created system of difference’ (Deutsch, 2007, p. 109). So, what are these patterns? Firstly, they depict women and men as essentially different, opposite groups, whose polarity is determined by sex categories they belong to. Thus, the dictionaries convey an ‘invariance of the belief in essential differences between men and women’(Deutsch, 2007, p. 109). Secondly, these ‘fundamental’ differences manifest themselves not only at the biological level (even though the priority of her biological functions is emphasized for a woman), but on the psychological and personal level as well. Men and women are attributed different personal characteristics as essential of their gender: women – soft, tender, gentle; men – tough, bold, authoritative. Dictionaries maintain the opposition between these two groups by showing men as sensible and women as sensitive, men as rational and women as emotional, men as mature physically and psychologically, women as forever soft and mild. Thirdly, gender differences also determine the sphere of interest and activity of each group. Woman operates in the domestic, family world. She breastfeeds and raises children. Outside her household, there is really not anything interesting for her. Her professional activities are limited to domestic help and prostitution (in some rare cases, she might be a ‘woman-doctor’), whereas man is hardly ever depicted as a father, husband or son. He lives in a big interesting world, where he can be a real man and compete with other males. He goes to war and serves in the army. Heroic deeds are his realm of activity. All in all, woman is always found in an inferior position. She is often shown as an object of man’s sexual desire. Even if she has some rights, she is not in the active position to exercise them, as she is depicted as a passive recipient of a man’s good will. In this lexicographic landscape men always follow ‘masculine norms that prescribe breadwinning and exemption from housework’ (Deutsch, 2007, p. 110). They also take place in the constant gender display and are victims of the gender role attributed to them. The importance to maintain a real man high status is enormous and in fact, playing this role is the primary duty of a man. 69 Any deviance will be considered as a failure, as normative conceptions of femininity or masculinity as they shown in the monolingual dictionaries of Russian are very narrow and rigid, not leaving any space for diversity. Thus, they have negative impact on both groups. If we follow the idea that ‘doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological’ and then using them to ‘reinforce the ‘essentialness’ of gender’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 137), than we can come to the conclusion that all of the analysed dictionaries are highly involved in the process of doing gender, as they repeat old gendered notions, already presented in the previous dictionaries and thus reinforce them over and over again. Interestingly enough, these gendered conceptions of femininity and masculinity have not changed at all over the time and have been reproduced in a more or less intact state over a period of 85 years. They have survived the dissolution of the USSR, the mayhem of post–Soviet 90s Russia, political reforms and social changes. It was surprising for me to come across a dictionary article in one of latest academic dictionaries of Russian that is almost fully identical to the dictionary article found in the lexicons published in the mid-20th century. In the course of the analysis it was also possible to see that an act of doing gender can be performed at different levels in the dictionary: sometimes gendered representations of femininity and masculinity are explicitly integrated into definitions. Sometimes they are presented implicitly, only through illustrative examples. On the whole, the dictionaries reflect the social norms and gender expectations of the patriarchal society with its asymmetrical division of household labour, with men ‘doing dominance’ and women ‘doing deference’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 146). Unfortunately, none of the dictionaries took a gender perspective into account and revised their data against gender bias. Lexicographers preferred to provide false lexicographic data for the sake of compliance with societal gender conceptions, as the case of lemma zhenschina [woman] in the sense ‘one who lost their virginity’ demonstrated. It is indisputable that the problem of gender equality is very serious in Russia, as women there still lack some basics rights. For example, domestic violence has been factually legalized by the state, following decriminalization law adoption in 2017 (Ott & Odynova, 2020), women are still officially banned from 100 professions (Berkhead, 2020), their abortion right is being continuously and constantly limited (Lokshina, 2020). Sexual harassment in schools, universities and work place are considered to be normal and even when victims speak up against their abusers and about their 70 traumatic experiences, it leads neither to legal consequences nor to the reputation loss for the offender (Yapporova, 2020). Motherhood is still considered the main purpose of the woman’s life, especially by the older generation, and without fulfilling it, woman cannot be considered a full member of society ( ‘Chasiki-to tikajut!’ [‘Your clock is ticking!’], 2020). Taking a poor state of women’s rights into account helps us understand possible reasons for the presence of gender stereotypes in the dictionaries in almost unaltered state since 1935. It also helps us understand the importance of critical voices speaking about gender bias both in the societies and in dictionaries. I hope that my work will contribute to the discussion of the problem in the public as well as academic discourse. Without a doubt, there is a strong need for the revision of lexicographic data from the gender perspective and creation of a gender neutral lexicon in the future. 71 CHAPTER 3 3.1. General Conclusion Development of this research project enabled me to get a new perspective on the field of theoretical and practical lexicography. It also helped me to rethink and reevaluate what had been taught to us in the classroom and what we had read in our textbooks. I should admit that the questions of gender, gender bias or any other kind of bias were never really raised during our Master programme. On the contrary, I was misled to a certain degree by the discussions of the Dictionary, its unquestionable and undoubted authority as well as presumed objectivity of computational, corpusdriven modern day lexicographic practice. We heard funny stories about lexicographer of bygone days and their enormous prescriptivism. They lived so long ago, but of course, prescriptivism is not a problem nowadays when we have corpus-data at our hand. Or so we were told. Thanks to all the research on the topic I conducted, all the articles and papers I read, I see now that such approach is very simplified, since it does not take into account the problem of biased corpusdata (and what to do with it). Neither it reflects the fact that it is still a human lexicographer that is to make a decision and to choose from numerous corpus-examples the ones that will make their way into a dictionary. It also does not pay any critical attention to the way how we are used to constructing our lexicographic histories with women voices still excluded and underrepresented. It leaves out much of the public discussion around the most outrageous examples of sexism discovered now and then even in the best of lexicons. It does not really say anything about the problem why we still presume that these examples of sexism in dictionaries are okay. I believe that all of these are important questions to take into account. They were disregarded and were never allocated any room in our curriculum. But now I know that there is no Dictionary and there is no unified and conformed history of lexicography. There are many voices and perspectives which still have to be embraced. Therefore, our approach to lexicographic practice and to teaching lexicography should be more diverse and inclusive, more comprehensive and critical. 72 3.2. Limitations Current research paper, as any other research project, has certain limitations, which have to be taken into account during the result evaluation process. The first limitation is associated with the a restricted access to the resources, i.e. dictionaries and critical literature. As this paper was written in Portugal and partly in Germany during pandemic period with all libraries shut down and travel restrictions put on, I did not have any chance to get access to the printed versions of dictionaries of Russian or to go to the library and compare and different editions of the same dictionary. I had to make use of the electronic materials available in e-libraries, repositories and other digital collections and therefore, it was problematic to get hold of the whole scope of work. Another serious issue is a certain lack of English-language materials in the library of the University of Minho. There was a number of articles, both in English and in German, not present in the library collections. To make matters worse, UMinho students are not eligible for a free access to such Internet resources as jstor.org, for example, that offer a good number of research papers and normally can be used freely in the academic purposes. Second serious limitation is associated with the design of my research itself. Taking a look only on two entries in each and every dictionary turned out to be fruitful in my case, but it’s worth remembering that it is still a very limited view and even though, it lets one see a general tendency, it fails to provide a comprehensive picture. Third limitation is associated with the fact that my work has certainly been influenced by my own opinions, experiences and attitudes. Thus, it engrains a certain degree of bias, too. Despite the fact that I did my best to keep an objective researcher’s view of things, the full degree of objectivity and neutrality is unattainable and it is important to admit it. Thus, I shall admit that my feminist position and my experience of life in the patriarchal society of Russia have certainly influenced my perspective reflected in the work. 73 3.3. Discussion on Future Work The topic of gender representation in Russian-language lexicographic works has great potential, as it has not been researched yet. The potential focus of the future work on the topic could incorporate the following aspects. Firstly, it would be beneficial to include an overview of historical development of gender equality and women’s right in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. Incorporating this perspective into the paper would allow us to put our lexicographic data into the historical-social context and better understand the reasoning behind certain lexicographic choices. Fortunately, this field has been pretty well studied and inspiration for the future work is certain to be found in such books as Living Gender after Communism (Johnson, J. & Robinson, J., 2007), Gender Violence in Russia (Johnson, J. 2009), Gender, Generation and Identity in Contemporary Russia (Pilkington, 2003), The Palgrave Handbook of Women and Gender in Twentieth-Century Russia and the Soviet Union (Ilic, 2018), Women at the Gates. Gender, Politics and Planning in Soviet Industrialisation (Goldman, 2002) and many other. Another aspect, which is worth consideration when planning future research in the field, is a possibility of increasing the research scope. The core of this paper is analysis of entries lemmas woman and man , but in the future it would be beneficial to include more lexicographic data for inspection. There are many ways how it is possible to be done and it is important to conduct a profound study beforehand to see which research methodology would suit the purposes of this research in the best way. It would be also beneficial to analyse dictionary data quantitatively (as well as qualitatively) with the help of some computer-assisted tools as it would enable me to take more data into account and thus to make my research results more trustworthy and more representative. It is also important to include more dictionaries, more different editions of the same dictionary in the study, as many of the dictionaries published in the period of 30-50s are still in print nowadays having undergone many revisions and reprints and it would be interesting to take a look, if there were any changes within different editions. Conducting current research, I have also got quite interesting in such aspect of possible research direction as historiography of lexicography. Thus, it would be really great to get a chance to see how history of lexicography was constructed in the USSR, what were the key participants influencing its canonic version as we know it and if in reality there were any women involved in lexicographic work and what was their contribution. . 74 References Monolingual Dictionaries Of Russian and Corpus of the Russian Language Chernyshev, M. (1948-1965). Slovar sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka (v 17 tomah) [Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language (in 17 volumes)]. (1st ed.). Moscow – Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Dahl, V. (2006). Tolkovij slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka. [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language]. Moscow: Ripol Classic. Evgeneva, A. (1999). Slovar russkogo yazyka v chetyreh tomah [Dictionary of the Russian Language in 4 volumes]. (4th ed.). Moscow: Russkij yazyk. Gorbachevich, K. (2004-present). Bolshoj akademicheskij slovar russkogo yazyka [Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. Kuznetsov, S. (ed.). (2000). Bolshoj tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka [The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Saint Petersburg: Norint. Kuznetsov, S. (2014). Zhenschina [Woman]. In Bolshoj tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka [The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Retrieved on 18 Jan, 2021 from http://gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0 %B0&all=x Ozhegov, S., Shvedova, N. (ed.). (2006). Tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka [The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (4th ed.). Moscow: A Temp. Ozhegov, S. (ed.). (2010). Tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka [The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (26th ed.). Moscow: Oniks. Skvortsov, L. (ed). (2009). Bolshoj tolkovyj slovar pravilnoj russkoj rechi [Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Correct Russian Language]. Moscow: Oniks. Slovar Akademii Rossijskoj [The Dictionary of the Russian Academy]. (1789-1794). Saint Petersburg: Imperatorskaya Akademija Nauk Ushakov, D. (ed.). (1935-1940). Tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka [The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (1st ed.). Moscow: OGIZ. Ushakov, D. (ed.). (2014). Tolkovyj slovar sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [The Explanatory Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Language]. Moscow: Adelant. Russian National Corpus. Retrieved from https://ruscorpora.ru/new/ 75 English and German Dictionaries Duden. (n.d.). Mann. In Duden.de. Retrieved June, 25, 2020 from https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Mann_Person_Gatte_Anrede Duden. (n.d.). Frau. In Duden.de. Retrieved June, 25, 2020 fromhttps://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Frau Lexico. (n.d.). Woman. In Lexico.com . Retrieved June, 25, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/definition/woman Lexico. (n.d.). Man. In Lexico.com . Retrieved June, 25, 2020 from https://www.lexico.com/definition/man Lexico (n.d.) Rabid. In Lexico.com dictionary . Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from https://www.lexico.com/definition/rabid Merriam-Webster (n.d.) They. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they Other Literature American Women’s Association (n.d.). Retrieved on 2020, September 15 from https://www.amwadoc.org/sghc/ Anistratova, V. (2020, March 8). Pochemu 8 Marta – eto ne tolko pro cvetochki [Why 8 March is not only about flowers]. Retrieved on August 17, 2020 from: https://burninghut.ru/8-marta/ Arimbi, D. & Kwary, D. (2016). Linguistic Turn and Gendering Language in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. English Language Teaching , Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 166-174. Atkins, B. T. & Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford University Press. Bär, J. A. (2001). Männer – Frauen: Sprachliche Stereotype [Men – Women: Language Stereotypes]. Der Deutschunterricht 53, Heft 4, pp. 30–41. Barkovskaya, E. (2018, March 22) ‘Chto znachit ‘fu, eto dlia devochek’?’: Kak femenistki vospitivajut detei [What do you mean "Ugh, it's for girls!"? - how feminists bring up their children]. Retrieved on 2020, August 25 from: https://www.wonderzine.com/wonderzine/life/goodquestion/233981-feminist-mothers?from=readmore Basovskaya, E. N. (2014). Ob agnostitsizme,stahanovtse i sujagnoj ovtse [On agnosticism, Stakhanovite and Ewe in Yean]. Politicheskaja linguistika No. 4(50), pp. 27-30. Berkhead, S. (2020, March 6). Russian women ready to reclaim once-forbidden jobs. The Moscow Times. Retrieved on 2021, January 10 from: 76 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/06/russian-women-are-ready-to-reclaim-onceforbidden-jobs-a69544 Blagova, A. R. (2019). Slovari russkogo yazyka prof. L. I. Skvortsova [Professor Lev Skvortsov’s Dictionaries of Russian Language]. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture, No. 4, pp. 151-163. Braun, V. & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Telling it Straight? Dictionary definitions of women’s genitals. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/2 , pp. 214-232. Cameron, D. (2015, June 30). Dictionaries, dick-tionaries and dyketionaries. [Blog post]. Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from https://debuk.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/dictionaries-dicktionaries-and-dyketionaries/ ‘Chasiki-to tikajut!’ [‘Your clock is ticking!’]. (2020, February 4). Retrieved on 2021, January 10 from: https://riamobalashiha.ru/article/chasiki-to-tikayut-chto-takoe-babulling-i-kak-emu-protivostoyat357695 Demeshkina, T. A. & Tolstova, M. A. (2017). Gendernaja dialektologija i slovari kak jejo istochnik [Gender Dialectology and Dictionaries as its Source]. Voprosy leksikografii, Vol. 12, pp. 83-105. Deutsch, F. M. (2007, Feb.). Undoing Gender. Gender and Society , Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 106-127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640948 Dobrovlsky, N. (n. d.) The Dictionary of Discord. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from http://delonomer.ru/detective.htm?article=173 Dolezal, F. (1986). How Abstract is the English Dictionary? The History of Lexicography: the Studies in the History of the Language Sciences Efremov, V. A. (2010). Nominatsii zhenschini v russkom yazike: zhena – zhenschina – baba – dama [The Nomination of a Woman in the Russian Language: Wife – Woman – Baba - Dame]. Mir russkogo slova No. 1, pp. 19-25. Efremov, V. A. (2012). Slovar’ V.I. Dalya i feminnie stereotipi [‘Dahl’s Dictionary and the Female Gender Stereotypes’]. Vestnik Cherpovetskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta , No. 1, Vol. 1, pp. 46-49. Efremov, V. A. (2016). Gendernyje stereotypy I russkaja leksikografia [Gender Stereotypes and Russian Lexicography]. Vestnik Novosibirskigo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 100-111. Ekspertnoje zakluchenie na ‘Bolshoi tolkovij slovar russkogo yazika’ [Expert Report on the Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (n.d.). Retrieved on 2020, August 18 from http://rus- 77 gos.spbu.ru/public/files/dictionary/53a2ad3a00b74__8.%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D 0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%91%D0%A2%D0%A1.pdf Flood, A. (2020, March 3). Fresh call for Oxford dictionaries to change ‘sexist’ definitions. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/03/fresh-call-for-oxford-dictionaries-tochange-sexist-definitions Fortin, J. (2019, September 22). When dictionaries wade into the gender (non)binary. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/style/they-nonbinary-dictionary-merriamwebster.html?auth=login-google Fournier, H. & Russell, D. (1992, Feb.). A Study of Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Oxford English Dictionary 2E. Computers and the Humanities, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 13-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30204434 Gender Bias (n.d.). European Institute for Gender Equality. Retrieved on 2020, December 17 from https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1155 Gender Stereotyping (n.d.). United Nations Human Rights. Retrieved on 2020, December 17 from https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/women/wrgs/pages/genderstereotypes.aspx Gershuny, H. L. (1975, April). Public Doublespeak: The Dictionary . College English, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 938-942. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/375488 Giovanardi, M. (2019, June 27). Have you ever googled ‘woman’? [Blog post]. Retrieved on 2020, September 14 from https://medium.com/@mbgiovanardi/have-you-ever-googled-womansexist-oxford-63afb87ee731 Hartmann, R. R. K. & James, G. (2002) Dictionary of Lexicography. Taylor & Francis e-Library. Heldt, B. (1987). Terrible Perfection: Women and Russian Literature. Indiana University Press. Jones, J. J., Amin, M. R., Kim, J. & Skiena, S. (2019). Stereotypical Gender Associations in Language Have Decreased Over Time. Sociological Science 7, pp. 1-35. Iudin, A. A. (2004). Gendernyje roli I problema femenizatsii rossijskogo obschestva [Gender roles and the problem of feminization of Russian society]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. Lobachevskogo. Serija: sotsialnije nauki, No. 1, p. 148-157. Karamian, M. F. & Golovan, S. A. (2012). The History of the Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language. Banska Bystica: TBB PRINT HOUSE. 84 Appendix 2. Original Entry for the Lemma Man in Ushakov’s Dictionary (Ushakov, volume II, 1938) 85 Appendix 3. Original Entry for the Lemma Woman in Ushakov’s Dictionary (Ushakov, 2014) 86 Appendix 4. Original Entry for the Lemma Man in Ushakov’s Dictionary (from Ushakov, 2014) 87 Appendix 5. Original Entry for the Lemma Woman in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Ozhegov and Shvedova (2006) 88 Appendix 6. Original Entry for the Lemma Man in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Ozhegov and Shvedova (2006) 89 Appendix 7. Original Entry for the Lemma Woman in the Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language in 17 volumes (Chernyshev, volume IV, 1955) 90 Appendix 8. Original Entry for the Lemma Man in the Dictionary of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language in 17 volumes (Chernyshev, volume VI, 1957) 91 Appendix 9. Original Entry for the Lemma Woman in the Small Academic Dictionary (Evgenieva, volume II, 1999) 92 Appendix 10. Original Entry for the Lemma Man in the Small Academic Dictionary (Evgenieva, volume III, 1999) 93 Appendix 11. Original Entry for the Lemma Woman in the Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (Kuznetsov, 2000)