Cover not available
Article published In:
Sex, Death & Politics: Taboos in Language
Edited by Melanie Keller, Philipp Striedl, Daniel Biro, Johanna Holzer and Benjamin Weber
[Pragmatics & Cognition 28:1] 2021
► pp. 167–192

Borrowing and the historical LGBTQ lexicon

Profile of a pragmatically marked field

Unlike most areas involving taboo, where language-internal innovations tend to dominate, homosexuality is characterized by a basic international vocabulary shared across multiple languages, notably English, French, Italian, Spanish and German. Historically, the lexis of nonnormative gender identity has shared space with that of sexual orientation. This lexicon includes (inexhaustively) the following series of internationalisms: sodomite, bugger, bardash, berdache, tribade, pederast, sapphist, lesbian, uranist, invert, homosexual, bisexual, trans, gay, queer. This common terminology has resulted from language contact in a broad sense, and more specifically from lexical borrowing (loanwords). Several framing devices are expressed through the lexicon: religious censure, distancing in time and space, othering, medicalization or pathologizing, but also in recent decades LGBTQ self-assertion and demands for equality. Rather than necessarily being subject to taboo, then, queerness represents a pragmatically marked semantic field in which the lexicon is highly dependent upon social factors and the communicative context.
Keywords: lexicology, borrowing, loanwords, LGBTQ, gender, homosexuality, pragmatics, taboo
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexical analysis
    • 2.1Religious censure
    • 2.2Distancing in time and space
      • 2.2.1Medieval innovations in Romance languages
      • 2.2.2Hellenisms from the early modern period onwards
    • 2.3Nineteenth-century Germanisms and the allure of scientism
    • 2.4Twentieth-century Anglicisms in the fight for self-determination
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00022.vec
References (94)
References
Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1990. To(o) queer the writer – Loca, escritora y chicana. In AnaLouise Keating (ed.), The Gloria Anzaldúa reader, 163–175. Durham (NC): Duke University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Beachy, Robert. 2010. The German invention of homosexuality. Journal of Modern History 82(4). 801–838. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a modern identity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Harry. 1953. Transvestism and transsexualism. International Journal of Sexology 7(1). 12–14.Google Scholar
. 1954. Transsexualism and transvestism as psycho-somatic and somato-psychic syndromes. American Journal of Psychotherapy 8(2). 219–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benkert, Karl-Maria [attributed]. 1869. Das Gemeinschädliche des §143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuches vom 14. April 1851 und daher seine nothwendige Tilgung als §152 im Entwurfe eines Strafgesetzbuches für den Norddeutschen Bund. Leipzig: Serbe.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 1997. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, Marie-Jo. 1981. Un choix sans équivoque. Recherches historiques sur les relations amoureuses entre les femmes, XVIe-XXe siècle. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
Boswell, John. 1980. Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bourcier, M.-H. 2011. Queer Zones 3. Identités, cultures et politiques. Paris: Éditions Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Braunschneider, Theresa. 1999. The macroclitoride, the tribade and the woman: Configuring gender and sexuality in English anatomical discourse. Textual Practice 13(3). 509–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broussais, François-Joseph-Victor. 1839. De l’irritation et de la folie, vol. 11, 2nd edn. by Casimir Broussais. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
Butters, Ronald. 1998. Cary Grant and the emergence of gay “homosexual”. Dictionaries 19(1). 188–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casas Gómez, Miguel. 2009. Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism. Language Sciences 311. 725–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The expressive creativity of euphemism and dysphemism. Lexis: E-Journal in English Lexicology 71. 43–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casper, Johann. 1858. Practisches Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medicin. Biologischer Theil. Berlin: Hirschwald.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, David. 1949. Psychopathia transexualis. Sexology: Sex Science Magazine 16(5). 274–280.Google Scholar
Charcot, Jean-Martin & Valentin Magnan. 1882. Inversion du sens génital. Archives de Neurologie 3(7). 53–60 and 4(12). 296–322.Google Scholar
Chauncey, George. 1994. Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Julien. 1891. De l’inversion sexuelle aux points de vue clinique, anthropologique et médico-légal. Part 2. Archives d’Anthropologie Criminelle 61. 49–69.Google Scholar
Chiffoleau, Jacques. 1990. Dire l’indicible. Remarques sur la catégorie du nefandum du XIIe au XVe siècle. Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 45(2). 289–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Contra naturam. Pour une approche casuistique et procédurale de la nature médiévale. Micrologus 41. 265–312.Google Scholar
Clave 2012 = Diccionario Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual. Paris: SM/Ophrys.Google Scholar
Courouve, Claude. 1985. Vocabulaire de l’homosexualité masculine. Paris: Payot. Updated PDF version: Dictionnaire français de l’homosexualité masculine. N.p.: In Libro Veritas, 2013.Google Scholar
De Lauretis, Teresa. 1991. Queer Theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. An introduction. Differences 3(2). iii–xviii.Google Scholar
Derks, Paul. 1990. Die Schande der heiligen Päderastie. Homosexualität und Öffentlichkeit in der deutschen Literatur, 1750–1850. Berlin: Rosa Winkel.Google Scholar
Donoghue, Emma. 1993. Passions between women: British lesbian culture, 1668–1801. London: Scarlet Press.Google Scholar
Dubarry, Armand. 1896. Les invertis. Le vice allemand. Paris: Chamuel.Google Scholar
Duden 2011 = Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, 7th edn. Mannheim: Duden.Google Scholar
Ellis, Havelock. 1915. Sexual inversion, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Davis.Google Scholar
Eribon, Didier (ed.). 2003. Dictionnaire des cultures gays et lesbiennes. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Féray, Jean-Claude. 2004. Grecques, les mœurs du hanneton? Histoire du mot pédérastie et de ses dérivés en langue française . Paris: Quintes-Feuilles.Google Scholar
Haggerty, George (ed.). 2000. Gay histories and cultures: An encyclopedia. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heine, Matthias. 2014. Sind sie LGBTI? Oder eine sexuelle Zwischenstufe? Welt. 18 June. [URL]
Hennig, Jean-Luc. 2014. Espadons, mignons et autres monstres. Vocabulaire de l’homosexualité masculine sous l’Ancien Régime. Paris: Cherche Midi.Google Scholar
Herzer, Manfred. 1987. Ein Brief von Kertbeny in Hannover an Ulrichs in Würzburg. Capri: Zeitschrift für schwule Geschichte 1(1). 25–35.Google Scholar
. 2000. Karl Maria Kertbeny: Schriften zur Homosexualitätsforschung. Berlin: Rosa Winkel.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, Magnus. 1903. Ursachen und Wesen des Uranismus. Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen 5(1). 1–193.Google Scholar
. 1904. Das Ergebnis der statistischen Untersuchungen über den Prozentsatz der Homosexuellen. Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen 61. 109–178.Google Scholar
. 1910. Die Transvestiten. Eine Untersuchung über den erotischen Verkleidungstrieb. Berlin: Pulvermacher.Google Scholar
. 1923. Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen 231. 3–27.Google Scholar
Jordan, Mark. 1997. The invention of sodomy in Christian theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan Ned. 2007 [1995]. The invention of heterosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Hubert. 2002. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: Pioneer of the modern gay movement. San Francisco: Peremptory Publications.Google Scholar
Krafft-Ebing, Richard von. 1886. Psychopathia Sexualis. Leipzig: Enke.Google Scholar
. 1896. Ueber Unzucht mit Kindern und Pädophilia erotica. Friedreich’s Blätter für Gerichtliche Medicin und Sanitätspolizei 471. 261–283.Google Scholar
Legman, Gershon. 1941. The language of homosexuality: An American glossary. In George Henry, Sex variants: A study of homosexual patterns, 1st edn., vol. 21, 1149–1179 (Appendix VII). New York: Hoeber.Google Scholar
LEI = Pfister, Max & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.). 1979–. Lessico etimologico italiano. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur/Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lo Vecchio, Nicholas. 2018. Review of Shana Poplack, Borrowing (2018). Revue de Linguistique Romane 821. 521–525.Google Scholar
. 2020. Dictionnaire historique du lexique de l’homosexualité. Transferts linguistiques et culturels entre français, italien, espagnol, anglais et allemand. Strasbourg: ELiPhi.Google Scholar
. 2021. Updating the OED on the historical LGBTQ lexicon. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 42(1). 95–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Revisiting berdache: Notes on a translinguistic lexical creation. American Speech. DOI logo
Martineau, Louis. 1884. Leçons sur les déformations vulvaires et anales produites par la masturbation, le saphisme, la défloration et la sodomie. Paris: Delahaye/Lecrosnier.Google Scholar
Masson, Michel. 2015. Barda, bardache et bredindin. La “base” BRD dans les langues romanes. La Linguistique 51(1). 41–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matzner, Sebastian. 2010. From uranians to homosexuals: Philhellenism, Greek homoeroticism and gay emancipation in Germany, 1835–1915. Classical Receptions 2(1). 60–91.Google Scholar
. 2015. Of that I know many examples…: On the relationship of Greek theory and Roman practices in Karl Heinrich Ulrichs’s writings on the third sex. In Jennifer Ingleheart (ed.), Ancient Rome and the construction of modern homosexual identities, 93–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Helen Baker. 2017. The public representation of homosexual men in seventeenth-century England: A corpus-based view. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 3(2). 197–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, Cameron. 1997. The sodomite in fiction and satire, 1660–1750. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Joseph. 1843. Das große Conversations-Lexicon, vol. 41. Hildburghausen: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Meyerowitz, Joanne. 2002. How sex changed: A history of transsexuality in the United States. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moll, Albert. 1893. Les perversions de l’instinct génital. Étude sur l’inversion sexuelle, trans. from the German by Florentin Pactet and Romain Romme. Paris: Carré.Google Scholar
Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2021. Language and sexuality studies today: Why “homosexual” is a bad word and why “queer linguist” is not an identity. Journal of Language and Sexuality 10(1). 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mutel, D.-Ph. 1843. Éléments d’hygiène militaire. Paris: Forton, Masson.Google Scholar
Nossem, Eva. 2019. Queer, frocia, femminiellə, ricchione et al.: Localizing “queer” in the Italian context. Gender/Sexuality/Italy 61. [URL]
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edn., online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.Google Scholar
Öhmann, Emil. 1974. Der romanische Einfluß auf das Deutsche bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters. In Friedrich Maurer & Heinz Rupp (eds.), Deutsche Wortgeschichte, vol. 11, 321–396. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Glenn. 2011. Of sodomites, effeminates, hermaphrodites, and androgynes: Sodomy in the age of Peter Damian. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Park, Katharine. 1997. The rediscovery of the clitoris: French medicine and the tribade, 1570–1620. In David Hillman & Carla Mazzio (eds.), The body in parts: Fantasies of corporeality in early modern Europe, 171–193. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petit Robert 2018 = Alain Rey & Josette Rey-Debove (eds.). Le Petit Robert (2019 edn.). Paris: Robert.Google Scholar
Puff, Helmut. 2003. Sodomy in Reformation Germany and Switzerland, 1400–1600. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Nature on trial: Acts “against nature” in the law courts of early modern Germany and Switzerland. In Lorraine Daston & Fernando Vidal (eds.), The moral authority of nature, 232–253. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-González, Félix. 2008. Diccionario gay-lésbico. Vocabulario general y argot de la homosexualidad. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Schachter, Marc. 2015. Lesbian philology in early print commentaries on Juvenal and Martial. In Jennifer Ingleheart (ed.), Ancient Rome and the construction of modern homosexual identities, 39–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Alcuni anelli mancanti del discorso lesbico: i primi commenti a stampa sopra Giovenale. In Umberto Grassi, Vincenzo Lagioia & Gian Paolo Romagnani (eds.), Tribadi, sodomiti, invertite e invertiti, pederasti, femminelle, ermafroditi… Per una storia dell’omosessualità, della bisessualità e delle trasgressioni di genere in Italia, 29–40. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Simes, Gary. 1996. “Gay’s the word”: A history of gay in dictionary form. In Garry Wotherspoon (ed.), Gay and lesbian perspectives III: Essays in Australian culture, 303–347. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Skinner, Jody. 1999. Bezeichnungen für das Homosexuelle im Deutschen, vol. 21. Essen: Blaue Eule.Google Scholar
Tamassia, Arrigo. 1878. Sull’inversione dell’istinto sessuale. Rivista Sperimentale di Freniatria e di Medicina Legale 41. 97–117.Google Scholar
. 1881. Sull’inversione dell’istinto sessuale. Rassegna. Rivista Sperimentale di Freniatria e di Medicina Legale 7(4). 285–291.Google Scholar
Thibault, André & Nicholas Lo Vecchio. 2020. Language contact and the lexicon of Romance languages. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Wesley & Sue-Ellen Jacobs. 1999. “…And we are still here”: From berdache to Two-Spirit people.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 23(2). 91–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tin, Louis-Georges (ed.). 2003. Dictionnaire de l’homophobie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
TLF = Imbs, Paul & Bernard Quemada (eds.). 1971–1994. Trésor de la langue française. Paris: CNRS. ATILF-CNRS/Université de Lorraine, [URL]
Traub, Valerie. 2002. The renaissance of lesbianism in early modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turton, Stephen. 2020. The confessional sciences: Scientific lexicography and sexology in the Oxford English Dictionary . Language & History 63(3). 214–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Sharon. 1995. “The twentieth century way”: Female impersonation and sexual practice in turn-of-the-century America. Journal of the History of Sexuality 5(4). 573–600.Google Scholar
Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich [signed Numa Numantius]. 1864–1865. Forschungen über das Räthsel der mannmännlichen Liebe, 51 vols. Leipzig: Selbstverlag/Matthes.Google Scholar
. 1899 [1862]. Vier Briefe. Jahrbuch für Sexuelle Zwischenstufen 11. 36–70.Google Scholar
Walter, Tilmann. 2012. Der Sexualwortschatz im Frühneuhochdeutschen. In Jochen Bär & Marcus Müller (eds.), Geschichte der Sprache – Sprache der Geschichte. Probleme und Perspektiven der historischen Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen, 239–304. Berlin: Akademie. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Michael (ed.). 1993. Introduction. In Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory, vii–xxxi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Carl. 1869. Die conträre Sexualempfindung. Symptom eines neuropathischen (psychopathischen) Zustandes. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten 2(1). 73–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiesnerová, Vendula. 2012. LGBTQ activism and the appropriation of Queer Theory in Spain. In Sushila Mesquita, Maria Katharina Wiedlack & Katrin Lasthofer (eds.), Import-Export-Transport: Queer theory, queer critique and activism in motion, 163–178. Vienna: Zaglossus.Google Scholar
Zerner, Monique. 1989. Du court moment où on appela les hérétiques des “bougres”. Et quelques déductions. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 321. 305–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zingarelli 2007 = Lo Zingarelli: Vocabolario della lingua italiana, 12th edn. (2008 edn.), updated by Mario Cannella (ed.). Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lo Vecchio, Nicholas
2022. Revisiting berdache . American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 97:3 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.