The Semantic Asymmetry of Gender: Tracing the Pejoration of Mistress, Spinster, and Dame in English History

Chenying Pan

doi:10.63313/LLCS.9204

Authors

Chenying Pan Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/LLCS.9204

Keywords:

Semantic Change, Diachronic Study, Gender Asymmetry

Abstract

This paper investigates the sociolinguistic phenomenon of semantic pejoration in English, specifically examining why terms denoting female authority and occupation consistently undergo semantic derogation while the male equivalents do not. Focusing on three case studies mistress, spinster, and dame, this study utilizes diachronic data from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) to trace their semantic evolution from the Middle English period to the present. The analysis reveals a systematic pattern where words originally signifying power (mistress as head of household), economic independence (spinster as spinner of wool), or high rank (dame as female knight) were redefined through sexualization, trivialization, or social stigmatization. In contrast, male counterparts such as master and lord retained or elevated their prestige. This paper argues that these semantic shifts are not random linguistic accidents but driven by patriarchal social structures that linguistically unstable female power, reinterpreting it as either sexually illicit or socially deviant. The findings contribute to historical sociolinguistics by demonstrating how language change serves as an archive of gendered social hierarchies.

References

[1] Bloomfield, L., & Hockett, C. F. (1999). Language (6. [print.]). Univ. of Chicago Press.

[2] Borkowska, P., & Kleparski, G. A. (2007). IT BEFALLS WORDS TO FALL DOWN: PEJORATION AS A TYPE OF SEMANTIC CHANGE.

[3] Burnett, H. (2020). A Persona-based Semantics for Slurs. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 97(1), 31–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09701004

[4] Bussmann, H., & Hellinger, M. (2001). Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. J. Benjamins.

[5] Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4230

[6] Cameron, D. (Ed.). (2003). The feminist critique of language: A reader (2. ed., reprinted). Routledge.

[7] Curzan, A. (2003). Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge University Press.

[8] Dai, H., & Xu, X. (2014). Sexism in News: A Comparative Study on the Portray of Female and Male Politicians in The New York Times Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 04(05), 709–719. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.45061

[9] Erickson, A. L. (2014). Mistresses and Marriage: Or, a Short History of the Mrs. History Workshop Journal, 78(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbt002

[10] Fontecha, A. (2003). Semantic derogation in animal metaphor: A contrastive-cognitive analysis of two male/female examples in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(5), 771–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00127-3

[11] Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018). Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720347115

[12] Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2018). Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Change (No. arXiv:1605.09096). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1605.09096

[13] Hazen, K. (2011). Labov: Language Variation and Change. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. Kerswill, The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 24–39). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200957.n3

[14] Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4. ed). Routledge.

[15] Kitayama, S. (2017). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 357–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000077

[16] Koller, V., & Davidson, P. (2008). Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088963

[17] Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45–80.

[18] Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Articulating a Feminist Discourse Praxis1. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816

[19] Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Dame, n. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved August 28, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2345448218

[20] Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Mistress, n. & adj. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved August 28, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1126909868

[21] Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Spinster, n. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved August 28, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2721965059

[22] Spender, D. (2001). Man-made language (2. ed., repr). Pandora.

[23] Schulz, M.R. (1975). The semantic derogation of women [in:] E. Thorne and N. Henley (eds). Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, pp. 64–75.

[24] Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge university press.

[25] Ullmann, S. (1981). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning (reprinted). Blackwell.

[26] Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

[27] Yu, Y., & Lam, P. (2023). Representations of ‘leftover women’ in the Chinese English-medium newspapers: A key keyword analysis of the thematic concepts. Pragmatics and Society, 14(5), 695–716. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20073.yu