Speaker
Description
As a dictionary grounded in diachronic evidence, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) occupies a central position in the tradition of historical lexicography, documenting not only the evolution of lexical meaning but also the cultural assumptions embedded in language over time. While the OED is explicitly descriptive and corpus-based, scholarship has shown that definitional framing and citation selection are shaped by editorial choices and socio-cultural ideologies (Baigent, Brewer & Larminie, 2005; Mugglestone, 2013; Norri, 2000; Vișan, 2021; Williams, 2023). Against this backdrop, this paper examines how gender is constructed and transmitted in the OED through a case study of the lemmas female, feminine, male, and masculine. The aim is to consider whether and to what extent gender representation has changed in the dictionary in light of the OED's continuous revision process. More specifically, it assesses whether sustained editorial updating has substantially altered patterns of gender representation previously identified in lexicographic research.
These four lemmas were selected because of their apparent semantic neutrality and their foundational role in structuring gender categories in English, in contrast to more overtly evaluative terms such as womanly, womanish, manly, or mannish. The study adopts a qualitative, interpretive methodology, using present-day definitions as a point of semantic orientation while placing particular emphasis on the diachronic evidence provided by illustrative citations. All data are drawn from the OED Online, Third Edition (June 2025 update). Senses referring to human gender were analysed in full, while technical or grammatical uses were excluded unless their figurative extensions revealed ideological relevance. Particular attention is paid to citations from the nineteenth century onwards, a period of dense documentary coverage in the OED and of major ideological consolidation in relation to gender.
The analysis reveals persistent asymmetries in the representation of femininity and masculinity in the OED. Entries for female and feminine are more extensive and semantically elaborated than those for male and masculine, reflecting the marked status of femininity within the dictionary’s treatment of gender. Across successive historical layers of citation, femininity is recurrently associated with emotional excess, passivity, superficiality, moral suspicion, and aesthetic or decorative qualities. Illustrative quotations frequently situate women in trivialised, domestic, or subordinate roles, or portray feminine agency as indirect or manipulative. Symbolic and metaphorical extensions—linking the feminine to flowers, planets, beauty products, or delicacy—further embed culturally inherited stereotypes within the historical record.
Masculinity, by contrast, is largely constructed as the unmarked and normative category. While male often functions as a default biological descriptor (as also in the case of female), masculine is consistently associated with strength, activity, authority, and intellectual or moral superiority. These qualities are rarely problematised in the historical citations and are frequently extended metaphorically to domains such as architecture, astrology, literature, and social organisation, reflecting long-standing models of hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). When masculine traits are attributed to women, they tend to be evaluated positively, whereas feminine traits applied to men are typically framed as deviations—an asymmetry well documented also in feminist linguistic scholarship (Kramarae, Treichler & Russo, 1985).
Although more recent citations in the OED begin to reflect changing conceptions of gender, including gender fluidity and non-binary identities, these developments remain unevenly distributed across the entries. Many senses of male and masculine continue to rely on relatively dated historical material, allowing older ideological models to dominate the semantic profile of these lemmas. As a result, the historical layering of citations becomes a mechanism through which outdated representations are preserved and reactivated in contemporary dictionary use.
The paper argues that historical dictionaries do not merely record linguistic change but actively mediate it through editorial selection and presentation (Pullum, 2018). By foregrounding the persistence of gendered asymmetries within a continuously revised dictionary, and by showing how definitions and citation practices can perpetuate gender hierarchies even in ostensibly neutral entries, this study contributes to current debates in historical lexicography and metalexicography. It concludes by suggesting that, unless definitions and citations are more carefully contextualised and balanced with contemporary evidence, even continuous editorial revision may do little to alter entrenched patterns of gender representation. A more reflexive approach would allow authoritative dictionaries such as the OED to preserve their historical record while mitigating the continued circulation of inherited gender ideologies.