This paper is considering scientific well-foundedness of arguments in favour of the use of generic forms and against the use of gendered feminine nouns from the word-formation semantic category of professions and ranks, using examples of the nouns derived by suffix -kinja (psiholog/psihološkinja, vodič/vodičkinja i dr.). Following the introductory part displaying her motives for choosing this topic, the author reminds us that the investigations so far have shown that the main reasons against the feminine gender nouns quote their more restricted range in comparison to their generic forms, thier complex sound structure and problematic word-formation model as well. Linguists supporting these attitudes find certain feminine forms impermissible because of their forms being derived according to unaccredited wordformation pattern. The possibility of having homonymy and double meaning happen, considering semantic heritage of certain feminine gender nouns (nouns like ministarka, trenerka), sometimes makes them unsuitable and inefficient. The arguments listed here are particularly related to the abstract communication, i.e. competitions, printed forms and so on, whereas it is more suitable to use generic forms due to their more extensive semantic range and eligibility to refer to persons of both gender, being considered gender-neutral. The author is also reminiding us of completely opposite views according to which, in the mass media, by the predominanted use of generic names for professions and ranks for feminine persons, it is clear the tendency to make women invisible in the social and political field. Supporters of such approach find it necessary, when it comes to the question of gender sensitive language, to implement codification aiming to provide humane and tolerant communication, and visibility of women in the society as well, i.e. her gender equality The author gives advantage to the pragmatic and balanced approach in resolving this problem, according to which in concrete situations the feminine forms are found necessary, i.e. situations when with a feminine personal name ought to be used a feminine gender noun indicating her profession. On the other side, in situations when neutral or common use is necesseray, generic forms can be a tool for language efficiency (for example in competitions, printed forms and so on). The author in a latent manner debates with the opinion that the generic, i.e. common forms are gender-neutral, reminding us of the morphological features of the masculine gender nouns of the first category being their charateristic, supporting it with the example: Vodič nam je davala uputstva. The author emphasises that the necessity of the existence of the feminine gender forms for professions and ranks is unquestionable for both – from the point of view of ensuring equality of genders in the society, and respecting principle of congruency point of view as well, focusing on the central part of her research afterwards. On the basis of all aforementioned in the paper it can be finally concluded that the profession nouns of the feminine gender appeared when the need for them came up and also that the tendency of their expansion is evident and proportional with the enhancement of the position of the woman in the society. The use of the feminine gender nouns denoting professions and ranks, as well as those with the suffix mentioned earlier, is necessary and practical in concrete situations. If we bear in mind that there are no liguistically justified arguments against the use of gendered feminine nouns with the suffix -kinja the categories nomina agentis et professions, it is to be expected the continuation of their expansion.
Assessing the Mixed or Generic Feminine as an Inclusive Language Strategy
