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. 57–86
Obscene language and the renegotiation of gender roles in post-Soviet contexts
Published online: 16 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00021.luc
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00021.luc
Abstract
Mat is a specific domain of Russian obscene vocabulary including words related to sexuality. The first sociolinguistic
studies on mat emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, concomitantly with the formation of Russian gender studies in the early
1990s (Tëmkina, Anna & Elena Zdravomyslova. 2003. Gender
studies in post-Soviet society: Western frames and cultural differences. Studies in East
European Thought 551. 51–61. : 51). Until today, research on gender and taboo in Russian has been exiguous. Many
scholars claim that the use of mat is a male prerogative (Uspenskiĭ, Boris. 1994. Mifologicheskiĭ aspekt russkoĭ ėkspressivnoĭ frazeologii [The
mythological aspect of Russian expressive phraseology]. In Boris Uspenskiĭ, Izbrannye trudy [Selected
writings], vol. 21, 53–128. Moscow: Gnozis.: 56, Doleschal, Ursula & Schmid, Sonja. 2001. Doing gender in Russian: Structure and perspective. In Marlies Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann (eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 11, 253–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : 274), whereas women’s use of mat is heavily sanctioned in society. Through data from a survey I carried out
with 772 participants, I illustrate that mat is strongly present in women’s language use and that stereotypical gender
conceptualizations are undergoing change. From the participants’ answers it emerges that discussions about the use of obscene
language play a critical role in the multifaceted process of renegotiation of gender roles in post-Soviet contexts.
Keywords: sociolinguistics, Russian, mat, taboo, gender, post-Soviet, perceptual, psycholinguistics
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Mat and its place in obscene vocabulary
- 3.Mat between mythization and censorship
- 4.Study design
- 5.Demographics
- 6.Mat usage ratios
- 7.Mat usage contexts and criteria
- 7.1Female respondents
- 7.2Male respondents
- 7.3Summary
- 8.Gender metaphors
- 9.Mat vocabulary
- 10.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (36)
Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden
words: Taboo and the censoring of
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandist, Craig. 2003. The
origins of Soviet sociolinguistics. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7(2). 213–231.
Doleschal, Ursula & Schmid, Sonja. 2001. Doing gender in Russian: Structure and perspective. In Marlies Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann (eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, Vol. 11, 253–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fjeld, Ruth E. Vatvedt, Elsa Kristiansen, Marianne Rathje, Veturlidi Oskarsson, Natalia Konstaninovskaia, Inayat Gill & Fekede Menuta. 2019. The
worldwide use and meaning of the f-word. Intercultural
Pragmatics 16(1). 85–111.
Furman, Michael Douglas. 2018. Of mat and men: Taboo
words and the language of Russian female punks. Laboratorium. Zhurnal
Sot͡sialʹnykh Issledovaniĭ [Journal of Social
Studies] 10(1). 5–28.
Galdas, Paul Michael. 2017. Revisiting bias in
qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International
Journal of Qualitative
Methods 161. 1–2.
Güvendir, Emre. 2015. Why
are males inclined to use strong swear words more than females? An evolutionary explanation based on male intergroup
aggressiveness. Language
Sciences 501. 133–139.
Harjus, Jannis. 2017. Perceptual
variety linguistics: Jerezano speakers’ concepts and perceptions of phonetic variation in western Andalusian
Spanish. Loquens 4(2). e042.
Jakobson, Roman. 1985. Slavic
gods and demons. In Stephen Rudy (ed.), Selected
writings. Volume VII: Contributions to comparative
mythology, 3–11. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton.
Kleĭmënova, Ekaterina Grigorʹevna. 2012. Ti͡uremnai͡a subkulʹtura kak osobyĭ vid sot͡sialʹnogo vzaimodeĭstvii͡a [The
prison subculture as a specific type of social interaction]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo Universiteta.
Filosofii͡a. Sot͡siologii͡a. Psikhologii͡a.
Pedagogika 41. 33–37.
Kovalev, Manuela. 2014. The
function of Russian obscene language in late Soviet and post-Soviet
prose. Manchester: The University of Manchester dissertation.
Krefeld, Thomas & Pustka, Elissa. 2010. Für
eine perzeptive Varietätenlinguistik. In Thomas Krefeld & Elissa Pustka (eds.), Perzeptive
Varietätenlinguistik. Spazi Comunicativi = Kommunikative
Räume, vol. 81, 9–28. Frankfurt am Main u. a.: Centre for Language and Cognition.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Conceptual
metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of
Philosophy 77(8). 453–486.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach & Mary Bucholtz (ed.). 2004. Language
and woman’s place: Text and commentaries. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. 1973 [1914]. Nuzhen
li obi͡azatelʹnyĭ gosudarstvennyĭ i͡azyk? [Is a compulsory state language
necessary?]. In Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin, Polnoe sobranie
sochineniĭ [Unabridged collected
works]. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo politicheskoĭ literatury.
Levin, I͡uriĭ Iosifovich. 1998. Izbrannye trudy.
Poėtika. Semiotika [Collected works. Poetics.
Semiotics]. Moscow: I͡azyki russkoĭ kulʹtury.
Löckenhoff, Corinna E., Wayne Chan, Robert R. McCrae, Filip De Fruyt, Lee Jussim, Marleen De Bolle, Paul T. Costa et al. 2014. Gender
stereotypes of personality: Universal and accurate? Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 45(5). 675–694.
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Tessendorf. 2014. Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction, vol. 21. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Nat͡sionalʹnyĭ korpus russkogo
i͡azyka [National Corpus of the Russian
Language]. Available at [URL]
Niedzielski, Nancy & Dennis Preston. 2000. Folk
linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development. 2019. Education at a glance 2019. OECD
indicators.
Peri, Alexis. 2018. New
Soviet woman: The post-World War II feminine ideal at home and abroad. Russian
Review 77(4). 621–644.
Preston, Dennis. 2005. Perceptual
dialectology. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics:
An international handbook of the science of language and
society, vol. 21, 1683–1695. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rezanova, Zoi͡a & Anastasii͡a Khlebnikova. 2015. Gender
metaphors in Russian and English linguocultures: A comparative study. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral
Sciences 2151. 273–278.
Scheller-Boltz, Dennis. 2017. The
discourse on gender identity in contemporary Russia: An introduction with a case study in Russian gender
linguistics. Hildesheim, Zürich and New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
. 2020. Grammatik
und Ideologie: Feminisierungsstrategien im Russischen und Polnischen aus Sicht der Wissenschaft und
Gesellschaft. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Smith, Stephen Antony. 1998. The social meanings of
swearing: Workers and bad language in late imperial and early Soviet Russia. Past &
Present 1601. 167–202.
Tëmkina, Anna & Elena Zdravomyslova. 2003. Gender
studies in post-Soviet society: Western frames and cultural differences. Studies in East
European Thought 551. 51–61.
. 2014. Gender’s
crooked path: Feminism confronts Russian patriarchy. Current
Sociology 62(2). 253–270.
Timroth, Wilhelm von. 1986. Russian and Soviet sociolinguistics
and taboo varieties of the Russian language (argot, jargon, slang and
“mat”). München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Ugolovnyĭ kodeks Rossiĭskoĭ
Federat͡sii [Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation] available on [URL] (last
updated on 7/31/2020).
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. 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.
