LANGUAGE CULTURE OF A LAWYER IN THE CONTEXT OF USING GENDER-MARKED LEXEMES

Abstract

The article argues that in the context of Ukraine’s European integration and the harmonization of national legislation with international human rights standards, the issue of gender-sensitive language acquires particular importance. Accordingly, the modern linguistic-legal paradigm is shifting from inertial androcentrism to an anthropocentric model. In this context, gender-marked lexemes (specifically feminitives) are no longer perceived as mere philological innovations but are transforming into precision instruments of legal technique. They ensure the addressability and accuracy of legal norms, making the language of law fair to all subjects.
It is established that the use of the «generic masculine» creates an effect of cognitive dissonance and psychological alienation for female legal professionals. The implementation of feminitives (advokatka (female lawyer), suddia (judge), ekspertka (female expert)) legitimizes the presence of women in the profession and eliminates the ethical dissonance with the fundamental principles of non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. The study identifies three effective mechanisms for the humanization of legal language: active derivation (restoring authentic Ukrainian word-formation models using suffixes -k-, -yts-, -ynia-); grammatical agreement (correct use of common gender words, e.g., «the judge [female] established»); and splitting (the use of paired nominations, such as «candidate [male] and candidate [female]»), which represents the highest form of inclusivity in public and international law.
The thesis is substantiated that gender in legal language is a parameter of variable intensity. Its manifestation fluctuates from neutralization in abstract norms of general action to the critical necessity of full gender identification in documents of individual action (criminal proceedings, labor contracts, civil status acts). The study reveals that the main barrier to linguistic modernization is professional conservatism and the fear of «legal formalism.» However, the analysis proves that replacing outdated linguistic clichés with gender-sensitive constructions does not destroy the system but rather strengthens its precision by minimizing the risks of identification errors.
It is concluded that the language culture of a modern lawyer lies in the ability to harmoniously combine respect for legal tradition with the requirements of inclusivity and social justice. Gender sensitivity in language is not only a requirement of the new orthography but also an essential component of a lawyer’s professional ethics within the European legal space.