In the time since the term “intersectionality” was first introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, the term has gained a measure of widespread, even viral popularity. Increasingly, psycholinguists are citing this concept to promote work which more fully engages with the consequences of human diversity for language processing. This piece discusses the ways in which “intersectionality” has thus far been engaged by the field of psycholinguistics. I argue that the common usage of the term “intersectionality” is notably out of step with the tradition of Black feminist scholarship from which it derives. Originally defined as an analytical framework for examining the effect of interlocking oppressions in erasing the distinctive experiences of multiply marginalized people, intersectionality should not be invoked without any serious and specific discussion of oppressive systems or erasure. To achieve a more just and equitable applied psycholinguistics and authentically promote intersectional approaches to understanding language behavior, intersectionality must be taken as a framework primarily engaging with effects of structural violence. The article concludes with some guidelines for readers to assist in distinguishing “intersectional” claims which perform erasure from those which reflect the original and intended anti-misogynoir applications of the theory.

自从金伯利·克伦肖 (Kimberlé Crenshaw) 首次提出“交叉性”一词以来，该术语已经获得了广泛甚至病毒般的流行。心理语言学家越来越多地引用这一概念来促进更充分地研究人类多样性对语言处理的影响的工作。本文讨论了心理语言学领域迄今为止所采用的“交叉性”方式。我认为“交叉性”一词的常见用法明显与其所源自的黑人女权主义学术传统不相符。最初被定义为一个分析框架，用于检验连锁压迫在消除多重边缘化人群的独特经历方面的影响，如果没有对压迫性系统或消除进行任何认真和具体的讨论，则不应援引交叉性。为了实现更加公正和公平的应用心理语言学并真正促进理解语言行为的交叉方法，交叉性必须被视为主要涉及结构性暴力影响的框架。文章最后为读者提供了一些指导原则，以帮助读者区分执行删除的“交叉”主张与反映该理论最初和预期的反厌女症应用的主张。交叉性必须被视为主要涉及结构性暴力影响的框架。文章最后为读者提供了一些指导原则，以帮助读者区分执行删除的“交叉”主张与反映该理论最初和预期的反厌女症应用的主张。交叉性必须被视为主要涉及结构性暴力影响的框架。文章最后为读者提供了一些指导原则，以帮助读者区分执行删除的“交叉”主张与反映该理论最初和预期的反厌女症应用的主张。