Languages constantly change and evolve over time, and one clear example of this in recent years has been the shift towards inclusive language. It has become less common to default to masculine pronouns, for example, and different languages have introduced new words and conventions to better reflect the diversity of its speakers – not just in terms of gender, but also other characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, ethnicity and religion.

But how should translators deploy inclusive language? What happens, for example, if the conventions around inclusive language in the source language are not as developed as those in the target? Or say, for example, that a translator is working on a text that uses non-inclusive language – when is it appropriate to change the language in translation, and can this ever cause problems? These are some of the questions we will be exploring in today’s edition of the blog!

What is inclusive language?

Let’s start by clearly defining what we mean by inclusive language. According to Collins, inclusive language is: ‘language that avoids the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered to exclude particular groups of people, especially gender-specific words, such as “man”, ” mankind”, and masculine pronouns, the use of which might be considered to exclude women.’

In addition, it also includes other practices such as people-first language, which is a writing style that emphasises the person before their disability – i.e. ‘person who is blind’ instead of ‘blind person’, and the avoidance of terms which may reflect inherent biases or inaccuracies, such as ‘sexual preference’ instead of ‘sexual orientation’. Some proponents of inclusive language also advocate avoiding niche idioms and expressions that may exclude people without specific knowledge, and taking a history-conscious approach which eschews terms rooted in oppressive practices such as colonialism, the slave trade or segregation.

There is no one single agreed-upon set of practices for writing inclusively, and conventions are changing all the time. However, the general idea is to try and make all readers feel included and reflected, and to avoid emphasising one societal group over others.

Inclusive writing in different languages

In English, perhaps the most prominent change has been the shift away from using he/him pronouns by default when the gender is not known towards using they/them instead, or deploying other strategies to avoid mentioning gender.

For example, instead of writing ‘when an employee attends a meeting, he should prepare a detailed report,’ the Council of Europe recommends either using the plural pronoun in the singular (‘they should prepare a detailed report’), or putting the entire sentence into the plural (‘when employees attend a meeting, they should prepare a detailed report’). Omitting the pronoun entirely can also be an option in certain cases.

In other languages, different strategies have evolved. The challenge of gender inclusivity is greater in romance languages, as gender markers are much more common. In Spanish, one solution has been to replace the gender-identifying noun-endings O and A with X or E instead. For example, ‘nosotros somos muy altos’ would become ‘nosotres somos muy altes’. This is a rather contentious practice, however, given that it advocates breaking established grammar rules and spelling words in an entirely novel way. Instead, many writers prefer to use both the masculine and feminine forms (‘nosotros y nosotras’). This solution is not perfect either, as it does not include people who identify as non-binary, for example.

In Swedish, the gender-neutral pronoun hen, instead of han (he) or hon (she), has gained broad acceptance over time. It was first coined in the 1960s by feminist groups and sparked a heated debate at the time. The Swedish Language Council initially ruled against its use but later changed its mind, and in 2015 the pronoun was added to the Swedish Academy’s dictionary. The term has also made its way into the other Scandinavian languages, but may be considered less acceptable. In Norway, for example, it is recommended only when referring to those people who prefer to be identified with this pronoun, but not to refer to people whose gender is not known.

Policies vary greatly from country to country and language to language. The French government, for example, has banned the use of certain inclusive-language practices in public documents. In Germany, on the other hand, the city of Hanover mandates the use of gender-neutral terms in official communications. These disparities mean that practices and expectations are unequal from context to context.

Translating inclusive language

There are many cases when translators need to reflect carefully on how to translate inclusive or non-inclusive language, and there is no single approach that will be right in every case. Consider the following examples:

• Eliminating gender-markers in English is much easier than it is in Spanish. Imagine, then, that a linguist is translating a document from English into Spanish. The text is very careful in its use of gender-inclusive language, and so the translator faces a set of decisions in how to respond. If the translator uses -e endings, they might alienate certain elements of their readership, but if they do not, they risk failing to accurately convey the intention of the source. They also need to ensure consistency in whatever approach they choose.
• Studies have shown that racial colour blindness is a prevalent phenomenon in the Nordics, meaning race is typically not mentioned unless it is absolutely relevant. In the US and the UK, however, it is more common to mention race, and even here, conventions are changing all the time. For example, in the UK, the term BAME was once widespread to refer to people from minority ethnic backgrounds, but it is now increasingly seen as unacceptable. How should a translator working into Danish, then, deal with such a loaded term, in a way that conveys its meaning both comprehensively and respectfully?
• Imagine a translator comes across a document that uses non-inclusive language, perhaps in a way that is out of step with conventions in its source context. Is it the translator’s job to ‘correct’ this use of language, or are they duty-bound to reflect the lack of inclusive terminology in their translation? If a text might be considered offensive or alienating to some in its home context, is the translator obliged to retain these qualities in their translation, or can they ‘improve’ the text on their own accord? This dilemma is both moral and practical – even if the translator is clear on whether they should adapt the text or not, it will not necessarily be easy or possible to attain the same level of inclusiveness in both languages.

Always take a considered approach!

As you can see, translating inclusive language is not straight-forward, and making the wrong choice could inadvertently alienate or even offend the target readership. It is therefore important to always work with language-service providers who understand the subtleties and nuances involved, and who will always make sure to take a considered approach to the language they encounter.

At Comunica, we work with qualified and experienced linguists who are highly familiar with the latest conventions and practices in both their source and target languages. Rather than deploy a quick, one-size-fits-all approach, we carefully consider the target context and make sure to pick the solution that is most appropriate in each case. So, for translations you can trust, get in touch with us today or visit our website. We will be very happy to talk through any concerns you might have about inclusivity in translation and provide you with a no-obligation quote.