The inclusive language

Inclusive language in English.

      As Paulina M. Coffman (1991) states, the movement of inclusive language has been defined as the innovations proposed in order to avoid making exclusions to any group in verbal speech or writing. There have been some easy transitions or changes, like the use of ‘humans’ instead of ‘men’ or ‘man’ and the use of ‘humankind’ instead of ‘mankind’. However other areas of exclusion such as the assumptions of gender and heterosexuality have been noticed. Therefore, it is often said that white male identity is given when there is no available context or information. Eckert and McConnell (2003) note that because some conventionally sex-indefinite or generic terms in English can be understood to apply only for the female population, inclusive or “non-sexist” guidelines warn against the use of masculine forms as generics. Those generic terms can highly be misinterpreted by people who are not aware of the existence of the inclusive language or people with different opinions towards this phenomenon.

      Coffman (1991) comments that in the movement for the acceptance of the inclusive language, especially in the case of the new changes made to the pronouns, it is important to remember that language is a symbol system and its changes are natural. Also, while Kassab (2018) suggests that the inclusive language is essential for the well-being of any society or community since a lot of groups have come forward asking for recognition. Coffman (1991) acknowledges that when fully understood and correctly used, inclusive language in its many forms is always accompanied by the awareness of the structures of inequality and a new feeling of empowerment.

      Kassab (2018) admits that there are several things to consider when the inclusive language is used, the most basic rule for it is not making any assumptions. It has become increasingly necessary to be sensitive to potential differences of any kind, whether that includes gender, race, or even ableness. Interestingly, in the essay about the inclusive language and perspective transformation, Coffman (1991) remarks something similar. The reason why it is called ‘inclusive’ instead of ‘non-sexist’ is because there are other areas of exclusion other than sexism that need to be highlighted. Therefore, language change should address the inclusion of all groups, not only women.

      Kassab (2018) thinks that another thing to consider and a very common assumption in speech is gender, which is portrayed usually through pronouns. Because of this, an increasingly strong case is being made for the use of ‘they’ as a singular pronoun in order to avoid gender categorization. Eckert and McConnell (2003) point out that many practices of language presuppose the use of gender categorization and consider this as fundamental. Pronouns are often gendered, but it is interesting to know that there was a phenomenon that could have changed this characteristic of the language. Around the twelfth and thirteenth century, the masculine form (he) and feminine form (she) began to sound very much alike. Therefore, had this occurrence never stopped we might have nowadays a gender-neutral pronoun that is also singular. The most popular theory suggests that their necessity to establish gender made them change their pronunciation, resulting in the pronouns that we know.

Inclusive language in Spanish.

      In an article about the innovation in vocabulary with words that imply gender, Fernando Centenera (2012) invites the readers to reflect and to question the innovations that the inclusive language proposes and the criticisms that this movement has received from language institutions, governments, schools, and the media. The Royal Spanish Academy has established strict norms to follow in linguistics, such as the idea that Spanish distinguishes between gender, which is considered a grammatical property of nouns and pronouns, and sex, a term used to refer to the biological condition of a being. The inclusive language movements have arisen, and they propose to include several changes that challenge these stipulated norms in order to make language respectful and to consider differences in gender.

      One of the proposals of inclusive language, mentions Centenera (2012), has been to consider changing words that end with the letter ‘o’ when they are used as a plural to refer to both men and women and are grammatically considered as androgynous. The reason is that these words can also be considered uniquely masculine and inclusive language proposes to make them feminine, adding an ‘a’ at the end. Another suggestion made by Tapia (2018), which has gotten the public attention, is to substitute those letters for an ‘x’, so each person can read it as an ‘a’ or an ‘o’ as they prefer, or add an ‘e’ instead. This new usage of language has become popular with youth, and even some student syndicates have started to accept it. They considered it to be freedom of speech and freedom of teaching since it is considered as the teacher’s choice to accept or deny the use of inclusive language in the classroom.

      Besides, Centenera (2012) expresses that inclusive language users and promoters argue that the difference between gender and sex is not being considered, the general opinion in that group is that it doesn’t make sense to assume gender. As well, Tapia (2018) think that the key part of the discussion derives from the generic use of masculine terms in Spanish that have already been established and accepted. The argument is that these terms often cause confusion, disagreements, and unconformity within large groups of people. But they do not try to change it because it is seen as the status quo or because other consider these uses of plural words as inclusive.

      Moreover, Centenera (2012) comments that the appearance of neologisms such as the ones that inclusive language proposes are not unusual, especially in political language. He argues that the reasons behind these intents can fall into two categories. The first refers to the necessity of acknowledging a new reality of unconformity with certain policies and the undeniable presence of women and non-gendered people in positions of power. The other possibility might be the desire to innovate and to foment debate within institutions, after all, the argument is not only about grammar. It is also about the reasons that make people want to change it. The only way to make the inclusive language popular or even accepted is for people to use it regularly.