The concept of ‘gender-inclusive language’ in Italy can be traced back to the mid-1980s when feminist verbal hygiene considerations and prescriptions aimed at increasing and improving the visibility of women mainly through the use of feminine job titles and names and through a less sexualised representation of women in the public sphere. At that time, however, authors did not speak of ‘gender inclusion’ but rather of ‘non-sexist’, ‘gendered’ or ‘fair’ language. In recent years, the inclusion framework has been applied to the field of gender and sexuality, with language as an important tool. There has also been a shift towards a non-binary approach to gender and language, challenging the traditional masculine/feminine dichotomy by using linguistic devices such as *, @, x, _, ә or even the feminine by default to raise awareness of gender as a power structure. Non-binary terms introduced by transfeminist activists have met with much resistance, the schwa (ə) being particularly controversial in the media. But its circulation is worth documenting for two main reasons: first, because this device can be seen as an example of how non-binary linguistic practices emerge from languages in contact within the global sphere; and second, because its diverse uses demonstrate the multiple and even conflicting values that linguistic items can have for different social actors in different contexts, a phenomenon that Vološinov (Marxism and the philosophy of language. Harvard University Press, 1996 [1929]) called ‘multiaccentuality’. Such public debates have increased the interest of institutions (educational, professional and political) in the use of gender in communication thereby conducting training and issuing guidelines to promote inclusive language. By analysing italophone academic, institutional and professional guidelines, we will show that ‘gender inclusion’ has often replaced ‘non-sexist language’ in many institutional contexts, although the core problems and proposed solutions may remain similar to those outlined in Alma Sabatini’s 1987 report. Some authors and political bodies (especially in italophone Switzerland) even propose paradoxical solutions, such as the use of the masculine form as more inclusive because it transcends a binary notion of gender. The struggle for linguistic justice in the Italian-speaking public sphere is therefore rich and ongoing, and social actors are called to make their choices, which are never just a question of forms or aesthetics, but always a political matter.

Matters of ‘Gender-Inclusive Language’ in Italy: Controversies, Guidelines and Creative Practices

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Silvia Nugara

摘要

The concept of ‘gender-inclusive language’ in Italy can be traced back to the mid-1980s when feminist verbal hygiene considerations and prescriptions aimed at increasing and improving the visibility of women mainly through the use of feminine job titles and names and through a less sexualised representation of women in the public sphere. At that time, however, authors did not speak of ‘gender inclusion’ but rather of ‘non-sexist’, ‘gendered’ or ‘fair’ language. In recent years, the inclusion framework has been applied to the field of gender and sexuality, with language as an important tool. There has also been a shift towards a non-binary approach to gender and language, challenging the traditional masculine/feminine dichotomy by using linguistic devices such as *, @, x, _, ә or even the feminine by default to raise awareness of gender as a power structure. Non-binary terms introduced by transfeminist activists have met with much resistance, the schwa (ə) being particularly controversial in the media. But its circulation is worth documenting for two main reasons: first, because this device can be seen as an example of how non-binary linguistic practices emerge from languages in contact within the global sphere; and second, because its diverse uses demonstrate the multiple and even conflicting values that linguistic items can have for different social actors in different contexts, a phenomenon that Vološinov (Marxism and the philosophy of language. Harvard University Press, 1996 [1929]) called ‘multiaccentuality’. Such public debates have increased the interest of institutions (educational, professional and political) in the use of gender in communication thereby conducting training and issuing guidelines to promote inclusive language. By analysing italophone academic, institutional and professional guidelines, we will show that ‘gender inclusion’ has often replaced ‘non-sexist language’ in many institutional contexts, although the core problems and proposed solutions may remain similar to those outlined in Alma Sabatini’s 1987 report. Some authors and political bodies (especially in italophone Switzerland) even propose paradoxical solutions, such as the use of the masculine form as more inclusive because it transcends a binary notion of gender. The struggle for linguistic justice in the Italian-speaking public sphere is therefore rich and ongoing, and social actors are called to make their choices, which are never just a question of forms or aesthetics, but always a political matter.