This article offers a contrastive examination of gender-inclusive language guidelines issued by universities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Drawing on a corpus of 287 institutional documents – 122 in German, 34 in Italian, and 133 in English – the study identifies and quantifies specification and neutralization strategies recommended for administrative and pedagogical discourse. After manual annotation, strategies were coded into a database, enabling statistical comparison across languages and nations. Results show that German-speaking institutions favor gender-marked neographies and pair forms, whereas Italian guidelines privilege binary splitting and feminine derivation, with neographies largely proscribed. English documents overwhelmingly promote lexical and pronominal neutralization, including singular they and neopronouns, and eschew specification entirely. Legal framing – especially the recognition of a non-binary civil status in Germany – emerges as a key predictor of neography uptake. Despite divergent prescriptions, all guidelines condemn the generic masculine and seek inclusive representational equity. The paper concludes that cross-linguistic variation in inclusive strategies reflects structural properties of the languages, local legal contexts, and institutional ideologies, and argues for heightened intercultural dialogue in developing future policies. These findings contribute to sociolinguistic theory by evidencing how macro-social variables interact with grammatical typology to shape emergent language planning norms and practices.

Gender-inclusive language in university communication: a contrastive analysis of gender-inclusive guidelines in German, Italian, and English / Crestani, V., Pedrini, G., Pellegrino, R., Saracco, C.. - In: LINGUISTIK ONLINE. - ISSN 1615-3014. - ELETTRONICO. - 144:3(2026), pp. 45-58. [10.13092/fh0p6j53]

Gender-inclusive language in university communication: a contrastive analysis of gender-inclusive guidelines in German, Italian, and English

Pedrini, Giulia;
2026-01-01

Abstract

This article offers a contrastive examination of gender-inclusive language guidelines issued by universities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Drawing on a corpus of 287 institutional documents – 122 in German, 34 in Italian, and 133 in English – the study identifies and quantifies specification and neutralization strategies recommended for administrative and pedagogical discourse. After manual annotation, strategies were coded into a database, enabling statistical comparison across languages and nations. Results show that German-speaking institutions favor gender-marked neographies and pair forms, whereas Italian guidelines privilege binary splitting and feminine derivation, with neographies largely proscribed. English documents overwhelmingly promote lexical and pronominal neutralization, including singular they and neopronouns, and eschew specification entirely. Legal framing – especially the recognition of a non-binary civil status in Germany – emerges as a key predictor of neography uptake. Despite divergent prescriptions, all guidelines condemn the generic masculine and seek inclusive representational equity. The paper concludes that cross-linguistic variation in inclusive strategies reflects structural properties of the languages, local legal contexts, and institutional ideologies, and argues for heightened intercultural dialogue in developing future policies. These findings contribute to sociolinguistic theory by evidencing how macro-social variables interact with grammatical typology to shape emergent language planning norms and practices.
2026
10-apr-2026
Pubblicato
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
IA_3_Crestani+et+al_Final+draft3_15Feb_10h37-upl.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 330.37 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
330.37 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3141738
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact