The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations: A Linguistic Elucidation

The Thomist 62 (1998): 445-68 THE NECESSARY FAILURE OF INCLUSIVE-LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS: A LINGUISTIC ELUCIDATION PAUL MANKOWSKI, S.J. Pontifical Biblical Institute Rome, Italy THE DISPUTE concerning the existence and extent of gender-exclusivity in natural languages, the relation ofsuch exclusivity to sexism, and the use of so-called inclusive language as a remedy for such exclusion has been heightened in recent years by controversy surrounding the use of inclusive language in translation-especially the translation of texts considered to be, in some sense, 'common property': the works of ancient authors and other classics, traditional songs and carols, national documents of foundational stature, etc. In the case of new renderings of the Bible and of liturgical texts the passions of the disputants run particularly deep, for the obvious reason that all parties to the dispute recognize that more than sentiment or aesthetics is at stake.1 The purpose of this essay is fivefold: (1) to lay out the arguments of the adversaries in a dear light; (2) to demonstrate that only one of the rival accounts is tenable on linguistic grounds; (3) to elucidate the function of unmarked forms in general and their distribution in English in particular; (4) to examine the problems caused by the employment of inclusive1 See, mu/ta inter alia, Gail Ramshaw, God beyond Gender: Feminist Christian God-Language (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995);Alvin F. Kimel, ed., Speaking the Christian God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992); Helen Hull Hitchcock, ed., The Politics ofPrayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1992), with bibliography on pp. 343-54; Ronald D. Witherup, A Liturgist's Guide to Inclusive Language (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1996), with bibliography on pp. 87-95; Thomas H. Groome, Language for a "Catholic" Church, 2d ed. (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995). 445 446 PAUL MANKOWSKI, S.J. language devices in actual texts; and (5) to argue that the failure of such devices is inevitable, and not simply the failure of maladroit translators. The discussion necessarily center,s on the use of inclusive language in English, itself a linguistically important fact. I shall principally use biblical and Roman Catholic liturgical texts to illustrate my remarks; however, with the exception of section XI, my arguments presume no specifically theological interests or allegiance, and the conclusions apply to translation generally. I. THE TERMS OF DISPUTE AND THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE Few of the participants in the inclusive-language debate will deny that what can broadly be called 'sexual politics' has awakened new sensibilities to locutions that thirty years ago were unproblematic.2 All parties to the dispute agree that a change has occurred. However, there are competing and contradictory accounts of this phenomenon, differing fundamentally as to the nature of the pertinent change. The claim advanced by inclusivelanguage proponents is this:3 Formerly, words like "man," "he," "his," and so forth could be understood in the appropriate context to refer to females as well as males. A change has occurred in the meaning of such words in English; they are no longer understood to be inclusive of females. Consequently, continued use of the generic-"God wished to save all men"-is understood to mean "complacuit Deo salvos facere omnes viros." This is an evolution in the language that must be respected, even in translation. The counter-claim is this: 2 The essay that, arguably, most clearly and effectively linked the cause of inclusive language to the women's liberation movement appeared as the first article in the inaugural issue of the influential feminist magazine Ms.: Kate Miller and Casey Swift, "De-Sexing the English Language," Ms. 1 (Spring 1972): 7. 3 See Witherup, Liturgist's Guide, 21-25, for a concise exposition of what I take to be the strongest inclusivist argument and the focus of this essay. I regard this case to be strongest because it acknowledges the recognized linguistic fact of (unmanipulated) language change. To the extent that my refutation is convincing it applies a fortiori to weaker explanations, such as those which propound a patriarchal conspiracy as the source of masculinist traditional language (e.g., Sandra M. Schneiders, Women and the Word [New York: Paulist, 1986], 70). INCLUSIVE-LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS 447 "Man," "he," etc., have precisely the...