Abstract
Italian legal language can be considered sexist (Sabatini 1987, Fusco 2020, de Maglie 2021, Giusti 2022) because women and non-binary people are underrepresented or disregarded (e.g. masculine agentives for women and mixed-sex groups). Against the background of a changed society and the constitutional plea for non-discrimination (Art. 3), provisions have called for inclusive legal language (e.g. Directive 23/05/2007, Bolzano Law 5/2010, Emilia-Romagna Law 6/2014). Guidelines have disseminated adequate (re)writing strategies (e.g. Provincia autonoma 2012, Robustelli 2012, MIUR 2018).
“The legal language is not a suitable venue for innovative experiments of a minority” for the Accademia della Crusca (2023). Therefore, inclusiveness strategies using the gender-neutral suffix -ə or symbols like the asterisk are excluded from legal communication. The legal language aims to be neutral, universal, impersonal (Pacella 2020) and is conservative. Legal rules give a simplified, generalised, fictional (male-only) representation of the world (Cavagnoli 2013). Cavagnoli (2013, 2019) has shown that legal texts in Italian are not consistently inclusive, neither at the national nor at EU level. They often use masculine agentives with a generic meaning. Nevertheless, a compromise between the requirements of abstraction/generalisation in legal language and inclusive communication seems possible (Cavagnoli 2013), especially following experiences from multilingual contexts (EU, Switzerland, South Tyrol).
We present the challenges and limits when rewriting definitions of legal agentives (e.g. professions, functions, family relations) extracted from the ANONYMOUS terminological database. Approximately 250 definitions were extracted, analysed and classified as to their inclusivity. Inclusive definitions were studied for inclusive writing strategies (e.g. definitions with gender-neutral terms/phrases like ogni persona, soggetto che, chi). The other definitions – often mentioning other legal agentives – were rewritten by four university students under the supervision of two terminologists and one legal expert following public administration guidelines (Robustelli 2012, Provincia autonoma 2021). The students looked for rewriting strategies that could be applied systematically (e.g. colui che > chi) and drafted guidelines for inclusive legal definitions.
The main challenges concern:
* The abstract nature of legal concepts vs the concrete persons embodying a function (e.g. giudice as a person or as an organ)
* The adherence to customary legal terminology and the strong intertextuality of legal texts (e.g. replacing a legally defined term like il rappresentante dei lavoratori per la sicurezza with chi rappresenta la forza lavoro in materia di sicurezza hampers direct reference to the legal concept and tends to be less feasible for terms defined within laws than for terms from lower-ranking sources like administrative texts)
* The difficulty of changing official designations of legal institutions, documents etc. (e.g. Consiglio dei ministri, fascicolo del difensore)
* The potential loss of precision or change in meaning when applying inclusive (re)writing strategies (e.g. replacing Presidente del Consiglio with Presidenza del Consiglio, which is another organ, becomes incorrect legal information)
* The higher complexity of some inclusive definitions (e.g. with several split forms or paraphrases) that conflicts with plain language requirements
We give examples and discuss possible solutions. Inclusive terminological definitions of legal agentives must strike a balance between clarity, precision, legal correctness and (officially accepted) inclusive writing strategies.