Translation Through the Ages: A Study on the Evolution of Language and its Perception in Giuliana Giusti's 'Mi fai male... con le parole'

Link to source text ('Mi fai male... con le parole') by Giuliana Giusti

Contents

?

1.?????????? Acknowledgments?????????????????????????????????? ???? ????? iii

2.?????????? Introduction to Dissertation ?????? ???????????? ???? ????? iv

3.?????????? Translation from Italian to English, Source Text by Giuliana Giusti (translated by student),

with translated footnotes???? ??????????????????? ??????? v

4.?????????? Introduction to Commentary?????????????????? ??????? 1

5.?????????? Racial Discrimination Through Language ??????? 5

6.?????????? Gender Discrimination Through Language and

the Role of Language in a Social Hierarchy??????? 9

7.?????????? Reflective Appendix???????????????????????????????? ??????????? 16

8.?????????? Bibliography????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ???? 17

?Acknowledgements

?

I would like to formally thank my dissertation supervisor, and Italian lecturer over the past 5 years, Eanna O’Ceallachain, for his continued support throughout the process of writing my dissertation and from starting Italian as a beginner in 2018. I always felt his belief in my abilities and knew that he was always there for support as and when it was needed. I knew from an early stage that I had a particular interest in Translation Studies, and through Eanna’s course in Honours, I knew immediately that I would choose my dissertation specialistion in the subject.

?

I would also like to thank my other long-term Italian lecturer, Arabella Infantino, who helped me fall in love with the Italian language from the moment I entered the first-year classroom. Her dedication to her students’ education is wonderful to observe and I believe that without the Italian department at the University of Glasgow, I may never have realised how special the language is to me.

?

Alessia Zinnari, my Italian tutor for the past few years, also deserves a special thank you. Her interest in what she teaches always makes for an interesting discussion in oral and written classes, various of which did indeed inspire sections of my research for this dissertation. A tutor who loves what they teach is sure to inspire the same passion in their students, and that is exactly what Alessia did during each lesson.

?

I am also indebted to my friends, who were a continuous support throughout my five years at the university, but particularly in my Honours years when courses became more intense. I always appreciated the reminders to take a small break to focus my mind.?

?

?A translation from Italian into English of an excerpt of:

Language and Gender Issues: Some Introductory Thoughts, by Giuliana Giusti

(2397 words)

A commentary discussing the translation theory relevant to student’s work, with discussion of ethical issues arising from the source text and how they can be analysed in comparison to language of the modern day. (4184 words)

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?Translation

?

Preface: Footnotes 1-4 form part of the ST.

?

Language is probably the most useful tool human beings have at their disposal, allowing them to denotate everything around them. Through language, we identify ourselves as people who belong, or do not belong, to the geographical or social community we communicate within. In fact, we need only to have a ‘different accent’ or use ‘wrong’ words and we are recognised as coming from “elsewhere” or belonging to an “other” social group compared to that of the people we communicate with. The social potential of language lies not only in this formal perspective. Through words, we can describe people and objects, events and states of being, with the possibility of attributing them to a connotation that is not “neutral” but positive or negative (even if we do not always consciously intend to). For all these reasons it is evident that words can hurt. It is not surprising, therefore, that minority or disadvantaged groups may demand to be labelled with a specific term, contrary to one with which they do not identify themselves, or one which they consider derogatory. It is equally natural that these demands change with time given that with use, words can acquire a different connotation, fall into disuse, and be replaced with others, which will in turn be subject to the same potential developments.

The discussion on the agenda of this second part of the volume is how and why words can hurt women and how this can be avoided. The five papers that follow examine issues familiar to those who study the relationship between language and gender issues, but which are almost overlooked by men and women in Italy who want to break free from role stereotypes and strive for substantive equality in all areas of human behaviour. For us, language is one of the key points for achieving equal opportunities and rights, given that it is the formal code that underlies all means of human communication.

[..] I will provide some examples of how words which describe disadvantaged social groups are subject to a “pejorative slope” which starts with a somewhat positive connotation, moves to acquire a neutral connotation, to then acquire a negative meaning before being abandoned for another term which is very likely to undergo the same semantic process. We will see that this happens in every language, and that the Italian language presents instances of issues like this, also in reference to people of the female gender. Unfortunately, for the Italian Feminist movement the question of language has never been high on the agenda, and this has meant that the many works on Italian language and gender issues […] have essentially remained a dead letter even to this day. In this final part of this introduction, I present the results of a small study conducted in the final days I spent preparing this volume (March 2009) on initiatives, projects and discussions on the Italian language, which leave room for some glimmer of hope that someday in the future, things could change.

?1. The “pejorative slope” and “political correctness”

This phenomenon serves as a clear example of the history of labelling citizens of African descent in the United States, who are already a clearly disadvantaged social group. In the last century, every word that described a person from this social group has gone down an evident “pejorative slope”, starting with n****r or negro, followed by black in the 1960’s. This adjective was initially claimed by the black community with pride, but was again discarded and replaced with Afro-American, which was later revised to African American. It is equally exemplary to notice how perturbed socially dominant groups are to accept the linguistic changes that minority groups request. An example can be found in the definition of African American, among many others in Urban Dictionary, a website where internet users can submit any definition they see fit, and which, in this case, gives a voice to people who would not want to use the term considered nowadays to be the most “politically correct”:

[‘African American is the current politically correct way to say black person. This came to be the current correct way of saying it like this... about 400 years ago n****rs [the word is spelled out in full in ST] were brought from Africa to work in America as slaves […]

(www.urbandictionary.com, 30th April 2009)

It’s clear that the user who wrote the above definition does not identify with the social group discussed (they say, in fact ‘we had to call them’), that they would still like to use the term n****r (the first term on the timeline: ‘400 years ago’, which has passed down the entire “pejorative slope”, right to the extreme end of negative connotation), and that they resent the success of the Civil Rights Movement (‘they got the right to vote’) as well as their newfound social rights (‘now they have money’) of African Americans. However, it is also clear that the user is perfectly aware of the social history of the words they use, given that they identify the various civil and social successes with the progression of the word which is considered “politically correct” to name them. Moreover, while strongly disagreeing with the general tendency to respect the linguistic sensibilities of said minority, they acknowledge that the politically correct linguistic term is generally adopted by US society.

Italian language and culture are no different in this way when it comes to the usage of words. For example, the words which describe difficult circumstances such as disability[1] or low-skilled jobs[2] tend to succumb to the ‘pejorative slope’ and are subsequently replaced with other words. For example, in the late 1700’s, ‘serva’ (female servant/maidservant) did not have a negative connotation, as evidenced by ‘La serva padrona’ (The Maid Turned Mistress), F. Gennarantonio’s libretto, which was set to music in two different operas by Paisello and Pergolesi. The protagonist of the libretto is described as “servant woman of Uberto, rich bachelor”, with a neutral connotation that simply refers to her role. Throughout the last century, the term ‘serva’ acquired a negative connotation and was initially replaced with a nominal adjective ‘domestica’, and then more complex expressions were formed like ‘collaboratrice domestica’ (female domestic assistant) or ‘collaboratrice familiare’ (family assistant). From here the acronym ‘colf’ followed suit, which was somewhat less obvious and perhaps, therefore, dropped some of the negative connotation. An ongoing similar case involves the development of the term used to describe the role of those who care for the elderly and their homes; the neologism badante (caregiver), which comes from the present participle of the verb badare (to care for). For some reason, many perceive badante as ‘ugly’ (but it is unclear whether this is in an alleged linguistically aesthetic sense, or for some other reason) and ‘disrespectful’, as is shown by this press release from the municipality of Trent, which exhibits a documentary on these workers:

“This documentary – said Councilor Cogo – is intended to make the public aware of the complex reality of those women, whom with a distasteful term we continue to call badanti and who are fittingly referred to in the film by the Russian term, Sidelki, which literally means “the woman who sits beside the elderly”

It is clear from the text that the speaker believes that a loanword from Russian, such as sidelki, may be more respectful and more appropriate to neutrally name this type of worker. Councilor Cogo, however, does not think that many of them are indeed Russian and therefore, these workers may not like to be solely referred to in Italian with a word that is neither Italian nor of their mother tongue. Perhaps they themselves should be asked what they would prefer to be called, and it would possibly help to have the assistance of a linguist, who could make any negative or positive connotations clear before deciding on a possible alternative offered by the Italian language. […] The point is that the linguistic behaviour of Councilor Cogo testifies in a more or less conscious way, everyone “knows” that language can hurt, even if one cannot explain what hurts about certain linguistic uses, why it hurts, or how one can change a linguistic habit that does cause harm […]

In the 1960’s, whilst black people were asking to be called ‘black’, the American Feminist movement was protesting for change to the words people used to describe women, by crying out for the media, politics and the state to refrain from using the English language in a sexist way. The activists pinpointed said sexist usage, and then proposed appropriate linguistic changes to the English language for more inclusion in contemporary society. In Europe, these protests have sparked a light for women not only in England, but also in Germany, Spain and France. Italian women, on the other hand, have never distinctly protested or openly shared their support for the movement, which was addressed directly “from above” in 1987, with the publication of the Raccomandazioni per un uso non sessista della lingua italiana (Recommendations for a Non-Sexist Use of the Italian Language), edited by Alma Sabatini. These are recommendations which are not well known in the feminist debate and are scarcely taken advantage of, unless used perfunctorily or unsystematically by the press[3], television, educational publishing companies, and by political and institutional figures, as Matteo Motolese expresses in his balanced contribution in Lingua Italiana d’Oggi (vol II: 101-107), which readers demanded.

If one were to reflect just a little carefully, one might notice that even in Italian, the terms describing women, just like the terms describing disadvantaged groups, have degraded in connotation over time, and continue to suffer to this day, following the route of the typical ‘pejorative slope’. For example, uomo (man) derives from the Latin homo, which originally described the human being as opposed to the animal (Belva), regardless of the natural gender of the individual (homines utriusque sexus, Cicero) and can even be the predicate of a feminine singular subject (homo nata fuerat, Cicero). In classical Latin, a male individual is named vir, as opposed to mulier (the name for a human being of female gender), but already in Late Latin, homo shifts from the denotation of the species to the denotation of the socially dominant gender (the male one) (cf mi homo et mea mulier, Plautus), replacing vir, which is abandoned, while mulier moves to specify a female human being in relation to a man (spouse, wife). The denotation of the singular female human being is taken from donna, which derives from domina (lady, mistress); a term originally denoting a being of high social status (like the pale parallel dominus, which does not continue as a term in more modern lexicon) and has gone down an obvious ‘pejorative slope’ by moving to describe all individuals of female gender. However, the ‘pejorative slope’ of donna (woman) does not stop there, because as if it had a derogatory connotation, it is currently being replaced by signora (lady), which in turn is suffering a similar fate. In fact, a woman is often referred to as signora without any implication of social hierarchy and is used for la signora della pulizie (the cleaning lady), and la sua signora (‘his’ or ‘your’ wife, again, almost as if it were the ‘prototypical’ role of women). Not to mention that signora and signorina (Mrs. and Miss) used as honorifics or titles, often replace education credentials for women, and simultaneously involve implications of age or martial status (it is very difficult to distinguish which one prevails over the other). This usage is absolutely asymmetrical to titles and honorifics used for men, who are almost never called signore (young gentleman/mister), but rather with their name or surname, or with their education credential which can precede the surname; and if they are young or unmarried, they are never called signorino (young master [obsolete]), but instead with more neutral terms such as giovanotto (young man), ragazzo (boy), or with the proper noun or surname (depending on contexts) without an honorary title.

In a monograph republished in 2001, Miller and Swift[4] report similar developments for man and woman in English, where they trace all the reasons for non-sexist use of language, and how it has been demanded by a large social movement. Thus, the movement brought forth a set of guidelines which are now respected, even if to varying degrees, by all forms of media. As mentioned above, this situation is not exclusive to America; as during the 1980’s all Western countries investigated the issue and fought with varying outcomes. In Italy, it was the State who dealt with the issue, and not women, as the culturally active group of society that they are.

That is why, thirty years later, we are still posing the same question as if we were back at the beginning: “Can women be hurt with words?”

Our overall intention could be achieved if only an interest in a general reflection on language became the priority for all Italian men and women.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

[1] In the 1970’s, ‘handicappato’ (handicapped) was a newly formed anglicism with neutral connotation which defined a person generally bearing a disability: after, it went on to acquire a negative connotation and was consequently replaced by the paraphrase ‘portatore di handicap’ (handicapped person), which includes the same anglicism. This term also suffered through the “pejorative slope” and was replaced with ‘disabile’ (disabled), which is currently being rejected in favour of ‘diversamente abile’ (differently abled), for the same reason.

[2] Town and city cleaners have gone through phases of adopted dialectal terms like ‘mondezzaro’ (garbage collector), spazzino (garbage collector), scopino (street sweeper), to the use of netturbino (binman) in the 70’s and successively to ‘operatore ecologico’ (garbage collector).

[3]When in the final stages of writing this paper, I read the front page headline of the Manifesto of June 3, 2009: ‘British Home Secretary (female noun) (la ministra) Jacqui Smith… Resigns’. The headline of page 4 follows; ‘The plot thickens, the Home Secretary (male noun) (il ministro) announces resignation’, and the article proceeds to use the masculine form of the title. The Manifesto’s political will to use “correct” language is evident, but it is obvious that many male (and female?) authors or male (and again, female?) titlists, are not prepared to do so systematically.

[4] Casey Miller, Kay Swift. The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. For Editors and Speakers. Lippincott & Crowell 1980. IUniverse.com, Inc. Lincoln. NE 2001.

Commentary

Modernity fluctuates, and all modern things eventually become antiquated. With that progression, the art of Translation has to be adapted to pertain to the current time and adhere to social expectations. Nonetheless, the theory of Translation such as is demonstrated by Koller’s Equivalence and Vermeer’s Skopostheorie among others, continues to be essential when converting any text from one language to another. The context of course, is fundamental for an accurate rendering of any source text, but with a combination of both, an accurate translation can be produced, stylistically and theoretically. In the case of translating ‘inclusive language’, it is necessary to have a social awareness of modern day sociology. Common descriptors for that which is modern, could be associated with ‘revolution’ but depending on context and the speaker, a revolutionary concept can be extremely positive or extremely negative. Lately, people have come to use the term ‘woke’ in a similar context. However, nowadays the word is seldom spoken in an endearing way. For a while, the concept of ‘wokeness’ was a term solely used within the black community, for highlighting the necessity of being socially and politically aware, in order to survive a society of structural oppression.[1] Through time, as often occurs in a consumerist society desperate to take advantage of any opportunity to make a ‘quick buck’, the rising popularity of the word ‘woke’ among all social groups risked being used in an act of ‘performative allyship’.[2] The word progressed from its racial roots and instead of being used in the verbal context of ‘staying woke’, it eventually transitioned into serving adjective purposes, to include the awareness of other injustices and discriminations such as gender and sexuality. Unfortunately, the weaponisation of the concept rapidly became apparent at the hands of right-wing politics, resulting in the trivialization of its initial meaning in the fight for civil rights, and its evolution into an insult used against those who protest racism, sexism and other discrimination, as well as an implication of over-reaction or over-sensitivity.[3] Some definitions of certain works may simply lack nuance, but connotation is critical to a language, and can greatly alter how a phrase is perceived in an emotional sense. For example, the question critical to consider, is if a word used has the potential to hurt another. Perhaps, the utmost importance lies in researching language and its effects, before deciding to use a word simply because it has long been used in history, because as Giuliana Giusti, of Università Ca′Foscari, discusses; language and its perception changes astronomically through time. In her collection of essays of 2009 named ‘Mi fai male… con le parole’, there is a powerful recurring concept that Giusti names ‘la china peggiorativa’, which describes the process which words go through in terms of their connotation. This commentary will go onto discuss this phenomenon and the trends it follows, as well as highlighting areas where a translation of her text proved to be a challenge, and the reasons for which solutions were chosen.

In the first page of her article, the writer explains that language, at its core, is the basis of all human life, since it allows a speaker to express their identity within social groups and communities. However, it is also made clear through Giusti′s words that the reception of language goes far beyond basic semantics:

“Per mezzo delle parole si designano cose e persone, eventi e stati di fatto, con la possibilità di attribuire loro (spesso in modo non del tutto cosciente o volontario) una connotazione non “neutra” ma positiva o negativa. Per tutte queste ragioni è evidente che le parole possono far male.”[4]

There is no doubt, in Giusti’s eyes, therefore, that language can cause offence. Of course, the question of morality is extremely pertinent here since in theory, as human beings we have freedom of opinion, and in instances of privilege, we may have freedom of expression. The plain truth is that ‘no one truly has the right to prohibit another person from saying any word they want’. With freedom, comes responsibility though, and ‘anyone can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre – however there are consequences for doing so. Anyone can say a false statement about another knowing that the statement is untrue and knowing that it will cause harm. However, this is called slander.’[5] Hence, it is in good conscience that one should reflect on the language they use in an attempt to avoid saying anything potentially hurtful. This custom certainly differs between cultures, and what is societally acceptable in one culture may have the opposite effect in another, and this is exemplified in the challenges that can arise when completing translations in an intercultural setting. It is particularly important to note that disadvantaged and minority groups are often at the forefront of linguistic discrimination, and so Giusti underlines various areas of injustice of this sort particular to race and gender. As a translator, working on the collection of essays fourteen years after they were written, allows for a critical analysis of exactly how the impact of certain words and phrases can change, and in this way, Giusti’s theory is proven further.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

[1] Jenna Gray, Francesca Sobande, ‘Woke-washing: “intersectional” femvertising and branding “woke” bravery’, European Journal of Marketing, 54. 11, (2019), p. 2724, in https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0134/full/html [accessed 28 March 2023].

[2] Peter Kalina, ‘Performative Allyship’, Technium Social Sciences Journal, 11, (2020), p. 278-481.

[3] Bart Cammaerts, ‘The abnormalisation of social justice: The ‘anti-woke culture war’ discourse in the UK’, Discourse & Society, 33. 6, (2022), p. 734-735.?

[4] Giuliana Giusti, ‘Mi fai male… con le parole’, Mi fai male (2009), 89-94 (p. 89), in Comitato Per Le Pari Opportunità, Materiali Studi https://phaidra.cab.unipd.it/detail/o:348327 [accessed 29 March 2023].

[5] Wyman King, Richard Emanuel, Xavier Brown, Niroby Dingle, Vertis Lucas, Anissa Perkins, Ayzia Turner, Destinee Whittington, Qwa’dryna Witherspoon, ‘Who has the “Right” to Use the N-Word? A Survey of Attitudes about the Acceptability of Using the N-Word and its Derivatives”, International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 6. 2, (2018), p. 49.

?Chapter 1 – Racial Discrimination Through Language

Whilst certain criticisms of the source text could be excused by contextualising the essay with its year of publication being 2009, there are certain aspects which perhaps would not bode well with an English reader. In terms of race, there are a multitude of terms which now cause serious offence, despite once being considered the ‘default term’. In Giusti’s essays she cites a definition from the Urban Dictionary, in which a racist slur is written in full. A linguistic and moral issue arises when Giusti quotes the uncensored version of the term, and proceeds to discuss the quote further, still opting to write the word in full:

“Nel secolo scorso, ogni parola che designasse una persona appartenente a questo gruppo sociale ha subito una evidente “china peggiorativa” che parte da n****r [uncensored in ST] o ‘nigro’ [negro], seguito da ‘black’ negli anni ’60, aggettivo inizialmente rivendicato dalla comunità nera con orgoglio e poi di nuovo rifiutato da questa in favore di ‘Afro-American’, successivamente rivisto in ‘African American’.”

The use of the censored word is less surprising in a source like the Urban Dictionary, since anyone has permission to add or alter any given definitions of a word or phrase. That said, it is generally considered deeply offensive to use the N-Word in any context, whether that be written or spoken. Therefore, it is rather concerning that in an academic context, a scholar might write the word in full, given its history in times of mass racial oppression. The historical context of the N-Word is often linked to the Latin word niger, which simply means black. However, used in English, ‘no matter what its origins, by the early 1800s, it was firmly established as a derogative name. During slavery, the words ‘n****r’ and ‘Black’ were often embedded before a first or given name (e.g. n****r John or Black John).’[1] The racist use of the word has continued throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and Sean Price of Teaching Tolerance argues that ‘the poison is still there. The word is inextricably linked with violence and brutality on Black psyches and derogatory aspersions cast on Black bodies. No degree of appropriating can rid it of that bloodsoaked history.’[2] For a translator, it is a challenge to know how to deal with Giusti’s lack of censorship. Initially, it is critical to consider the Skopos of the particular translation one must produce, which in this case would be to accurately convey the theory that the perception of language and its connotations does change over time, in an attempt to reduce the harm it may cause. For that reason, it can be argued that it is most appropriate to censor the N-Word, even though Giusti did not. Another issue which arises from Giusti’s article, is the categorisation of n****r and negro [misspelled as nigro in ST]. While the word negro is scarcely used nowadays to refer to a black person because it is indeed considered a slur, it certainly does not seem to share the level of derogatory connotation as the discussed N-Word. Negro was used around the same time as it’s ‘counterpart’, however its usage was perhaps more general and descriptive, rather than having the same toxicity as a verbal weapon like n****r. Negro also derives from the Latin niger, but n****r ‘is considered by many to be one of the worst racial epithets in the United States, if not the worst from a historical and socio-political standpoint’.[3] Therefore, even though both words derive from the same Latin root, negro does not share the exact connotation as the other N-Word does, and so should arguably not be classified together in the same sentence.? Giusti provides a criticism on the user of Urban Dictionary, and rightly so, given that they not only used a highly offensive slur against African Americans, but also expressed a clear disapproval of the duty to use respectful language. Giusti does express that while the Dictionary user does clearly disagree with the duty to use respectful language, ′riconosce che l’abito linguistico politicamente corretto è generalmente adottato dalla società statunitense’.[4] This user is not alone in their disdain, since the article also explicitly states that those from socially dominant groups would rather not be advised what language terms to use or not to use. As a white woman, therefore being from the ‘dominant’ race, it seems that although Giusti evidently agrees that using the word against a black person is entirely wrong, it is almost exemplary that she writes the word in full. Therefore, when translating the text, the most appropriate option seems to censor the word, but specify that it was originally uncensored in the ST.

??????????? While it is unlikely given the context of the ST, that Giusti’s intentions were to cause harm, it could be argued that failing to consider the consequences of writing the word in full, is almost as harmful, as it presents a sense of lack of caution when dealing with such racist issues – despite outlining the acknowledgement that calling a black person, n****r, is wrong. Zeus Leonardo, a person of colour and a scholar in Educational Philosophy and Theory, explains that:

“Racial privilege is the notion that white subjects accrue advantages by virtue of being constructed as whites […] Privilege is granted even without a subject’s re(cognition) that life is made a bit easier for her. […] ‘Race treason’ or the renunciation of whiteness is definitely a choice for many whites (Ignatiev & Garvey, 1996), but without the accompanying structural changes, it does not choke off the flow of institutional privileges that subjects who are constructed as white enjoy.”[5]

Through Leonardo’s work, a reader is compelled to think of their own relationship with racial privilege, and if they must go through the motions of daily life worrying about the language usage of their peers, like those belonging to minority groups do. Perhaps it is something they had never considered because they have never had to. Giusti’s decision, or lack thereof, regarding dealing with the transcription of the slur is paramount in outlining the continuing systemic racism in modern society. If there were more awareness to the extremity of the lasting issue, perhaps in general one would be more cautious when discussing race. Of course, it could be argued that by censoring a word, we diminish the importance of remembering its history. Nevertheless, by using the word at all, it becomes more difficult to regulate the connotations it is being spoken with. Therefore, it seems only right, that one censors it whilst making sure to never forget the reasons for doing so.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

[1] Ibid, p. 49.

[2] Sean Price, ‘Straight Talk About the N-Word’, Learning For Justice, 40, (2011), in <https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2011/straight-talk-about-the-nword> [accessed 30 March 2023].

[3] Calvin Fogle, ‘The Etymology, Evolution and Social Acceptability of 'N****r', 'Negro', and 'N***a', Western Governors University, p.2

[4] Giusti, p. 91.

[5] Zeus Leonardo, ‘The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege’’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36.2, (2013), p. 137-138), in <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-

5812.2004.00057.x> [accessed 26 January 2023].

Chapter 2 – Gender Discrimination Through Language and the Role of Language in a Social Hierarchy

The other principal theme in the chosen excerpt of Giusti’s article, ‘Mi fai male… con le parole’, centres around Gender Discrimination. It cannot be denied that injustice between genders is still a rampant problem to this day, and like Racial Discrimination, Giusti explains how the language used to discuss it is subject to the ‘pejorative slope’. At any point in time, a word may be used in everyday life as a neutral descriptor, but eventually it goes through the trend and process of eventually acquiring a negative connotation. What is also important to discuss when researching the relationship between Language and Sexism, is how language is used to degrade people of a ‘lower social rank’. Firstly, it is critical to mention that behind all gender prejudices, are expectations created by human beings which restrict other individuals. Technically, if one were to look back in time at how society has evolved, and consider the simply biology of humans, gender and the expectations we may have of it, are a mere social construct. Therefore, translating texts into English from a source language which has roots in Latin, can pose many challenges, as Latin is a strictly gendered language, whereas English is not.

??????????? Many people continue to believe that Sex and Gender are synonymous, when in fact they are alike in very few ways. In her chapter of a book written in the year 2018, Judith Lorber points out just how superficial Gender is:

“Gender is so much the routine ground of everyday activities that questioning its taken-for-granted assumptions and presuppositions is like thinking about whether the sun will come up.[1] […] Gender is so pervasive that in our society we assume it is bred into our genes. Most people find it hard to believe that gender is constantly created and recreated out of human interaction, out of social life, and is the texture and order of that social life. Yet gender, like culture, is a human production that depends on everyone constantly “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987).[2]

Even in 1994, Lorber confirmed that the correlation between Sex and Gender is entirely man-made, since when a baby is born, a parent will notice their male genitalia, and then generally surround the child with ‘masculine’ clothing and toys, without the child even knowing they are being brought up and pushed into expectations of ‘manhood’. It can be extremely damaging to assume a gender from a sex organ, since by the time a child is knowledgeable enough and has lived enough life experiences, it is possible that they feel the need to seek professional help to release themselves of an inner gender conflict. Italian language and culture certainly has examples of issues which raise gender conflicts to reflect on. Giusti reflects on the libretto, La Serva Padrona, by F. Gennarantonio, which could have a couple of alternative options for translation into English. What is crucial to consider however, is how it is possible to maintain the paradoxical effect of the words serva and padrona. In order to understand the title of the libretto without omitting any of its implications, it may be useful to take advantage of Eugene Nida’s dynamic equivalence. If translated literally, using formal equivalence, the libretto may read as The Maid Mistress, which although has the potential to be understood with the help of additional context, does not fully portray the nuance of the paradox. Therefore, the Greek National Opera, among other theatre related sites, present the English title as The Maid Turned Mistress.[3]

?

?

Giusti explains that:

“serva’ alla fine del ‘700 non aveva connotazione negativa come testimonia La serva padrona […] in cui la protagonista è descritta come “serva di Uberto, ricco scapolo”, con una connotazione neutrale che fa riferimento semplicemente al suo ruolo.”[4]

The difficulty of translating the libretto’s title into English also arises when attempting to specify the servant’s gender. Simplistically, serva can be translated to servant, but that option would not explicitly detail a gender. Of course, that may not be necessary, but the English translation cannot be replicated with the same nuance that the Italian version possesses. Evidently in this case, the addition of padrona helps greatly, since mistress is semantically gendered in English – however with an alternative translation in the form of owner as the word also means, the specification of gender would be lost all together. As Giusti explains, the protagonist of the libretto is described as ‘serva di Uberto, ricco scapolo’, for which a translator could be inclined to opt for formal equivalence by simply writing ‘servant of Uberto, rich bachelor’. Though it flows and has a natural ring to it, again the nuance that the specification of gender in Italian provides, is lost. Therefore, ‘female servant’, though the additional word may seem more forced, could be perceived as more appropriate, since none of the original meaning is lost from the ST. In a modern society, and as is exemplified with Giusti’s ‘pejorative slope’ theory, the use of an ungendered proper noun in English, could be seen as progressive and inclusive. Outside the requirements to translate the piece of work, rather than produce an interpretation, many individuals now prefer to be labelled with an ungendered term, like waiter for all genders, or server, nurse, or maid. Nowadays, there are many more recognised genders than simply man and woman. In fact, there are many people who do not conform to the concept of gender at all, and prefer to be considered as non-binary, or gender non-conforming. These are indisputably modern terms, but they are now often encouraged when someone is struggling within the confines of gender roles or expectations. Therefore, although a translator might decide to write female servant in this case, to maintain the original tone, connotation, or implication of the ST, like the ‘pejorative slope’ shows; just over a decade later, society is looking to steer away from highlighting gender – and in speech, one would most likely opt for the ungendered noun.

?

Therefore, language is used to harm those one might have a prejudice against in every walk of life. Words will always be around to offend those who one sees as ‘less than’ or an ‘Other’ – and as Giusti explains, the terms we consider to be polite now, may be offensive in a decade to come. In one particular area of the essay written by Giusti, she writes that ‘tutti e tutte “sanno” che la lingua può far male anche se non sempre si riesce ad esplicitare cosa fa male…’[5] As previously discussed, this language, at the time of writing, would have been a feminist stance. Since the norm in Italian was to group individuals of different genders into the masculine form of an adjective or noun, to include both masculine and feminine forms of the noun was considered progressive. However nowadays, seeing that as a society we are more accepting of the theories of ‘fixed, unitary identifications’ and the notion of a ‘fluid gender that moves between multiple identifications’.[6] There is no doubt that in terms of inclusivity, the English language provides more linguistic options. Therefore, a translator′s job is often made easier when translating into English, since its words are not grammatically gendered. Even so, in this case, since Giusti decides to consistently use tutti e tutte, and gli italiani e le italiane, it is clear that it is an intentional choice. To further highlight the accuracy of the ′pejorative slope′ theory, if a translator were writing a modern interpretation of the essay that was not constricted to the need for a translation that was as semantically and grammatically similar to the ST as possible, one could opt for a simple English version of ‘everyone’. The situation is difficult since one must choose between encouraging the Feminist approach, and not losing the original flavour of the gendered phrase. While it is empowering to choose not to group women under a plural umbrella term of the masculine form, it also means excluding those who do not identify as man nor woman from the discussion. Either option is inherently unfair and inequal, and many languages are attempting to expand the linguistic alternatives (take latinxs or latines for example in Spanish), but unfortunately the roots of this type of exclusion stem from Latin – and so are traditionally more problematic to change. In Italian, there has been an increase in the written form of tutt*, with an asterisk avoiding the need to specify gender, however in spoken language, this is not an effective solution since there is no vowel to pronounce.

??????????? In Giusti’s final main paragraph of this first textual section, she discusses the development of Latin into modern society and how in some cases, it has resulted in particularly sexist uses of language. In the days where Latin was still used regularly in speech and text, Woman was considered an Other in general, so it is not surprising that the language reflects this issue. Giusti asks the reader to consider:

“Già’ in latino tardo ‘homo’ passa dalla denotazione del genere socialmente dominante (quello maschile)(cf mi homo et mea mulier, Plautus) sostituendo ‘vir’ che viene abbandonato, mentre ‘mulier’ si specifica altrimenti passando a designare un essere umano femminile in relazione ad un uomo (coniuge, moglie)”.[7]

Equally in French, Spanish and Italian, the words for husband generally come from their form of the verb ‘to marry’ or ‘to combine’ i.e., mari, marido and marito. On the other hand, the romance language words for the English ‘wife’ are entirely gender based, in both grammatical and conceptual contexts, i.e., femme, mujer and moglie. Therefore, even though there have been changes made to de-alienate women linguistically, language is still hugely man or male-centered. In relation to the process of Translation, it is essentially up to the translator to decide how to deal with these interlinguistic differences. The question of the analysis of Giusti’s article remains pertinent: is it morally just to discuss men and women solely and specifically? Or should the translation of the ST be more inclusive? Even though theoretically women are not a minority in number, their treatment and belittling through language and wider societal expectations certainly places them at a disadvantage in many spaces. Fortunately, women’s rights have come so far in the past few decades, but there is always room for improvement, specifically within Italian culture, as Giusti explains that: “per il movimento femminista italiano la questione del linguaggio non è mai stata tra le priorità in agenda.”[8]

Giuliana Giusti’s closing sentiments on the topic discussed are poignant. The question is regularly asked:

‘Si può far male alle donne con le parole?’

Though, the truth is that no matter the answer, if there were a possible one, would it matter? Each human being has their own moral conscience to take into consideration when interacting with others. One can choose to be kind and respectful, but if the larger organisations, governments and leaders do not set an example, how can we convince ordinary human beings to make the change. As a society, and as a concept of ‘man’s creation’ (because again, language is entirely man-centered), nothing is permanent, and everything is subjective. Therefore, is any opinion really the ‘right one’? It appears that inherently, language is harmful, and will always be used that way – as it has since the first humans tried to communicate with each other. As a translator, perhaps one need only reflect on their own morals and opinions to decide what method of dealing with harmful language is the right one.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

[1] Judith Lorber, ‘Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender’, in Paradoxes of Gender (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 13-15, 32-26.

[2] Lorber, ‘The Social Construction of Gender’, in Inequality in the 21st Century, ed. By David B. Grusky, Jasmine Hill, 1 edn. (London: Routledge, 2018), p. 111-112.

[3]https://virtualmuseum.nationalopera.gr/en/virtual-exhibition/works/the-maid-turned-mistress-3060/ [accessed 03 April 2023]

[4] Giusti, p. 91.

[5] Giusti, p. 92.

[6] Annie Sweetman Ph.D., ‘The changing contexts of gender: Between fixed and fluid experience’, The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, 6. 4, (1996), 437-459 (p. 437), in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889609539130 [accessed 31 March 2023].

[7] Giusti, p. 93.

[8] Ibid, p. 90.

?Reflective Appendix

This dissertation topic was extremely intriguing to me from the planning stages. I wanted to combine my love for Translation with my passion for Feminist and Gender studies, with a broad interest in all aspects of Injustice.

One of the initial challenges I incurred was finding an appropriate source text that did not already have an existing English translation, but since, as Giusti explained, there has been less work done on Italian Feminism specifically, I eventually did find a couple of texts and narrowed it down to mi fai male… con le parole, since I felt it really conveyed a sense of traditionalism that could be critiqued.

Even though there were various general sections throughout the piece where I had to either completely change the sentence structure or semantics in general, through dynamic equivalence, I felt it would be most appropriate to categorise my discussion into the chapter headings of Racism, Gender Discrimination & Other Social Injustices, since it allowed for my text to have more organisation.

One particular issue I felt rather conflicted on was whether or not I was in the social position to speak on some of these issues. As a white woman, it is not for me to decide whether or not a word must or must not be used in reference to the African American community. However I eventually, through research, came to the conclusion that even though it was not my place to make a concrete decision, I could present the moral reasons for and against, and let a reader make their own conclusions.

I honestly believe that I have personally and academically gained so much from the experience of writing my dissertation, as it has caused me to really consider the language I, and others, use in daily life. Though, before I always tried to be as respectful as possible when interacting with those around me, I hadn’t really considered my linguistics in a theoretical way – but rather just in a moral sense. I know that I will always be interested in the evolution of language in years to come, and that even now I am picking up on more words that are being used more negatively than they used to be. Therefore, I am definitely grateful for the development I, and my dissertation, have gone through.

?

?

Bibliography

Primary Sources

?? Giusti Giuliana, ‘Mi fai male… con le parole’, Mi fai male (2009), 89-94 (p. 89), in Comitato Per Le Pari Opportunità, Materiali Studi

Secondary Sources

?? Cammaerts Bart, ‘The abnormalisation of social justice: The ‘anti-woke culture war’ discourse in the UK’, Discourse & Society, 33. 6, (2022)

?? Fogle Calvin, ‘The Etymology, Evolution and Social Acceptability of 'N****r', 'Negro', and 'N***a', Western Governors University

?? Gray Jenna, Sobande Francesca, ‘Woke-washing: “intersectional” femvertising and branding “woke” bravery’, European Journal of Marketing, 54. 11, (2019)

?? Kalina Peter, ‘Performative Allyship’, Technium Social Sciences Journal, 11, (2020)

?? King Wyman, Emanuel Richard, Brown Xavier, Dingle Niroby, Lucas Vertis, Perkins Anissa, Turner Ayzia, Whittington Destinee, Witherspoon Qwa’dryna, ‘Who has the “Right” to Use the N-Word? A Survey of Attitudes about the Acceptability of Using the N-Word and its Derivatives”, International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 6. 2, (2018)

?? Leonardo Zeus, ‘The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege’’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36.2, (2013)

?? Lorber Judith, ‘Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender’, in Paradoxes of Gender (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)

?? Lorber Judith, ‘The Social Construction of Gender’, in Inequality in the 21st Century, ed. By David B. Grusky, Jasmine Hill, 1 edn. (London: Routledge, 2018)

?? Miller Casey, Swift Kay. The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. For Editors and Speakers. Lippincott & Crowell 1980. IUniverse.com, Inc. Lincoln. NE 2001.

?? Price Sean, ‘Straight Talk About the N-Word’, Learning For Justice, 40, (2011)

?? Sweetman Annie Ph.D., ‘The changing contexts of gender: Between fixed and fluid experience’, The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, 6. 4, (1996)

?? https://virtualmuseum.nationalopera.gr/en/virtual-exhibition/works/the-maid-turned-mistress-3060/