Neolengua en la academia: percepción y uso del lenguaje inclusivo

Abstract

his qualitative research explored the perceptions and practices regarding inclusive language among students and academics at the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Anonymous questionnaires and in-depth interviews were employed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic. The findings reveal three predominant stances towards inclusive language: rejection, support, and neutrality. Most participants (53%) are not in favor of inclusive language, citing reasons such as complexity and additional text length. This resistance is based on the efficiency and clarity of traditional language. Meanwhile, (30%) support it, arguing that it is a way to achieve a more inclusive society, and (17%) are indifferent, considering it irrelevant. The in-depth interviews reflect a diversity of opinions. Gustavo Salazar questions the usefulness of inclusive language, arguing that it confuses and does not contribute significantly. Artieda emphasizes the importance of reflecting on the precise use of language and adapting it contextually. On the other hand, Cordero criticizes the rigidity and potential waste generated by inclusive language. Valeria Guzmán offers an additional perspective, suggesting that language changes should not be imposed vertically by the State or institutions but should evolve organically. This view also suggests that the demands of minorities may not be sufficient to generate significant linguistic changes. In conclusion, the study highlights the complexity and polarization surrounding inclusive language within academia. While there is a prevailing preference for traditional language due to its communicative efficiency, the debate continues on how language can be adapted to reflect inclusion without compromising clarity and efficiency in communication.