When an exam board for England, Wales and Northern Ireland recently clarified that students are now permitted to use gender-inclusive or gender-neutral forms in French, Spanish and German exams, it marked more than a technical adjustment to assessment criteria.
These updates highlight an important fact about the nature of languages. They are not fixed systems but evolving, social practices.
The exam board guidance has not been universally embraced. Allowing references to diverse gender identities is perceived by some opponents to be ideologically driven. It has also been criticised that these novel forms, such as the French gender-neutral pronoun “iel”, are not widely used or endorsed by authorities (yet).
These arguments surface some common misunderstandings of how languages work and what language education is for. Two fundamental insights of sociolinguistics – the academic discipline that studies language in its social contexts – are that languages are as diverse as the people who use them, and they are constantly changing and shifting.
The ‘rizz’ of languages
Languages are not neatly defined, unambiguous systems, but rather complex and dynamic. How we express ourselves is influenced by a range of factors including geographical regions, social aspects and identity, formality, medium and context – as well as individual preferences. Consider the differences between varieties of English spoken around the world, or the way you speak in a formal work meeting compared with how you talk to your friends in a café or pub.
In addition, languages are constantly evolving and adapting. Youth language and slang are well-known and frequently discussed examples of language change. In 2025, I took part in a radio debate about the decision to include Gen-Z slang words like “skibidi”, “delulu” and “rizz” in the latest edition of the Cambridge Dictionary, a dictionary for learners of English.
The discussion asked a central question about the purpose of dictionaries: do they tell us how languages should work, or how they actually do work? And which is it that language learners need?
At the core of this question lies an important distinction that linguists make: prescriptive versus descriptive approaches to discussing language.
Prescribe or describe?
Prescriptivism is an approach that focuses on standardised rules and norms, telling us (that is, prescribing) how to express ourselves in a way that is considered “correct”. Descriptivism, on the other hand, observes and describes how a language is really used and acknowledges its variable, constantly evolving nature.
In dictionaries, both approaches have their place, but we need to be clear what the purpose of any given dictionary is.
Language classrooms may, for good reasons, lean towards a prescriptive approach. Exams need clear marking criteria. Learners need stability, especially at the beginning.
There are also very practical considerations: you can’t teach everything, especially with limited contact time and set curricula to be covered – so how do you choose? As a teacher, how do you stay on top of all these new developments? These are all valid points and the answers are not always straightforward.
On the flip side, you could argue that language teaching should represent languages the way they really are, and learners should be introduced to their nuances. Languages are not just transactional tools for ordering food or asking directions (although they are that too, of course!).
Importantly, they are a means through which people describe their lives, relationships and identities. If teaching and assessment materials only reflected a narrow slice of this, they would fail to represent cultures, societies and communication authentically.
Be it in films, social media or interactions with other users of the language, learners encounter not just textbook-standard language, but a wide range of forms and styles. The annual German youth word of the year competition, for example, is a great resource for students to learn slang words that are popular among young German speakers. In 2025, shortlisted words included “checkst du”, meaning “get it?” or “do you relate?”
Dragon Images/Shutterstock
It’s easy to see why it’s important to equip learners with the means to express themselves flexibly and appropriately in a range of different contexts and situations.
Ultimately, it’s about finding the right balance between prescriptivism and descriptivism in language education. This, as is often the case, is easier said than done. In my view, though, the exam board guidance did not deserve the criticism it received.
After all, the guidelines afford students the freedom to express themselves flexibly using gender-neutral forms, without mandating it. This approach empowers learners to express themselves in a way that reflects their own identities if they wish to do so.
Relatable classrooms
Allowing and modelling inclusive language is a way to ensure that all learners see themselves reflected and respected. It helps create environments where students are able to engage fully and relate to the content, which is a core part of responsible curriculum design.
Language both reflects and shapes social reality. Therefore, excluding diversity from language teaching risks perpetuating invisibility and bias. It may also create an unrealistic, unrelatable and potentially rather bland curriculum.
And this is where some of the real potential lies. Creative, culturally rich and linguistically diverse content, which reflects current shifts in societies and empowers learners to connect them to their own experiences and realities, may be just the recipe to make learning a language even more exciting.
