New ethics” of translation: stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusivity in English-Ukrainian translations of socio-political texts in the 2020s

Keywords: inclusiveness, “new ethics” of translation, non-discriminatory vocabulary, socio-political discourse, tolerance

Abstract

The article is devoted to the “new ethics” of translation and stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusiveness, which in the early 2020s became decisive for the English-Ukrainian translations of socio-political texts. The purpose of the article is to identify and systematically analyse the stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusivity in the translation of socio-political texts of the 2020s from English into Ukrainian and to identify translation strategies that achieve ethical correctness and adequate reproduction of the modern discourse. The material for the analysis is modern English-language research in the field of translation studies and original texts dating from the first half of the 21st century. The purpose of the article is to identify and systematically analyze stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusivity in the translation of socio-political texts from English into Ukrainian in the 2020s, and to determine translation strategies that achieve ethical correctness and accurate rendering of modern discourse. The material for the analysis consists of modern English-language research in the field of translation studies and original texts dating from the first half of the 21st century. It has been established that linguistic inclusion has become an effective way to restore social justice and ensure respect for every human difference through its correct nomination and favorable attitude, especially in the socio-political discourse we are considering. It has been determined that such texts are a challenge for Ukrainian translators, as we still do not have effective strategies and mechanisms in place to regulate the methods of adequately adapting “sensitive” vocabulary to linguistic norms and the choice of correct names for various social phenomena. Specialists must decide for themselves how to accurately convey the meaning of the original without violating the norms of the modern Ukrainian literary language and the ethical standards of the country whose socio-political text is being translated. The article describes the specifics of lexical, syntactic, cultural, and stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusiveness, which are used to ensure adequate and ethical reproduction of the original text. The analysis of theoretical and practical materials on the outlined issue allowed us to determine the orientation of the markers, including the rules for choosing the necessary feminitives, using the person-first language, adhering to a neutral position when translating socio-political terms, and also controlling the choice of evaluative or stigmatized forms. It was determined that lexical, syntactic, stylistic and cultural markers of tolerance and inclusion help translators adequately reproduce the original texts, preserve their content and pragmatism, and avoid discrimination and stigmatization of individual social groups. It was concluded that during the war in Ukraine, translation balances between the global DEI standards and the national, patriotic and value-based features of speech. Taking into account international experience, the Ukrainian translation community forms its own strategies of ethical translation and practices of linguistic inclusion that correspond to the specifics of the national context.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Kostiantyn Kosharnyi

PhD Student, Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

References

Andreitsiv, I. (2018). Slovnychok osvichenoho ukraintsia. Yak mozhna i ne mozhna hovoryty pro liudei [Dictionary of an educated Ukrainian. How you can and cannot talk about people]. Ukrainska pravda. Retrieved from: https://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2018/01/23/228588/

Vaskiv, M. (2022). Standarty zhurnalistyky y «mova tolerantnosti» v konteksti zakonodavstva derzhavno-natsionalnoi bezpeky [Standards of journalism and «Language of Tolerance» in the context of legislation and state and national security]. Intnhrovani komunikatsii [Integrated communications], 1(13), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.28925/2524-2644.2022.11

Derik, I., & Hutsal, D. (2021). Osoblyvosti vidtvorennia feminityviv u perekladi ukrainskoi publitsystyky anhliiskoiu movoiu [Features of reproduction of feminitives in the translation of Ukrainian journalism into English]. Naukovyi visnyk PNPU im. K. D. Ushynskoho [Scientific Bulletin of South Ukrainian National Padagogical University named after K.D.Ushynsky], 33, 311–327. http://dspace.pdpu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/15656

Zinchenko, V., & Hryshchenko, O. (2024). Movna inkliuziia v publichnomu dyskursi ta linhvistychni stratehii spryiannia sotsialnii rivnosti [Linguistic inclusion in public discourse and linguistic strategies for Ppromoting social equality]. Visnyk humanitarnykh nauk [Bulletin of Humanities], 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14065821

Zinchenko, A., & Rudenko, M. (2022). Markery rasovoi prynalezhnosti v anhlomovnii publitsystytsi: perekladatski rishennia [Markers of racial identification in English publicistics: translation solutions]. Naukovi zapysky. Seriia: Filolohichni nauky [Research Bulletin. Series: Philological Sciences], 202, 135–139. DOI: 10.36550/2522-4077-2022-1-202-135-139

Kukushkin, V. V., & Shostak, U. V. (2025). Problema movnoyi politkorektnosti v suchasniy anhliysʹkiy movi: vplyv sotsiokulʹturnykh zmin na slovnykovyy zapas [The problem of linguistic political correctness in modern English: the influence of socio-cultural changes on vocabulary]. Zakarpat·sʹki politychni studiyi [Transcarpathian Political Studies], 39(2), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.32782/tps2663-4880/2025.39.2.31

Kosharnyi, K. (2025). Etyka perekladu suspilno-politychnykh tekstiv:vid teorii do praktyky [Ethics of translating socio-political texts: from theory to practice]. Visnyk nauky i osvity [Bulletin of Science and Education], 8(38), 394–406.

Lashul, V., & Tymofieiev, V. (2021). Struktura ta komponentnyi analiz etychnoi kompetentnosti maibutnoho perekladacha [Structure and component analysis of the ethical competence of a future translator]. Humanitarni studii: pedahohika, psykholohiia, filosofiia [Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy], 9(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog2021.01.024

Mykhailova, O., & Spilnyk, T. (2019). Prahmatychnyi aspekt vzhyvannia ta perekladu feminityviv u viiskovomu dyskursi [The pragmatic aspect of the use and translation of feminitives in military discourse]. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu: Filolohiia [International Humanitarian University Herald. Philology], 43(4), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.32841/2409-1154.2019.43.4.19

Sukhomlyn, Yu. (2008). Movna tolerantnist u zhurnalistskomu teksti: parametry katehorii [Language tolerance in the media text: category parameters]. NNI zhurnalistyky KNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenka, elektronna biblioteka [Educational and Scientific Institute of Journalism, e-library]. Retrieved from: http://journlib.univ.kiev.ua/index.php?act=article&article=2389

Trachuk, V. (2008). Politychna tolerantnist yak mekhanizm politychnoi vzaiemodii: problemy ta perspektyvy [Political tolerance as a mechanism of political interaction: problems and prospects]. Naukovi zapysky. Instytutu politychnykh i etnonatsionalnykh doslidzhen im. I. F. Kurasa NAN Ukrainy [Scientific notes of the I. F. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethno-National Studies of the NAS of Ukraine], 37, 354–363. Retrieved from: https://ipiend.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/nz_37_41.pdf

Ahmadova, А. (2025) The Ethics of Translation: An Analytical Study of Accuracy, Cultural Sensitivity, and Technological Impact. Global Spectrum of Research and Humanities, 2(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.01012025001

Angermeyer, P. S. (2023). Translation as discrimination: Sociolinguistics and inequality in multilingual institutional contexts. Language in Society, 52, 837-859. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000422

UNHCR (2025). Explainer: War in Ukraine – the human cost and humanitarian response. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/stories/explainer-war-ukraine-human-cost-and-humanitarian-response?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Retrieved from: https://www.felsemiotica.com/descargas/Fairclough-Norman-Critical-Discourse-Analysis.-The-Critical-Study-of-Language.pdf

Hanji, Li, & Haiqing, Chen (2018). The Construction of a New Translation Ethics from the Perspective of Chinese Philosophy. Philosophy Study, 8(3), 119-124. doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2018.03.003

Povoroznyuk, R. (2025, November 2026). The ethical lifeline: navigating vulnerability and care in medical interpreting. Materials of the 5th International Online Conference ‘Corpora and Discourse’. National Technical University of Ukraine ‘Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, 11, 139-142.

Reuters (2026). Civilian casualties in Ukraine up sharply in 2025, UN monitor says. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/civilian-casualties-ukraine-up-sharply-2025-un-monitor-says-2026-01-12

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? Macmillan Education: Basingstoke, 24-28. Retrieved from: https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~sj6/Spivak%20CanTheSubalternSpeak.pdf

Tymoczko, M. (2016). Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation. Routledge. Retrieved from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315538624/translation-postcolonial-context-maria-tymoczko

Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.

Published
2026-05-29
How to Cite
Kosharnyi , K. (2026). New ethics” of translation: stylistic markers of tolerance and inclusivity in English-Ukrainian translations of socio-political texts in the 2020s. The Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series: Foreign Philology. Methods of Foreign Language Teaching, (103), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.26565/2786-5312-2026-103-17