The First Localisation Languages: Why Were the FIGS-J Markets Chosen?

When a software company decides to open its product up to other languages for the first time, which languages does it choose? In the history of localisation this question has a clear answer. The first localisation languages were French, Italian, German, Spanish and Japanese, known in the industry as “FIGS-J”.

Contents

The choice was no accident. Jiménez-Crespo (2024) notes that companies such as Microsoft, Adobe or Oracle targeted these markets first as they expanded internationally. So why these languages? This article examines the economic and market logic behind the FIGS-J abbreviation, how that order of priority was set and how it has changed today.

What were the first localisation languages?

The FIGS-J abbreviation brings together the initials of four European languages (French, Italian, German, Spanish) and Japanese. In the 1980s, personal computer and software companies translated and adapted their products for these languages first.

These languages were the first targets into which products were translated from their English source. English does not appear on the list because the products were mostly being developed in English in the West in any case; English was the source language from which localisation started.

Other languages were added to this core list over time. FIGS-J nevertheless remained the industry’s “default” first localisation package for a long while and became a point of reference.

Why were these languages chosen first?

Behind the choice lay a simple piece of economic logic: return on investment. These markets were large, economically strong and had high access to computers. Companies gave priority to the places that would bring in the most revenue.

Localisation itself had grown out of the same logic. Companies had realised that their revenue would rise if they made digital products usable in other language and culture areas. The choice of languages rested on the same revenue calculation.

The presence of Japanese on the list is striking. In the 1980s Japan was a large, wealthy market with very high access to technology. Japanese also set a pioneering technical test, because it required a writing system outside the Latin alphabet.

The components of the market logic

Several factors had to come together for a language to become a priority target. The table below summarises the main criteria that guided the FIGS-J choice.

Criterion	What it means	Counterpart in FIGS-J
Market size	Number of potential users	Large European and Japanese markets
Purchasing power	Economic strength	High-income economies
Access to technology	Spread of computers	Early adopter markets
Return on investment	Balance of cost and revenue	Volume that covers the cost of localisation

Weighed together, these criteria made FIGS-J a sensible starting package. Small or low-income markets joined the queue only as costs fell and technology spread.

How has this order of priority changed today?

The FIGS-J logic still holds, but the list has widened. The global spread of internet access has brought new markets to the fore. Internet access reaches 85 per cent of the population in Europe, 95 per cent in North America and 48 per cent in Asia, for example (InternetWorldStats 2024 data).

The languages with the most users on the internet have changed as well: English, Chinese, Spanish and Arabic lead the way, while all the other languages together make up a share of 41.8 per cent (InternetWorldStats 2023 data). This picture has moved languages such as Chinese and Arabic into the priority targets.

If you are thinking about how to plan your choice of languages, you can look at our translation services page, or turn to our knowledge centre for the conceptual background.

The principles that guide the choice of languages

When it is decided today which languages a product will be opened up to, an updated version of the logic of the FIGS-J era is used. The decision process runs through these steps:

1. Measure the size and the growth potential of the target markets.
2. Assess the purchasing power and the level of competition in each market.
3. Compare the cost of localisation with the expected revenue.
4. Check the technical readiness (writing system, character support).
5. Rank the priorities by the highest return.

These principles are the logic of four decades ago carried into the present. What has changed is the list of languages; what has not is the economic basis of the decision.

The special position of Japanese

Japanese, the only non-European language on the FIGS-J list, holds a special position. In the 1980s Japan was one of the markets with the highest access to technology, and it had great purchasing power. That made it economically indispensable.

Japanese was a technical test at the same time. Because it required a writing system outside the Latin alphabet, it obliged products to support different character sets. That accelerated the development of internationalisation practices.

The presence of Japanese on the list was therefore both an economic and a technical choice. A company that could solve the Japanese market gained valuable experience for other complex markets as well.

The weight of the European market

The FIGS languages represented the largest economies of Western Europe. France, Italy, Germany and Spain were strong markets in terms of both population and income. Users in these countries expected software in their own language.

Another advantage of Europe was geographical and economic proximity. Once a product had been opened up to these languages, it could reach neighbouring markets more easily too. FIGS was, in effect, a door into Europe.

These languages still sit at the core of localisation today. They are no longer regarded as sufficient on their own, though; as the global market has widened, new languages have been added to the list.

English as the source language

The absence of English from the FIGS-J list is striking. The reason is simple: products were already being developed in English. English was the source language from which localisation began, not a target.

This position of English has largely held to the present day. Products from all corners of the world may come out in an English version first in order to reach an international audience. English serves as a de facto common language.

This also sets the direction of localisation. Most projects run from English into other languages. There are products developed in languages such as Japanese or Chinese, however, which shows that the source language is not always English.

The logic that guides the choice of languages changed radically as the internet spread. Whereas in the 1980s access to technology belonged to a limited number of wealthy markets, today internet access reaches 85 per cent of the population in Europe, 95 per cent in North America and 48 per cent in Asia (InternetWorldStats 2024 data). This spread has widened the list of priority languages. Market size is now measured not only by income level but by the number of users online.

The languages with the most users on the internet reflect the same change. English, Chinese, Spanish and Arabic lead the way, while all the other languages together make up a share of 41.8 per cent (InternetWorldStats 2023 data). This picture goes beyond the Europe-centred logic of the FIGS-J era. Languages such as Chinese and Arabic are now among the priority targets of the large technology companies. The choice of languages rests on an increasingly global calculation.

This historical shift carries an important lesson as well: the list of priority languages is not fixed. A market may look small today and still turn strategic as access to technology and purchasing power grow. The choice of languages should therefore be seen not as a one-off decision but as a strategy that needs reviewing regularly. Yesterday’s peripheral market may be tomorrow’s core market.

The choice of languages also calls for technical preparation, not only economic. Before opening up to a language, you have to be sure that the product supports that language’s writing system, character set and formatting rules. The technical problems that Japanese threw up in the FIGS-J era apply today to the right-to-left writing of Arabic or the character density of Chinese. Technical preparation is an inseparable part of the language decision.

That the FIGS-J list is still cited today shows it has kept its value as a point of reference. Teams internationalising a new product often use these core languages as a check, because the languages represent both large markets and different technical difficulties. If a product runs smoothly in them, opening it up to many other languages becomes easier. The list therefore serves a practical purpose as well as a historical one.

Understanding the logic behind the choice of languages also guides the buyer. Opening up to every language at once is rarely realistic; what matters is setting the order that will give the highest return. Market size, purchasing power and technical readiness have to be weighed together. A decision that weighs these three criteria makes the most efficient use of the budget.

The Türkiye context

Turkish was not among the priority languages in the FIGS-J era. In the 1980s the Turkish market was smaller than the first targets of the software companies and its access to technology was more limited. Turkish versions therefore came later than the European languages.

The picture has changed today. With its young and populous demographic and its high internet and mobile use, Türkiye has become an important market for many software and games companies. Turkish is now a language supported in most large products. Even so, the fact that Turkish is a low-resource language calls for extra care over machine translation quality.

For the corporate buyer the lesson of this history is clear: whether a market counts as a “priority” changes over time. The example of Türkiye shows how a market once thought small can turn strategic. The choice of languages should be seen not as static but as a decision that is kept up to date.

What does this mean for you?

When you decide which languages to open your product up to, the historical logic offers you a framework. The aim is not to open up to every language at once but to set the order that will give the highest return.

1. Rank your target markets by size and purchasing power.
2. Compare the cost of localisation with the expected revenue for each language.
3. Do not overlook growing markets such as the Turkish one.
4. Complete the technical preparation before the language decision.

As you plan which languages to start with, you can tell us what you need through our quotation form. The right order lets you use your budget most efficiently.

Frequently asked questions

What does FIGS-J mean?

It combines the initials of French, Italian, German and Spanish (FIGS) with Japanese (J). It describes the priority target markets of the software companies.

Why were these languages chosen first?

Because these markets were large, economically strong and had high access to software. Companies gave priority to the markets with the highest return on investment.

Why is English not on the list?

Because products were mostly being developed in English; English was the source language. Localisation ran from the source out to the other markets.

Does this order of priority still hold today?

In part. Market size still guides the choice of languages, but Chinese, Arabic and other languages are now among the priority targets too.

Sources

• Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2024). Localization in Translation. Routledge (Chs. 1-2).
• Esselink, B. (2006). “The evolution of localization.” In Pym et al. (eds.), Translation Technology and Its Teaching.
• InternetWorldStats (2024). Internet Usage Statistics. www.internetworldstats.com