Resurrection of Singular "they"

Jon   Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:53 am GMT
Good evening, folks.

I want to start this post out by first introducing to you a fact of which not many people are aware. According to the Oxford History of the English Language:

| Another example of the Androcentric Rule in eighteenth-century English is
| the rise of the so-called sex-indefinite he, [...]. An alternative, then as
| now, is the use of they as a singular pronoun: [...]. Such a rule would
| have violated the principle of number but not that of gender, as with the
| choice of he, a decision which would no doubt have been preferred by
| women. It is therefore odd that this rule first appears in a grammar by a
| woman, Ann Fisher [...].¹

So, it would appear that 'they' in place of a singular pronoun has been in use for quite some time, much longer than 'he'. In fact, as we know, 'they' did not die from usage in common speech any time during the 'he' movement, and 'they' is still going strong. So, for this post I would like to ask the following questions:

1) To native speakers: What solution have you been taught in your university or similar education to the problem with English currently lacking in an official non-gender-exclusive pronoun? Have you been told to use 'he/she' or some variant thereof, or have you been forced into using 'he', or perhaps permitted to use 'they'?
2) To non-native speakers: What have you been taught in your English classes regarding how to handle the lack of an official non-gender-exclusive pronoun in English?
3) To all interested parties: Who would be interested in starting a move to place pressure on grammarians to revive the use of 'they' as not only an acceptable solution to the problem, but as an OFFICIAL SINGULAR PRONOUN. Spanish, for example, uses 'su' for bother singular and plural possessive forms, so it is certainly not outside the realm of linguistic possibility. Furthermore, millions of English speakers use 'they' and have suffered absolutely nothing in their ability to effectively communicate with one another.

The movement must come on with great strength. There is already a divide amongst native speakers who accept 'they' and those who do not. I know that there are a number of professional educators on this board, and I would urge them to promote and demand use of 'they' as a singular pronoun—in place of 'he', and in place of 'he/she' and its variants. The purpose of the movement, then, must be to increase the number of people preferring singular 'they' by encouraging (demanding?) its use in classrooms and other forms of official communication.

I would hope this can generate some replies. As a student, I have taken up the movement in all of the documents that I submit to my professors. I would hope others can join me in this effort to make, perhaps, the first good prescriptivist change in English through all its history.

Thank you for reading,
Jon
__________
¹ "English at the Onset of the Normative Tradition" Indgrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade in _The Oxford History of the English Language_ ed. Lynda Mugglestone (Oxford:2006) 259.
Guest   Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:49 am GMT
"If someone said that to me I would hate them"

Is it correct?
Lazar   Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:55 am GMT
<<1) To native speakers: What solution have you been taught in your university or similar education to the problem with English currently lacking in an official non-gender-exclusive pronoun?>>

They haven't really mentioned it. In academic papers I tend to use "he or she", just in case my teacher's a pedant, but in general I'm a big supporter of singular they.

<<3) To all interested parties: Who would be interested in starting a move to place pressure on grammarians to revive the use of 'they' as not only an acceptable solution to the problem, but as an OFFICIAL SINGULAR PRONOUN.>>

I'm not sure if "official" is the right term for it, but I'd be in favor of using singular "they" as the standard epicene pronoun in all registers.

<<"If someone said that to me I would hate them">>

Yes, that seems to me like the most natural way to say it.
Guest   Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:00 am GMT
I am a native speaker and have never received instruction about this in school, but I avoid using it in papers.
cx9   Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:30 pm GMT
Use "he". It sounds much better, much more educated, and doesn't make the reader blink a couple of times when he reads it. There's absolutely no reason to use a singular "they" or the even worse "he or she". It distracts from the writing and sounds awful. Unless you're some sort of "feminist" then I can't see how it would matter.
Travis   Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:11 pm GMT
>>Use "he". It sounds much better, much more educated, and doesn't make the reader blink a couple of times when he reads it. There's absolutely no reason to use a singular "they" or the even worse "he or she". It distracts from the writing and sounds awful. Unless you're some sort of "feminist" then I can't see how it would matter.<<

Ahem - in many if not most English dialects today, "they" is the normal usage to use in such cases simply as a matter of default. At least here, "they" is always used except when referring to the drivers of cars other than that which one is in, who may be referred to as "he" if their gender is not known. It is not really a political matter and simply that in very many if not most English dialects today, "he" is inherently gendered in most contexts, despite what prescriptivists who historically pushed "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun said.
Travis   Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:12 pm GMT
>>I don't really care what "grammarians" say about singular 'they'; I use it, and I'll continue to use it. In more formal writing, I'll probably avoid it, but I hope the standard eventually accepts this in the same way as the use of 'who' where 'whom' would have occurred earlier.<<

I have to say that I have practically the same position on the matter, even if it means using extra verbosity to avoid "he" or even "he or she" (which just sounds bad IMHO) at the present.
Jon   Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:55 pm GMT
Thank you good folks for your replies!


The problem with 'he/she', as folks have already pointed out, is that you can be writing a very lovely essay, with great parallelisms, clever points, and thorough logic; and then drop a 'he/she' in there anywhere and it instantly sounds like you're writing up a bill to go through Congress.

The problem with 'he' is that it has NEVER been regarded by normal speakers of the language as the default singular personal neuter—except the prescriptivists (rolleyes emoticon), who have always been quite outnumbered by the rest of us. Because of this, normal speakers reading a work in which 'he' has been used in such a way will (a) find it difficult to decipher the base meaning, (b) make an assumption about the gender of the individual in question (which ruins the meaning the writer wants to convey), or (c) perhaps be offended.

This, of course, is why authors who use 'she' in place of 'he' do not accomplish anything in the way of non-gender-bias language. Not only is their choice of one gender evidence of their bias, but it makes the illusion that the issue of the singular 'they' is one of political correctness when, in fact, this is simply not the case. The issue is, and always has been, one of meaning and communication. Use of the singular 'they' has been brought about by the mere fact that in any spoken English, third person NUMBER is easily conveyed through verb tense and articles, whereas gender requires words that are NOT necessary parts of either the NP or VP of most English sentences. This means that a deictic word such as 'they' will always be backed by a noun that enforces its number, but not necessarily its gender.

Prescriptivists will be reminded of their linguistic studies that an English sentence at minimum is made up of a noun phrase (NP) and verb phrase (VP), (formula: S→NP VP). The necessary part of an NP is a noun which is either a proper name (from which gender can almost always be inferred), or is a common noun, which will then require an article (a/an,the), or a modifier such as 'some', 'those', etc. meant to indicate quantity. Nouns not taking a modifier to indicate quantity are assumed plural, since the only nouns in English that cannot take a modifier are plural nouns and proper names—non-count nouns too—(e.g., A dog lifted their leg, *Dog lifted their leg, Dogs lifted their legs). Of course, no one goes to school to learn these things, instead they are deep in our minds as speakers of the language. Either way they prove the argument of 'number confusion' to be bogus in supporting gender-neuter 'he'.

As has been said, 'they' for use in the singular has been a well-established English convention for long before the neuter 'he'. This proves that the argument from 'tradition' is also bogus in supporting the gender-neuter 'he'.

Unless the 'he' prescriptivists can come up with better reasons for the enforced use of gender-neuter 'he', then we can take no further action other than to allow not an unnecessary force its dictation, and to free from burden the singular 'they' such that its use may continue as it had and has for centuries, only uninhibited and free. The burden of proof, is, as always, on the prosecution, who are in this case the prescriptivists advocating the neuter 'he'. It is time that they logically support their position, or retract!




Jon
Hox   Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:34 pm GMT
If someone will tell me that they think that 'singular they' is incorrect and they wouldn't use it themself, I'd tell them to get a tape recorder the next time they're getting ready to have a conversation and when they play back that recording, they will probably find out that they indeed do use singular they regularly themself.
Jon   Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:33 pm GMT
BRILLIANT, Hox!

Your idea is nifty, but moreso I am wanting to point out a feature that goes along with a singular 'they', and that is a singular reflexive. Because the 'them' is used singularly, we can use 'self' instead of 'selves' to indicate number quite clearly. Just another instance in which the 'number argument' of prescriptivists falls flat on its face.

Keep 'em coming, folks!

Thanks, Hox.


Jon
iain   Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm GMT
If the judge decides you are guilty, what can you say to them?
Guest   Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:03 pm GMT
«If the judge decides you are guilty, what can you say to them?»

Are you trying to equate prescriptivists to judges? They have only the power we give to them, and they are quite outnumbered as it is now.
Jon   Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:07 pm GMT
That was me (Guest) above... oops :-(
Iain   Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:22 pm GMT
OK. A prescriptivist wrote and I answered them.
Guest   Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:27 pm GMT
I am a prescriptivist, and I am angry and plan to start a "War Against Terrible Grammar". Just you wait, you lazy people!