singular "they": a practical objection

[cellio]

Some folks at work have been having the discussion/argument about the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. This usually boils down to a religious argument and hey, I know better, but today I sent the following message:

[We should be trying to communicate clearly, and sometimes language rules prevent that.]

I agree. This is why, when conventional language rules would dictate something that would make my writing harder to understand, I violate those rules. For example, I only place terminal punctuation inside a closing quotation mark if it is in fact part of the quoted text, because to do otherwise misleads the reader and is logically incorrect. That's not how the language rules evolved, but (fortunately) that's becoming a more common practice within the field of technical writing, and eventually we may be able to drag the rest of the English-writing world along with us.

This argument does not apply to singular "they", however. Or if it does, it doesn't apply the way you think it does, at least for some readers. If I see a well-crafted sentence that completely avoids the problem, I don't find myself thinking "wow, that was really unclear; he should have just said 'they'". Because it's well-crafted, I don't notice. That's good; one of the jobs of technical writing is to get out of the way so people can understand what you're writing about. On the other hand, every time I see a use of singular "they" that (I think) could have been easily avoided, it derails me in my reading -- exactly as an incorrect "it's" does. It distracts me from what I was doing -- absorbing communication -- and draws my attention to the writing itself. Further, that attention is negative; it lowers my opinion of the author or company whose work I'm reading. None of this is conscious and I can't will it away. I know I am not the only such reader.

While we should not necessarily write to the lowest common denominator, if one choice results in clear communication to everyone and another does not, we should follow the one that does, even if it's a little more work on our part. So quite aside from the (very real) religious arguments against singular "they", I hold that there is a practical reason to avoid it: it derails some readers and is not necessary.

Comments

[bhakti.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I usually come down on the other side of this debate, but I can definitely see your point. It's particularly interesting to me since the singular "they" has become almost standard in spoken English, to the point where it can be used even in fairly formal speech, but it still confuses people when used in writing.

I suspect that it will eventually make the leap, just for lack of a suitable substitute. Yes, sentences can be re-worked to avoid the need for a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but it's a hassle, and people will keep looking for ways to fill the linguistic gap. So far, I have yet to hear a better contender than "they."

[cellio]

I suspect singular "they" will eventually become commonly-accepted, because in the long term writing trends are driven by all writers, not just the ones who do it professionally, and most people do not give high priority to crafting a well-written sentence. However, I think people producing formal, professional documents should work toward a higher standard; writing well should be normal for us, not something requiring extraordinary effort.

People can tolerate all sorts of errors and glitches in spoken language that would grab their attention in written form. Speech is transient, and that makes a big difference.

English actually has a singular gender-neutral pronoun, but there is a cultural stigma against using it. One of my co-workers put it this way: "If the user doesn't like this, it can bite me". :-)

[bhakti.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm resistant to the idea that crafting a well-written sentence in the current linguistic culture requires absolute avoidance of the need for gender-neutral singular pronouns. During my graduate studies, I frequently wrote papers on theories from the social sciences, which inevitably involved descriptions of hypothetical social scenarios. I could restructure sentences up to a point, but in longer discussions, this quickly got unwieldy. In most cases, I ended up either using the "one"/"one's" approach (an awkward and oddly limited form), or falling back to the current norm of alternating between masculine and feminine pronouns (which works well enough if there will be multiple examples, but still seems to be dodging the issue).

As for "it": it's amusing that this option is rarely even mentioned. I think you're right about the cultural stigma, though I'd say it's more accurate to call it a connotation of the word: "it" is used strictly in reference to non-socially-recognized entities, be they inanimate objects, animals, or small children. The distinction is particularly clear in reference to animals and children, where "it" may be used to refer to strangers (psychologically, non-persons), but it is normal to shift to "he" or "she" once the speaker gets to know the subject. Because of this, any attempt to use "it" to refer to an adult person inevitably implies a devaluing of that person. That barrier makes it a hopeless case, in my view; any proposed gender-neutral pronoun needs to sound more polite than the existing options, or it will never be accepted.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Agreed: "It" is definitely for nonpersons. And combining it with the first letters of she and he would only produce "shit" which while amusing to me, would not advance the cause.

[cellio]

That's a good point. "It" will never become acceptable because of that connotation; people would perceive an insult where none was intended. There is no good alternative, unfortunately; none of the fabricated words like "zie" have caught on. (I've never been able to bring myself to use the new attempts at pronouns; for some reason they just feel goofy to me.)

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

The singular 'they' predates any of us. Once, during a flamewar about it, I looked it up and discovered it's been accepted as correct for a while already. :-( I lost the argument, but I still cringe at the singular 'they' most of the time. (I can stomach it more easily in speech than in writing.)

Depending on both my audience and the context, I'll use gender-neutral neologisms, established gender-neutral pronouns (one has more than just 'it' at one's disposal, after all), rephrase to avoid the pronoun, rephrase to a less formal second-person construction, go with the formal but (sometimes acceptably) clumsy 'he/she' or 'she or he', or simply grit my teeth and write 'they' anyhow.

If I know my reader s familiar with the same neologisms I'm most comfortable with, I'll write to hir using the same gender-neutral pronouns sie might use hirself. I may also use 'sie' and 'hir' if I think my audience will at least understand and I feel the situation warrants more concern for precision than for my audience's comfort ... or if I'm dealing with a special case involving a real or hypothetical subject of unconventional gender, but the farther I get from ssbb (news:soc.support.bondage-bdsm) and asb (news:alt.sex.bondage) the more weight I give to the more conventional options.

If I happen to know the person I'm writing to prefers another set of pronouns I'm at least familiar with, I may write to em using the words ey prefer, but stopping to think about it will slow me down more than rephrasing to avoid pronouns will. (Similarly for 'ze'/'zir', etc., of course.)

But all in all (and despite wishing sie/hir or ze/zir were commonly understood and accepted (though I don't particularly like ey/em)), the more I write paying attention to gendered/genderless pronouns, the easier rephrasing to avoid having to rely on the neologisms or the despised singular 'they' becomes. Of course, it does help to not be afraid to write "one" occasionally.

Rewrite!

[(Anonymous)]

I understand the need for the singular they. Somoene else (I don't remember who) suggested the neutral pronoun from some SF book -- Ke, Kis, etc.

I find that I can avoid the problem with a rewrite, either removing the need for the pronoun or switching from a singular to a plural throughout.

Re: Rewrite!

[cellio]

Rewriting is my approach, too. I have yet to be stymied. I don't necessarily assume that Joe Random Blogger has the skill or inclination to do so (though it's nice when it happens), but I expect professional writers to.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

Since they is Shakespearean usage, I could impishly point out that we're really reverting to older form, albeit for different reasons. But I'll just agree that usage evolves, sometimes to more elegant or pithy forms and sometimes more awkwardly. I'm not sure about this one (though it can't be worse than impact as a transitive verb!). I think the closing-punctuation-quotation-mark convention varies by country.

They was correct, when they says 'they'

[(Anonymous)]

A little more on the history - http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=330. I used to find 'they' disconcerting as well, but I am now in favor of restoring 'they' as a proper singular.

-A coworker just joining the war

Re: They was correct, when they says 'they'

[cellio]

Now I'm curious if this is the co-worker I already knew about (because we've discussed my journal) or a different one. :-)

Re: They was correct, when they says 'they'

[rjmccall.livejournal.com]

You can rely on me only posting when I'm logged in, which is to say, 'twasn't me.

Re: They was correct, when they says 'they'

[cellio]

Several of my coworkers have LJs and are known to read my journal, including you. We also have a lurker -- or at least I do; I can't speak for others. I'm wondering if it's that one, or if there's another one out there.

[cellio]

Sure; appeals to tradition can backfire. That's part of why I didn't. :-) When I argue against this I appeal to logical consistency, or (as in this case) to appearances.

English has a lot of problems, but in those cases where it is possible to apply logic, I prefer to do so.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

English has a lot of problems, but in those cases where it is possible to apply logic, I prefer to do so.

I've been convinced by descriptive linguists that language use is more complicated than reductive attempts to make it that logical. There's the classic reductio ad absurdum argument against he as the generic singular pronoun:

Since a human is a mammal, he gives live birth and suckles his young from his mammary glands.

(I can't remember where I read that, though I think it's in a reference work on nonsexist language.) I know that's not what you've argued (and there's a simple way to reword that sentence to be less ridiculous), but it's more to suggest that our experiences provide us with aesthetic sensibilities that have some logic but are not necessarily logical in a universal way.

[cellio]

And sometimes those aesthetic sensibilities have implications that people want to change badly enough that they'll accept inconsistency as a replacement. I'm old enough to remember that a generic doctor or scientist is "he" while a generic nurse or secretary is "she".

So yes, language is a big optimization problem factoring in logic, aesthetics, history, and evolving trends. I give priority to logic; others give priority
to history or current senses of aesthetics. Language is not static, and I'm going to lose this particular argument eventually. In the meantime, though, in my own writing I will strive to demonstrate that singular "they" isn't necessary, and maybe I'll inspire some people to follow that lead. I think using singular "they" (in formal written prose) is a sign of a bad writer, and I don't want to be seen as a bad writer.

[jducoeur]

I give priority to logic; others give priority to history or current senses of aesthetics. Language is not static, and I'm going to lose this particular argument eventually.

Yep, 'fraid so. I'm in the middle of a truly *delightful* course on linguistics from the Teaching Company (I really need to write a review of it), and one of the many explicit lessons from it is Language Is Not Logical. What's worse, he spends an entire lecture demonstrating that 18th century attempts to *make* English logical screwed it up even worse. (By trying to impose grammatical rules that didn't match actual practice, and only half-succeeding, resulting in more of a melange than it started with. He gives one fairly ordinary English sentence, and then demonstrates that it's composed of remnants from five different languages.)

Fun stuff, which just confirms me in my descriptivist biases. He reviews a really amazing number of different ways to contruct grammar; English and its quirks are pretty typical. (Albeit a bit stranger than most due to its history -- starting as proto-German, mixing in a lot of Old Norse grammar and then getting a ton of Norman French smushed in. The modern English tendency to neologize from other languages is *nothing* compared to some of what's happened in the distant past.)

As for the topic: I use "he", "they", "s/he" and "sie" rather inconsistently in this situation, depending mainly upon my audience. I've long since gotten fairly comfortable with the lack of current consensus on the subject...

[madfilkentist]

I distinguish two different cases: the indefinite singular and the true singular antecedent. With an indefinite singular antecedent, such as "everyone," using "they" doesn't bother me. But "they" with a truly singular antecedent, such as "a doctor," is a very annoying switch from singular to plural. There's also a long history, as Sherman points out, of using "they" in the first case, but I have serious doubts about the second case.

It's not as bad as a repetitive "he or she," which not only sounds stilted, but suggests that the male and female cases have to be considered separately. My preference is still to use either "he" or "she" as the pronoun in such cases, and to switch between them in different instances.

If we go by popular usage, then "to be like" is a legitimate verb for relating a quotation to a subject, and I absolutely refuse to accept that.

[cellio]

That's a good point. The true singular makes me twitch badly; with something like "everyone", I don't twitch nearly as much. When there are definite indicators of singular, switching to plural for the pronoun is jarring.

In my own (non-professional) writing I use "he" as neutral singular and make no apologies. In professional writing, I avoid using a pronoun if I can -- which is much easier in technical documentaion (often written in second person) than in, say, journalism. But even there, I think it can be done.

[dragontdc.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I find the singular pronoun "they" to be quite useful when avoiding gender-specific language, especially in very brief instructions.

As for religion, I haven't encountered that angle.

[cellio]

Religion: sorry, I didn't mean the domain but the ferocity and fervor of the argument.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Four little letters, and so much to say about them... Where to begin?

I'm ambivalent about the notion that there is a "correct" form of language, as opposed to what everyone speaks: I do believe that something can eventually become part of the language by sheer force of being what people say, and having a particular meaning when they say it. Eventually... I haven't quite given up on data being a plural (but nearly) - I do try to keep forms I regard as correct alive, by using them myself.

So to some extent my take on singular they is: there are times when the language needs to be non-specific about gender, and if using the pronoun "they" is the best way to do this, it gets my vote. It is, if you like (like internet, blog, f-list), a new word for a new thing, though it isn't so new, and I'm entitled to help establish it as part of the language.

That's a political choice, of course. Is this where the religious issues fit in?

But I did say "if using 'they' is the best way to do this" and often it isn't. As cellio points out, a rewrite often avoids the problem. There's another non-gender specific pronoun which I find very useful, which is "you" (Yes, sometimes it isn't appropriate, but equally sometimes it has many advantages).

Likewise, cellio, the test "does it derail the reader" is a good one as far as it goes: but people are derailed by different things. Some people get a jolt from singular they, others from repeated "he or she", some accept "he" as meaning "he or she" and some don't. durham_rambler has a bee in his bonnet about "lowest common denominator" (http://www.livejournal.com/users/durham_rambler/1204.html) which you used in your final paragraph: some days you just can't win!

[cellio]

I do try to keep forms I regard as correct alive, by using them myself.

Yes, same here. Even if in the end "they" is accepted as singular, I won't use it. I don't have to; no one's deprecating the alternatives and I have yet to encounter a situation where I felt no alternative existed. Fortunately, for the most part, languages grow rather than shrinking; some uses might be treated as archaic, but few are declared wrong. I don't forsee a time when singular "they" will be required.

Some people will try to introduce new terms or new uses; others will try to preserve existing ones. Both are valid.