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."

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!