The Singular 'They': A Linguistic Debate

[StatGuy2000]

Hi everyone. Since this question is about the use of the English language (and thus would fall loosely and roughly under "linguistics") I thought I would post under the "Art, Music, History, and Linguistics" subsection.

It has always bugged me that when writing the English language and trying to use pronouns for a singular individual of whose gender is not immediately apparent, the use of the male pronoun (e.g. he, his, etc.) has been considered the default "neutral" pronoun, when in fact that is frankly disingenous.

Jeff Rosenthal -- a professor of statistics at U of T (and one of my profs, btw), had written an essay about this very topic, and his proposal for the singular "they". Here is a link to his essay:

http://probability.ca/jeff/writing/singularthey.html

I was wondering what your thoughts are on this topic.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

I find in writing that the following are a useful way to deal with the problem you raise.
s/he
him/her
etc.

 

[gmax137]

I like "they / their / them" as proposed in the link. It sounds natural to my ear at least.*

s/he
him/her

My problem with these is the awkward factor (as mentioned in the link). Plus, how do you pronounce "s/he" in conversation?

On a related note, I hear "guys" all the time now as a generic. At the restaurant, our server came to the table and said, "Hi guys, I'm Pat and I will be taking care or you today..." I'm sure they weren't speaking only to the males present.

*Oops, now I see why "they" is ungrammatical -- it is a plural form? There was a single server, so it would be "he wasn't" or "she wasn't." "They weren't" would apply to a team of servers...

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Plus, how do you pronounce "s/he" in conversation?

Hi gmax:

My own idiosyncratic pronunciation is: suhhee.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[BillTre]

On a related note, I hear "guys" all the time now as a generic. At the restaurant, our server came to the table and said, "Hi guys, I'm Pat and I will be taking care or you today..." I'm sure they weren't speaking only to the males present.

I have also heard these several times and even have discussed it with several woman (who work in STEM associated jobs) who were interested in these kinds of issues.
They all like the "guys" solution.

My only problem is then distinguishing between guys and gals, but I guess when you use them together, the distinction is created by their juxtaposition.
The woman I spoke with were OK with "gals" but much less than with the generalized "guy" usage.

On the other hand, "guys" can't so easily be used in replacement of things like "he" or "she".

 

[Choppy]

I've never liked the use of the singular "they." It's grammatically incorrect, and when used, it sounds like the speaker either doesn't know how to speak properly or is simply being lazy and disrespectful to his or her audience.

That said, I don't expect the evolution of the English language to conform what sounds good to me.

We live in a time where grammar that largely evolved in patriarchal social contexts is being used in a world that is changing to embrace equality of genders, and even recognize that gender identity may not be binary for everyone. And in fact, when it comes to an issue of respect, enforcing a gender simply to conform to an historic convention carries with it the possibility of disrespecting the subject of the sentence, or embarrassing the speaker in situations where the subject's gender is not known.

Once when I served in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves, I had completed a course and earned the honour of "top candidate." The commanding officer of the company running the course was going to present me with a certificate. So we formed up on parade, as is fairly typical in the military. This meant that there were about a dozen of us who'd completed the course, our instructors, and maybe one or two of the company platoons all standing at attention. I was called forward. Now, proper drill (at least as I remember it), required me to respond with either "Sir" or "Ma'am," march forward, salute, and receive the reward.

Now you would think that prior to this, I would have bothered to learn who the commanding officer of the company hosting the course was. I knew the person's rank and last name.

The individual who stepped out wore combat fatigues and had a rather husky build. At the time, soldiers were required to be clean shaven. This was a medical company, and so unlike in my home unit, the ratio of female to male officers was about equal.

Fortunately I guessed correctly.

 

[symbolipoint]

Look for information on "prescribed" grammar rules. I myself AND others actually have used "they" for third-person impersonal, and I find nothing really wrong with this. "descriptive" grammar versus "prescriptive" grammar

 

[Mark44]

I've never liked the use of the singular "they." It's grammatically incorrect, and when used, it sounds like the speaker either doesn't know how to speak properly or is simply being lazy and disrespectful to his or her audience.

I agree completely. To me, the words "they," "their," and "them" are plural and should not be used to represent a single person. It matters not a whit to me that these words have been used in a singular sense all the way back to Chaucer or Shakespeare or whatever.

 

[symbolipoint]

Part of what StatGuy2000 said:

It has always bugged me that when writing the English language and trying to use pronouns for a singular individual of whose gender is not immediately apparent, the use of the male pronoun (e.g. he, his, etc.) has been considered the default "neutral" pronoun, when in fact that is frankly disingenous.

Too bad we are not allowed to just pick and use "it" for the impersonal third person singular.

I really like the idea of "they" for impersonal or unknown third person both singular and plural. I also like "he or she".

The great majority of the time, none of this gets in the way of communicating.

Where are the linguists to straighten us all out?

 

[BillTre]

Linguists study what language does.
They don't tell language what to do.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I agree completely. To me, the words "they," "their," and "them" are plural and should not be used to represent a single person. It matters not a whit to me that these words have been used in a singular sense all the way back to Chaucer or Shakespeare or whatever.

But don't you think that this rule (that "they", "their", or "them" are plural) is arbitrary and can (and perhaps should) change? And that you think this way because how you were raised, and you may be just being stubborn or resistant to change?

After all, languages have evolved over time (we don't speak English the same way as, say, the early Pilgrims in the US, or the same way as people in England in the 15th century) -- why are you so resistant to changing the rule so that "they" can be a singular pronoun?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I've never liked the use of the singular "they." It's grammatically incorrect, and when used, it sounds like the speaker either doesn't know how to speak properly or is simply being lazy and disrespectful to his or her audience.

That said, I don't expect the evolution of the English language to conform what sounds good to me.

We live in a time where grammar that largely evolved in patriarchal social contexts is being used in a world that is changing to embrace equality of genders, and even recognize that gender identity may not be binary for everyone. And in fact, when it comes to an issue of respect, enforcing a gender simply to conform to an historic convention carries with it the possibility of disrespecting the subject of the sentence, or embarrassing the speaker in situations where the subject's gender is not known.

Once when I served in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves, I had completed a course and earned the honour of "top candidate." The commanding officer of the company running the course was going to present me with a certificate. So we formed up on parade, as is fairly typical in the military. This meant that there were about a dozen of us who'd completed the course, our instructors, and maybe one or two of the company platoons all standing at attention. I was called forward. Now, proper drill (at least as I remember it), required me to respond with either "Sir" or "Ma'am," march forward, salute, and receive the reward.

Now you would think that prior to this, I would have bothered to learn who the commanding officer of the company hosting the course was. I knew the person's rank and last name.

The individual who stepped out wore combat fatigues and had a rather husky build. At the time, soldiers were required to be clean shaven. This was a medical company, and so unlike in my home unit, the ratio of female to male officers was about equal.

Fortunately I guessed correctly.

I understand that the singular "they" may sound grammatically incorrect to you, but as you yourself concedes one can conclude that this rule is in fact arbitrary, and if the language evolve so that this is acceptable, I don't see why this should be an issue.

 

[DrClaude]

I use a singular they all the time.

 

[Mark44]

But don't you think that this rule (that "they", "their", or "them" are plural) is arbitrary and can (and perhaps should) change?

No and no. They being plural is no more arbitrary than he or she being singular. Should we then consider that me should now represent mulitple persons?

And that you think this way because how you were raised, and you may be just being stubborn or resistant to change?

I can speak or at least say a few words in about ten different languages. Every one of them has a word for third person plural nominative case (corresponding to English they) that is distinct from the third person singular pronouns. One language that I'm somewhat familiar with, Slovene, even goes so far as to distinguish between singular, plural, and dual cases for nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. In other words, there are different words for he, they (two), and they (three or more).

After all, languages have evolved over time (we don't speak English the same way as, say, the early Pilgrims in the US, or the same way as people in England in the 15th century) -- why are you so resistant to changing the rule so that "they" can be a singular pronoun?

English already has enough irregularity to it. I would rather not increase the number of "exceptions to the rules."

I wouldn't have any problem with inventing a new word that represents a single person whose sex isn't known, but I do object to redefining words whose meaning has long been understood to something completely different.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm with Mark. And to be honest, I don't see the necessity. In a direct speech I use the second person singular or plural, and in some languages the second or third person plural, so the question doesn't come up. It is only relevant in case we speak of third persons, in which case the information is in overwhelmingly many cases simply irrelevant. What a waste of energy to correct a sentence like: "I fully agree with Mark. She is simply right." It does not add anything relevant to the statement. And even worse, how should I know? I don't feel the need to think about Mark's gender.

 

[Mark44]

What a waste of energy to correct a sentence like: "I fully agree with Mark. She is simply right."

Or even worse: "I fully agree with Mark. They is (are?) simply right."

 

[StatGuy2000]

No and no. They being plural is no more arbitrary than he or she being singular. Should we then consider that me should now represent mulitple persons?

I can speak or at least say a few words in about ten different languages. Every one of them has a word for third person plural nominative case (corresponding to English they) that is distinct from the third person singular pronouns. One language that I'm somewhat familiar with, Slovene, even goes so far as to distinguish between singular, plural, and dual cases for nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. In other words, there are different words for he, they (two), and they (three or more).

English already has enough irregularity to it. I would rather not increase the number of "exceptions to the rules."

I wouldn't have any problem with inventing a new word that represents a single person whose sex isn't known, but I do object to redefining words whose meaning has long been understood to something completely different.

You raise fair points (and I hope I didn't come across as being too aggressive to you in my responses -- I just wanted to have more clarity with respect to your opinions, which you've provided).

It's true that other languages have words distinguishing the third person plural nominative case with the third person singular pronouns, and I can see and understand your concerns about redefining words whose meaning has already been understood in a different context.

I suppose my main contention for the use of the "singular they" (and the contention that Prof. Rosenthal outlined in his essay) is the very difficulty of inventing a new word to represent a single person whose sex isn't known. I don't have a problem with inventing new words, per se, but for new words to be accepted, there needs to be some consensus by enough people on what word to use and how to use it. I haven't seen this arise with respect to gender-free singular pronouns, but I've already seen the use of the "singular they" (with historical precedence with Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and others), so the word "they" just seems to be an easier option than others.

But then again, the thing about language is that it really isn't up to you or me how a language evolves. After all, we ain't the language police!

 

[symbolipoint]

part of post from StatGuy2000:

,...But then again, the thing about language is that it really isn't up to you or me how a language evolves!

 

[Stephen Tashi]

In USA vernacular, an organization is usually referred to in the singular - e.g. "Newbonk National Bank has implemented ...". I've heard native English speakers from other countries use the plural - e.g. "Newbonk National Bank have implemented...".

I don't detect any consistency in USA English between referring to an organization in the singular by name and then choosing a pronoun to continue. For example: "Newbonk National Bank has implemented a new withdrawal policy. They decided that depositors would be better served by ...". That sounds completely natural to me.

 

[drummer1280]

Hi everyone. Since this question is about the use of the English language (and thus would fall loosely and roughly under "linguistics") I thought I would post under the "Art, Music, History, and Linguistics" subsection.

It has always bugged me that when writing the English language and trying to use pronouns for a singular individual of whose gender is not immediately apparent, the use of the male pronoun (e.g. he, his, etc.) has been considered the default "neutral" pronoun, when in fact that is frankly disingenous.

Jeff Rosenthal -- a professor of statistics at U of T (and one of my profs, btw), had written an essay about this very topic, and his proposal for the singular "they". Here is a link to his essay:

http://probability.ca/jeff/writing/singularthey.html

I was wondering what your thoughts are on this topic.

I'm a transgender man and, emphasizing that I speak only as it would be used in our community, if preferred by someone, you honor it. I had a high school English teacher that really couldn't stand singular they and jumped on us for it constantly, so even though I have always honored the request if someone prefers they/them, it took a while before the awkwardness to go away even though I'm trans myself, so I understand how it rubs the wrong way for many. However, it's always important not to cause any gender dysphoria by addressing them with the wrong pronouns. I just felt that needed saying.

 

[symbolipoint]

Difference between Prescriptive and Descriptive Grammar(?)

 

[drummer1280]

I do still tend to avoid it outside of that situation. For some reason it still seems off to me in regular conversation, which seems odd to me. That teacher with the pet peeve about it was rather intimidating though, so maybe that's still lurks. One of those things that leaves an unexpected impression, I suppose.

 

[Dragon27]

Or even worse: "I fully agree with Mark. They is (are?) simply right."

Isn't it a slightly different situation? Singular "they" (that is, pronoun "they" referring to a singular antecedent) can be used either as a generic singular "they" (i.e. a substitute for a generic "he"), when we do not refer to a specific person (like in the phrase: "A person can't help their birth " by Thackeray), or to refer to a specific individual whose gender is unknown (or the person in question doesn't identify as either male or female). Many people are fine with the generic "they", but are more opposed to "they" used to refer to a specific, known individual (although the sentiment is changing).

edit:
Oh my, this thread is quite old, didn't notice that.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Isn't it a slightly different situation? Singular "they" (that is, pronoun "they" referring to a singular antecedent) can be used either as a generic singular "they" (i.e. a substitute for a generic "he"), when we do not refer to a specific person (like in the phrase: "A person can't help their birth " by Thackeray), or to refer to a specific individual whose gender is unknown (or the person in question doesn't identify as either male or female). Many people are fine with the generic "they", but are more opposed to "they" used to refer to a specific, known individual (although the sentiment is changing).

edit:
Oh my, this thread is quite old, didn't notice that.

Well, I started the thread, but am fine to respond to it.

The argument posed by Jeff Rosenthal in his essay (and which I concur) has argued for the singular "they" as a generic singular pronoun when not referring to a specific individual, in essence to avoid the use of a generic "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun. In essence his argument is that it is disingenous to suggest that "he" can be considered gender-neutral, and may subtly reinforce sexist views (e.g. referring to a scientist whose gender is unknown as a "he" by default).

 

[hmmm27]

In essence his argument is that it is disingenous to suggest that "he" can be considered gender-neutral, and may subtly reinforce sexist views (e.g. referring to a scientist whose gender is unknown as a "he" by default).

Not the same issue as "postman", "fireman", etc. When those words were coined, "man" was generic : iirc, the suffices "wer" (same root as "virile"... probably "vermin" as well) and "wyf" (which of course got sidetracked into "wife") to distinguish male and female.

In context where somebody might say "he", referring to a generic (not specific) member of say a blue-collar profession, it's (almost) unnoticeable when you use "they". So that's sortof a non-starter (in my eyes/ears). And, of course, that's the traditional usage as well.

It's when a specific (not generic type) person is called out - "Chris Smith walked into the room ; they took a seat" - that it's (currently) awkward sounding, and confusing when used alongside actual plurals.

(not quite aside : so, "they is" ? or "they are")

 

[DaveC426913]

Not the same issue as "postman", "fireman", etc. When those words were coined, "man" was generic :

I'm not sure they were ever generic. They were simply accurate, since men had all the jobs.

It's when a specific (not generic type) person is called out - "Chris Smith walked into the room ; they took a seat" - that it's (currently) awkward sounding, and confusing when used alongside actual plurals.

It would be just as awkward to say "s/he took a seat." It's not about the pronoun; it's about the ambiguity when referring to an extant person.

But both sound (a little) better when the subject is abstracted:

"A cloaked and creaking form walked into the room; they s/he took a seat."

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's when a specific (not generic type) person is called out - "Chris Smith walked into the room ; they took a seat" - that it's (currently) awkward sounding, and confusing when used alongside actual plurals.

(not quite aside : so, "they is" ? or "they are")

In the specific example you gave, "Chris" could be either a male name (short for "Christopher" or "Christian") or a female name (short for "Christina", "Christine", or "Christyn", among others), or a name that could be used by gender-fluid transgender individuals. So unless that specific person's gender is known (which is usually not hard to figure out), I don't see anything particularly awkward to use the singular "they".

Now with respect to the "they is" vs "they are" -- I would think the proper use for "they" is "they are" for either singular or plural case. This is analogous with the use of the pronoun "you". We always say "you are", even though "you" in most varieties of English could refer to a single individual or multiple individuals. (This is different from languages like French where a plural term exists like "vous", or in Irish English with "youse", or in Appalachian/Ozark English with the term "you-all").

[Aside: I have read elsewhere that the use of "you-all" in the English of the Appalachians and the Ozarks is derived from or related to the Irish English use of "youse", and can be traced back to the settlement of Ulster Irish Protestants in that region, who are commonly and somewhat inaccurately referred to as "Scots-Irish" or "Scotch-Irish" in the US and Canada and "Ulster Scots" in the UK.]

 

[hmmm27]

"A cloaked and creaking form walked into the room; they s/he took a seat."

So, what did it do, then ?

In the specific example you gave, "Chris" could be either a male name (short for "Christopher" or "Christian") or a female name (short for "Christina", "Christine"

Yes, I have one of those names (which - very rarely - is a minor annoyance).

or "Christyn", among others), or a name that could be used by gender-fluid transgender individuals. So unless that specific person's gender is known (which is usually not hard to figure out), I don't see anything particularly awkward to use the singular "they".

I've little useful input to give on the modern issue... but, I've heard there's 70'ish different types within the non-cisgendered community : apart from curiosity - so slight I'm not even going to google up a list - that's far beyond my ability to differentiate.

 

[vela]

I agree with Rosenthal's take, and I think he provided compelling examples justifying the use of singular they. Often, using the generic he sounds more wrong to me than using they. That said, I'd still avoid using it in formal writing.

 

[Drakkith]

"Man, the clerk at the store was a real jerk."
"Oh? What did they do?"

I think the above is just fine.

From Rosenthal's page:

Now, some sentences can be re-written so the referant becomes plural, thus avoiding the pronoun problem entirely, e.g. "All students should check their exam answers carefully." This is an elegant solution, however it isn't always available, e.g. it isn't easy to pluralise an instruction like "Have your doctor present [his? her?] conclusions right away."

This seems very strange to me. The use of 'their' in the last example seems entirely natural here.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The following is posted for the amusement of the thread participants.

In the town in which I live, we had, until very recently, an elected town group called "the board of selectman". This "board" generally includes both male and female members, each called a "selectman". Very recently this nomenclature was formally changed in the bylaws of the town by a vote of the "town meeting members". The board is now called "the select board", and a member is called, a "select board member".

BTW, this issue has been around a long time. In the second edition of Modern English Usage by H. W. Fowler, (Oxford University Press 1965), the issue is discussed under "they, them, their" on page 635. Below is one example from this source.

I am never angry with anyone unless they deserve it.​

This quote is attributed to Ruskin, probably John Ruskin, but I could not confirm that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin​

I also found the following discussion, including one answer by an English Teacher (Judith Dubois), about the issue and the quote.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-member...rather-than-addressing-the-individual?share=1​

 

[FactChecker]

The Associated Press has this to say: " in March 2017, the Associated Press announced that the AP Stylebook will accept the plural "they, them, and their" to refer to a singular antecedent when the alternative wording is awkward or clumsy. " (See https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/grammar-rules-for-he-she-usage.html )

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The Associated Press has this to say: " in March 2017, the Associated Press announced that the AP Stylebook will accept the plural "they, them, and their" to refer to a singular antecedent when the alternative wording is awkward or clumsy. "

Hi FC:

AP is certainly showing some good progress by finally (2017) accepting a grammar rule as old as 1965 (or perhaps much older) as the Fowler grammer text I cited shows (post #31).

Regards,
Buzz

 

[ult-right]

I understand that the singular "they" may sound grammatically incorrect to you, but as you yourself concedes one can conclude that this rule is in fact arbitrary, and if the language evolve so that this is acceptable, I don't see why this should be an issue.

Langauge is not arbitrary.

We use the generic "he" in place of "they," which is used as a placeholder in cases when there may be plurals.

 

[DaveC426913]

Langauge is not arbitrary.

It is as arbitrary as we make it.

We use the generic "he" in place of "they,"

We have, in the past, used that convention. That's changing.
It's a pretty bad convention, since 'he' is a male pronoun, and 'they' can as easily contain females as males. We might as well use 'firetrucks' and be as accurate.