They: Singular or Plural?
Saturday September 27, 2003
Writers are faced with a touchy dilemma: what singular pronoun do we use when referring to someone of an unknown gender? Traditionally people have used "he," but that is being abandoned in common speech because of the sexist overtones. Some use "he or she," but many other use "they" - at least when speaking. In writing it is assumed that this is incorrect - but maybe it isn't?
A recent article in The Vocabula Review explains that since at least Middle English, "they" has been used in the singular and plural just as "you" has:
Beyond the world of linguistics, it isn't generally known that singular they was once accepted usage in English writing and speech. There is no evidence that speakers of Middle English and early Modern English used gender-inclusive he as we know it today (Hook 333). In fact, Bodine claims, "English has always had ... linguistic devices for referring to sex-indefinite referents, notably the use of singular 'they' (their, them)" (168). Examples of such usage can be found on Henry Churchyard's Linguist Page, a website that applauds singular they 's long tradition in English literature.
Lots of examples are given - but why the change from "they" to "he"? Politics and class, apparently:
Zuber and Reed argue, "In eighteenth-century England, the codification of English grammar helped to maintain class distinctions" (517). It's likely that this desire to maintain power was the real reason behind the proliferation of new grammar texts during this period. By rejecting singular they and other forms of common speech, those already in power were able to preserve the status quo of class privilege as well as male dominance. Singular they and he or she were put out to pasture by grammarians. But even an Act of Parliament in 1850 England, which banned official use of the expression he or she in favor of generic he , didn't affect the spoken language (Bodine 173).
So, if you are looking for a gender-neutral pronoun, go ahead and used they - there's nothing really wrong with it. It's an older usage then "he" or the recently invented "s/he".
Comments
I am still surprised when I see someone selling a load of malarkey motivated by political correctness.
Although almost too obvious to state, claiming that the correctness of a particular usage is proven by the fact that it has been used that way before is an unabashed begging of the question.
OF COURSE English speakers have constructed “illegal” utterances in the past. The historical precedent has absolutely nothing to do with the reason for the other, correct, alternative.
The agreement you are pontificating out of existence is necessary in English, because English is ‘uninflected’.
As opposed to other languages in the same family, most words are not given separate endings to indicate which part of the statement they represent. Therefore, English relies very heavily on grammatical rules and syntax [word order] to make sense.
This is also the whole point in the “codification” you mention. It wasn’t just a bunch of nitpickers hacking around on a well-oiled machine. The codification was the great enabler for using English as a reliable means of communication. If you doubt this fact, look at the history of the German language. It wasn’t until the end of the 18th century that the language was finally “codified” as you call it by, among others, Leibniz, who was primarily concerned with turning the riot of regional dialects and “low” forms into a language that could be used as a viable alternative to Latin or French for putting together a coherent legal system. If you *really* want to know how important such agreement is, ask a lawyer. The grammatical hatchet job you seem to support would, if carried further, result in laws and legal decisions in the English languages becoming unreliable, if not downright incomprehensible.
Thank God English is flexible enough to be “forgiving” of grammatical deviations. But the fact that it is so does not make the deviations correct.
Perhaps a simple example will illustrate my point. Look at a different “deviant”.
“Prnn-vrb agrmnt is imprtnt to spkng Englsh wll.”
You would have to search widely to find a native speaker of English who isn’t able to correctly interpret and read the above quote as: “Pronoun-verb agreement is important to speaking English well.”
But, that does not make the first version “correct” or to be recommended for daily use.
Sncrly yrs,
Rbrt Smmrfld