"Every mother ... they"

Andrew Sullivan has an entry about "s/he," or, really, the singular "they" with a collegial link that I'll gladly take as an invitation to weigh in on the subject: 

Man (emoticon goes here), do writers and copy editors wish the singular "they" were standard! It's not, yet, but here's why it would be handy if it were: Write "he" about a nonspecific person and you're a sexist. Write "she" and you're a flaming feminist. Write "he or she" and you're a pedant. Write "they" and you're an ignoramus. 

We word people can't do much about the political implications of phrasing, so we're left to consider what makes a person look or sound pedantic, prissy, inattentive, lazy, stupid, or ignorant. In the case of the singular pronoun, the version about which it's likeliest that standards will change -- and the version about which we can do the most to change them -- is  "they." I'm doing my bit right now.

Apparently, the singular "they" is more nearly standard here in the U.K.: This morning, without even trying, I spotted one in "The Sunday Telegraph," which was delivered to my room along with breakfast. The silly thing is that it was in an all-female context, like "Every mother ... they." Of all places where a generic pronoun is pointless!

Comments

I have been wishing for this kind of change since elementary school. It has always bugged me. I hate writing "he or she" and the use of "he" gets to me, not for fear of being called a sexist, but more out of it being inaccurate.

Posted by DougEFresh | October 12, 2008 12:06 PM

You're right about the pitfalls behind writing "he," "he or she" and "they." So why not every man for himself? I have always found it the most unobtrusive when men write "he" when referring to the man on the street who might share their experiences, women write "she" when speaking of the woman on the street who might share their experiences, and so on. I have also liked what I've seen in a lot of pediatric literature--alternating pronouns, where each little anecdote of something a child might do or display gets either a "he" or a "she" for the whole anecdote. Try these two strategies and let me know if anyone calls you out for fustiness, activism, or pedantry.

Posted by Leigh | October 12, 2008 5:32 PM

Personally, I use "they" as a singular all the time. Not being a professional writer, I don't have to worry too much about style sheets.

The most creative solution to this idea I've ever seen is one that is pretty much utterly unworkable. One of my favorite science fiction authors has a universe set in the future with most intergalactic societies with complete gender equality.

While the question of whether they are actually speaking current modern English is left unaddressed, the functional solution is that all male characters use "he" for the generic person, and all female characters use "she." Seems to work just fine.

Posted by Peter | October 12, 2008 10:17 PM

I've come across this a lot in grad school. I've taken to pluralizing so as to avoid it. In the example you mentioned, I probably would have changed "Every Mother" to "Mothers" etc...I find this an imperfect solution. Why does this only seem to be a problem now? The singular "he" was just accepted I guess?

Posted by AlexG | October 13, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm so glad Andrew had a link to you blog. (Just what I need is another blog to check out in the morning.) It reads like one I'm going to be looking forward to. Thanks much.

Posted by Bill Herrmann | October 13, 2008 9:11 AM

Thanks for the kind words, Bill.

Alex, re the “imperfect solution” of pluralizing to avoid generic singulars: I’ve used it (including, as an editor, in the work of other writers), and it usually works fine. But I can’t remember a time when it actually made for an improvement, apart from the matter of keeping singulars singular and letting plurals be plural. After you’ve done it a few hundred or thousand times, you’ll find yourself sighing resignedly when the need arises. Why do we have to bother?

As for Leigh’s and Peter’s suggestions about using both “he” and “she” – duly noted, and not a bad idea. But this one isn’t really considered standard usage either in most contexts. And it, like “she” all the time by everyone, has political implications.

I see that no one has advocated “s/he” – good! Anyone who wants to should please tell the rest of us how to pronounce it.

Posted by BARBARAWALLRAFF | October 13, 2008 10:03 AM

I'm surprised this is even a discussion. Merriam Webster's Guide to Modern English Usage has an article on this that shows that using "they" for a gender-neutral singular has a history that goes all the way back to Shakespeare (and, more modernly, Jane Austen). I've followed their example ever since. It's high time.

Posted by David Dickerson | October 13, 2008 11:19 AM

I'm not sure why the transition to "they" as a singular pronoun is so difficult.

No one is calling for a return to "Thou." Instead, we're all perfectly happy using what was originally the second person plural "You" as a singular as well.

So why is doing the same for the third person so controversial?

Posted by Nick | October 13, 2008 11:23 AM

Students should remember to turn in their registration forms.

If a student loses or misplaces one's registration form, then one should request a replacement.

Simple as. Also: is sexist an adjective and not a noun? If so, then there's no such thing as a sexist --it properly would be a sexist man/woman/person, yes?

And don't get me started on "funnily enough..." ::rolleyes::

Posted by Complete and utter pedant | October 13, 2008 11:24 AM

I use the French "on." It not only solves the problem, I look pretentious and sound too, Non?

Posted by Abu Babu Doo | October 13, 2008 11:32 AM

This is not correct:

"If a student loses or misplaces one's registration form, then one should request a replacement."

This should be either "If one loses or misplaces ..." or "If a student loses or misplaces his or her/their ..."

"One" must be used consistently throughout the sentence in which it occurs. The original sentence is consistent with an instruction to a person about what to do if someone else, i.e. a student, loses or misplaces that person's form.

Posted by Phil | October 13, 2008 11:32 AM

Here's the deal: I'm using 'they' however I want. You can tell me it's right, it's wrong, it's stupid, it's lazy, I don't care.

I'm a linguistic terrorist, and over time I think people are going to side with me. So let's quit talking about this like we're French and there's a room full of crusty old men who decide these things. There isn't.

This is America. We were raised by linguistic wolves. Woof.

Posted by The Phantom | October 13, 2008 11:36 AM

I've taken up the habit of writing "s/he" and "her/his". It may be tilting toward the pedantic, but I just can NOT bring myself to write "they" for "he or she."

Posted by Jules | October 13, 2008 11:38 AM

It's common in British English for collective nouns and similar references to take plural nouns. In that dialect, it's "the government, ...they," as opposed to the North American, "the government, ...it"; and so, your example, consistent in its dialect, doesn't hold.

Posted by Bill | October 13, 2008 11:41 AM

It's common in British English for collective nouns and similar references to take plural pronouns. In that dialect, it's "the government, ...they," as opposed to the North American, "the government, ...it"; and so, your example, consistent in its dialect, doesn't hold.

Posted by Bill | October 13, 2008 11:42 AM

Here's a link that has more on this topic - apparently, both Shakespeare and the Bible have used the singular they before, which is probably why Facebook wants to phase it out.

http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html

Posted by Karthik | October 13, 2008 11:49 AM

The problem with using "they" instead of the singular pronoun is that it's wrong. A pronoun must agree with its antecedent; it's as simple as that. We may get to a point where incorrect grammar is more widely accepted, but it's kind of bizarre to suggest that using a plural pronoun for a singular noun would ever be correct.

Posted by a | October 13, 2008 11:51 AM

There's a very simple solution to this. Turn the referent noun into the plural. Instead of "Every worker needs to turn in his time card," say "All workers need to turn in their time cards."

Alternately, tell the pedants that their attempts to prevent linguistic change are doomed and that they desperately need to find something to do with their time.

Posted by Joe Bourgeois | October 13, 2008 11:52 AM

"The problem with using "they" instead of the singular pronoun is that it's wrong. A pronoun must agree with its antecedent; it's as simple as that. We may get to a point where incorrect grammar is more widely accepted, but it's kind of bizarre to suggest that using a plural pronoun for a singular noun would ever be correct."

I think you're assuming what is at issue here. The argument is that there really shouldn't be anything wrong with using "they" to for singular antecedents. We can pull it off in the second person. Why not the third as well?

Posted by Nick | October 13, 2008 12:01 PM

Yeah, the argument is that "they" should be used as a singular pronoun, not that a plural pronoun should be used with a singular antecedent. As Nick points out, "you" is both singular and plural, so it's not like it is without precedent.

Posted by liberalofdoubt | October 13, 2008 12:13 PM

Barbara,

When one looks at gender identity (which is not the same as one's biological sex), it's possible that a person could be a "mother" while also using "he," "him," and "his."

For example a transgender male who has XX chromosomes could be a mother. More can be found online here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy

Posted by Steve Caldwell | October 13, 2008 12:15 PM

Nick is right, and "a" is wrong. Yes, a pronoun must agree with its antecedent--but "they" does agree with its singular antecedent when "they" is used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. "a" might as well claim that plural "you" is wrong when used instead of "y'all," because, of course, a pronoun must agree with its antecedent! "a" has too limited a sense of the flexibility of English. Sometimes the same word legitimately performs more than one function--imagine!

Singular "they" is standard. Get used to it. And enough already with the pecksniffery.

Remember, too, that these sorts of things are properly the province of the scientists known as linguists, not for amateur "language people." Anyone interested in questions involving prescriptive and descriptive grammar, please check out this post at Language Log.

Posted by Eveningsun | October 13, 2008 12:31 PM

Good piece. And thank goodness you did not mention the recent nutjob alternative, "ze".

Posted by cronopio | October 13, 2008 12:34 PM

It would be nicer if our language were Japanese or some such, where singular pronouns are not used frequently and are not necessarily gendered anyways. I would say, simply choose one of the names you might be called for a particular usage--the one you are most comfortable being accused of being--and stick with it. Consistency of style makes conveying your ideas go much smoother, and then who cares what those who'd rather get tripped up by your etymology think?

Posted by AlexB | October 13, 2008 1:04 PM

Let's just use "it" and call it settled.

Posted by a guy | October 13, 2008 1:33 PM

I disagree with Nick and Eveningsun. If you look at the instances where "they" is used instead of he or she, it actually marks a transition from the singular to the plural.

For example, "Every mother loves children, and they want to do what's best for their child."

Here, "they want" is clearly plural. If it were singular, the sentence would read "they wants".

But nobody says "they wants", because people have a clear sense that "they" is plural. In fact, writers use this type of sentence structure precisely to avoid the singular. The mistake is in not going back and making the first part consistent with the second.

So it's not just a matter of declaring that "they" can be used as a singular pronoun (which would be problematic by itself); it's condoning inconsistent sentence structure and bad grammar.

Posted by a | October 13, 2008 1:37 PM

"For example, 'Every mother loves children, and they want to do what's best for their child.'

Here, 'they want' is clearly plural. If it were singular, the sentence would read 'they wants.'"

This is once again assuming the argument. The idea is that "they" and all its associated declensions and verb conjugations can refer to the singular just as well as the plural. Though you assert that "they want" is "clearly plural," I'm not sure that there is any reason why it cannot refer to the singular when many people use it to refer to the singular without any problem. What is the objection outside of habit?

There are not any semantic problems, since I don't think anyone who reads a sentence that uses "Every mother...they want..." could conceivably think that each mother is in fact many mothers. The import of the sentence is plain as day, which, functionally, means that "they want" works fine in the singular.

Furthermore, think of "you are." Normally "are" is a plural verb. And "you" was plural for a very long time. But then we dropped "thou," the old 2nd person singular, and started using the plural "you" and thus "you are" to refer to singluar.

No one has problems with that. "Thomas, you are intolerable" is just as clear as "Thomas and Evan, you are intolerable."

Posted by Nick | October 13, 2008 1:57 PM

"The idea is that "they" and all its associated declensions and verb conjugations can refer to the singular just as well as the plural."

I think this is the heart of the matter. You're suggesting that "they" should take a third person plural verb, but be considered to be a third person singular pronoun. The question is why? We already have third person singular pronouns. To add another that is treated in a completely different way would be arbitrary and needlessly confusing.

The comparison to "you" is not very instructive, because the second person singular and plural verb forms are identical. You would say "you want" regardless of whether you're referring to one or several people. That is not the case with third person pronouns. The singular is different from the plural: he wants / they want. What you're suggesting is to take the second conjugation, which would denote a plural in any other context, and simply declare it to be singular because it has a singular antecedent.

I do recognize that languages evolve over time. I only think that we should be promoting a simpler and more consistent structure, and this would not do that.

Posted by a | October 13, 2008 3:06 PM

"You're suggesting that "they" should take a third person plural verb, but be considered to be a third person singular pronoun. The question is why?"

Because that is the way it has been used for centuries.

However, if people are uncomfortable using "he", randomly mixed "he" and "she", "he or she", "s/he", and "they", might I suggest we introduce the gender-neutral "squeewinkle".

Posted by Nat Gertler | October 13, 2008 3:28 PM

In the same vein, try the decidedly urban habit of not matching any pronouns with any antecedents and don't use the correct verb tense either. You sound and write ghetto before you know it. I.e.
"She say, 'Everybody bring they own ideas to Full Moon..Ray place." Translation: "She said, everybody should bring his own ideas to the Full Moon, Ray Lewis' restaurant."
It fun. Try it; you never go back.

Posted by Jac'Quazia | October 13, 2008 3:47 PM

The burden of evidence is definitely on those of us who desire to cling to the belief that "they" cannot be used as a singular pronoun. History and usage change are against us, as are the countless atrocities committed by self-righteous school-room grammar enforces from time immemorial.

The proper use of 'he' or 'she' as a gender-neutral pronoun sends shivers of appreciation down my back, particularly use of 'she'. Rather than signal feminism, it signals to me an appreciation for changing gender mores paired with a laudable desire to preserve rich information in language. The large, official organization I work for generally adopts this compromise.

We're going to lose the war: they will be the new gender-neutral singular pronoun. That said, I'm casting in my lot with the 'she' users--partially. I use 'she' and 'he' like salt and pepper, each proof of the other's non-exclusivity. It's eccentric enough to be utterly impractical for standardization, but it's a beautiful flag to fly while fighting a doomed battle.

Posted by Nate | October 13, 2008 4:10 PM

May I point out that "you" was once the plural form of thou?* We seemed to adapt to 'you' being distinctly singular fairly well, so why not turn "they" singular as well?

This did leave a minor problem as to what the plural of 'you' was. Different regions fixed this in different ways, and as such, I predict that if we turn "they" singular, it'll only be a matter of time before people in the South start saying, "Th'all".

*(yes, I know "you" could be used in a singular form as well to denote respect, but it was, first and foremost the 2nd person plural for a long time.)

Posted by Nylund | October 13, 2008 5:34 PM

I have a very simple rule for what is correct English.

If every native speaker of English understands what you are saying without any confusion whatsoever, then it is correct English.

If someone says "Is it ok if my friend comes with us?" and I say, "Yes, they can come," and not a single native speaker of English is confused by that, then it is proper English.

What is a language other than a means to convey ideas without confusion? If it does that successfully amongst all native speakers then it is doing its job and therefore correct.

Of course, by that rule, "gimme a cookie" is correct. I am fine with that. Spelling, grammar, and word changes have happened many times in English and will continue to do so. No one seems all too mad that we don't all write like Chaucer anymore. If we can accept all the changes in the past, why not the ones that are sure to come?

Posted by Nylund | October 13, 2008 5:47 PM

Nyland and Nick are right, and "a" is still wrong. "a" writes, "To add another [pronoun, that is, "they"] that is treated in a completely different way would be arbitrary and needlessly confusing." But it's not a question of "adding" anything. Singular they has been around for centuries. It is not arbitrary, because it efficiently performs a useful function, nor is it confusing. Nylund just asked us to consider the following: "[S]omeone says 'Is it ok if my friend comes with us?' and I say, 'Yes, they can come.'" No one finds that the least bit confusing.

The only problem here is that a lot of people have taken to heart some bad prescriptivist advice.

Posted by Eveningsun | October 13, 2008 7:52 PM

how about "that one" ? seems topical.

Posted by Enlin Pan | October 13, 2008 8:38 PM

One last comment, and then I will let this rest.

The use of "they" as a singular pronoun is confusing because it conflicts with the common meaning of the word. In normal conversation, "Yes, they can come," has one specific meaning: More than one person is coming. That is the basic purpose of the plural pronoun.

If "they" is also used as a singular, then the word takes on a degree of ambiguity that is not in current language. We have to check the preceding sentence to figure out whether they has its normal meaning or its special singular meaning.

If we look at the situations in which people actually use this type of construction, the purpose is to generalize to avoid having to specify a gender. The sentence turns midway from talking specifically about "a person" or "every student" to generalities about "they". The word is not used as a singular pronoun at all (which explains why it takes the plural forms of verbs). It is used as a kind of wishy-washy word to avoid clarity and specificity.

The English language definitely needs a gender-neutral pronoun, but this solution doesn't even address the issue; it skirts around it, waves its hands and pretends that everything is fixed.

I do agree with the commenter who said that clarity was the most critical factor. But I do not see how using a vague word when a specific one would do improves clarity.

And lastly, I agree that language can and should change to meet the needs of its users. But this particular change is not needed. It may become common usage one day, but if it does it will be one of those illogical quirks in the language that make reading and writing it more difficult, not easier.

I'm done now. Sorry for the rant.:)

Posted by a | October 13, 2008 10:13 PM

We could simply coin a gender neutral singular pronoun 'heshe' or 'shehe' both being acceptable and end the discussion.

Posted by ivanhoe2 | October 13, 2008 10:19 PM

Sign me up for the plural brigade. Most of the disputes are about things like "Each student must turn in their paper." There is no reason not to make this "All students must turn in their papers," and that actually sounds better to me. Using "each" is starting to sound stilted and old-fashioned to me, and I suspect that we will get rid of THAT before we resolve the fight about "they" and "their" in the singular.

"Nobody" and "no one" are harder to get rid of, but I'm willing to go to the trouble of writing "he or she" in those limited cases.

What people say in informal, colloquial speech doesn't control what is seen as correct in formal, written work. Nobody writes the way he or she speaks.

And yes, I would probably say "nobody writes the way they speak" in an informal setting. But I know it's informal and a bit sloppy, so I don't try to justify it in formal work.

Posted by M.C. | October 14, 2008 3:05 PM

I question the assertion that writers and copy editors wish singular 'they' were standard. Undoubtedly some do, but in my experience it is writers and copy editors who work the hardest to eliminate it, and are most likely to decry it as yet more proof of the imminent collapse of Western civilization.

As other commenters have pointed out, it has been in continual use for centuries, by entirely respectable writers. Furthermore, it is used routinely by nearly everyone without causing any confusion and usually without drawing any notice. By any rational criterion, it is standard English and has been longer than any of us have been alive.

The problem is that there is a vocal minority who reject rational criteria and complain about this usage, when they happen to notice it. There are words for this sort of person: "crank" and "crackpot" come to mind. But for historical reasons this particular version of crackpottery is consider respectable, and even authoritative. So leaves a larger body of writers and copy editors who defer to the cranks.

The solution is really very simple. Institute a policy of not acceding to linguistic cranks. If you receive complaints, create a webpage laying out the facts and refer complainers to it. If the problem is honest ignorance of the facts, the solution is education. If the problem is crackpottery, the solution is to ignore it until it goes away. But the first step either way is to grow a spine.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | October 16, 2008 11:48 AM

I am a college English teacher and a writer, and I don't see the fuss against simply making the antecedent plural, since this problem occurs when one is writing in a non specific number circumstance. When one is specific, gender is also specific.
Perhaps spoken usage will take over, but until then, I don't really see a problem with number consistency.

Posted by CitizenE | October 17, 2008 9:52 PM

a wrote: "The comparison to "you" is not very instructive, because the second person singular and plural verb forms are identical. You would say "you want" regardless of whether you're referring to one or several people. That is not the case with third person pronouns."

But the analogy does in fact hold. Back in the day, it was "I want, thou wantest, he wants." When "you" made the migration from plural to singular, it brought its plural verb form with it. I see no reason why "they" shouldn't do the same.

Posted by Bob | October 20, 2008 1:31 PM