Setting the record straight on language issues #2 Generic he/singular their

Here's a good description of the nuances of singular they that illustrates just how badly prescriptivists have missed the forest whilst they focused on a small, artificial weed.

The prohibition against singular 'they' is another example of Prescriptivist Poppycock.

Everyone knows each other
April 26, 2008 @ 1:49 pm · Filed by Geoffrey K. Pullum under Prescriptivist Poppycock, singular "they"



"Everyone knows each other", said someone on BBC Radio 4 this morning, speaking about some tight-knit community. And instantly I saw that this was the key to a definitive argument against the logic of the opponents of singular they. I wonder if I can make you see how awesomely beautiful the insight is.

The -s suffix on the present-tense verb knows tells us that the subject is morphosyntactically singular. That is, it counts as singular for purposes of subject-verb agreement. But each other, famously, requires a semantically plural subject. That is why They know each other is grammatical and *He knows each other is not. From this and nothing else it follows that semantic plurality and morphosyntactic singularity are compatible in English. No prescriptivist has suggested that there is something grammatically wrong with Everyone knows each other. But because of that, the logical objection to singular they just collapses. Everyone knows themselves has no grammatically relevant property that isn't already instantiated by Everyone knows each other.


I recently discussed the ravings of the apparently half-mad David Gelernter's description of the consequences of singular they (which he falsely believes was a malign invention of feminists some time "since the 1970s"): he said that grammar simply "collapsed in a heap after agreement between subject and pronoun was declared to be optional." He means antecedent and pronoun. But there is no failure of agreement.

Syntactically, when everyone is a subject it demands singular agreement on the verb of its clause; semantically, when it is an antecedent it denotes a collectivity of human beings and thus allows plural anaphoric elements. Everyone, including Gelernter (surely), would agree that its meaning is fully compatible with plural predicates, so that Everyone knew each other is grammatical. What happens in Everyone knows each other is that you see a plural-requiring predicate and a singular verb in the same clause. And Everyone knows themselves simply illustrates the same point with a reflexive pronoun instead of a reciprocal.

Avoid singular they if you want to; nobody is making you use it. But don't ever think that it is new (it goes back to early English centuries ago), or that it is illogical (there is no logical conflict between being syntactically singular and semantically plural), or that it is ungrammatical (it is used by the finest writers who ever used English, writers who uncontroversially knew what they were doing).

...

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=89

A learned discourse, and one which adequately illustrates the lay confusion btween"grammaticality" with "logicality".

Many years ago, in the heyday of Chomsky's transformational grammar, I remember the perplexity of traditional English teachers who having enrolled on an MA course in linguistics, were informed that "...ain't not got one" was perfectly "grammatical" within specific idiolects (as per the double negative ne...pas in French). And therein lies the kernel of the never-ending debate between "appropriateness" and "correctness", (or prescription versus description) which is the political residue of a now forgotten 19th. century attempt to "teach correct English to the uneducated masses" by upper class Latin scholars.

SLIGHT CORRECTION OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ABOVE

A learned discourse, but one which might be more simply summarised by reference to the lay confusion between"grammaticality" and "logicality".

Many years ago, in the heyday of Chomsky's transformational grammar, I remember the perplexity of traditional English teachers who having enrolled on an MA course in linguistics, were informed that "...ain't not got one" was perfectly "grammatical" within specific idiolects (as per the double negative ne...pas in French). And therein lies the kernel of the never-ending debate between "appropriateness" and "correctness", (or prescription versus description) which is the political residue of a now forgotten 19th. century attempt to "teach correct English to the uneducated masses" by upper class Latin scholars.

January 5, 2012 by Geoffrey Pullum

Comments (48)
Dogma vs. Evidence: Singular They
I promised I would return to the vexed topic of using they or them or their with singular antecedents. Your holiday homework was to re-read the first act of The Importance of Being Earnest and comment. Richard Grayson (see the Comments (63)) saw the point immediately: Lady Bracknell remarks that at her last reception she wants music “that will encourage conversation, particularly at the end of the season when everyone has practically said whatever they had to say, which, in most cases, was probably not much” (underlining is mine). Everyone is the subject; the verb form has shows singular agreement; yet the pronoun she chooses is they.

The conclusion I draw is that singular they is fully grammatical, at least with quantifier-like antecedents such as everyone, nobody, etc. If Lady Bracknell is not the most intimidatingly formal speaker of Standard English in all of literature, I don’t know who is. We can’t dismiss her for lack of breeding. If Lady Bracknell uses a construction, I say it’s grammatical. (Or do you want to dismiss Oscar Wilde as unable to write grammatical lines for her to utter?)

One could say something similar about the real-life Lord Byron, who wrote contemptuously of Cambridge University: “Nobody here seems to look into an Author, ancient or modern, if they can avoid it.” The -s on seems shows singular agreement with nobody, which is the antecedent of they. Do the pedants really want to say that Lord Byron couldn’t make his pronouns agree?

One could go on. Shakespeare? Yes, he used singular they. Jane Austen? Large numbers of examples throughout her books. Who else? Perhaps the most telling example is that although Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style preaches against singular they, when E. B. White got back to his own excellent writing he wrote lines like “But somebody taught you, didn’t they?” (that’s from Charlotte’s Web).

What baffles me is how reluctant educated people are to take such facts as evidence. This is what I meant about Mary’s reaction to my usage. I’m not arrogantly assuming personal authority (though the commenter who uses the name “clarity_please” thinks I am, and others agree). Remember, I’m the one who pays attention to evidence from Oscar Wilde and Lord Byron and Jane Austen and E. B. White and huge numbers of other fine writers, not the one who pig-headedly insists on unquestioned dogma.

I’m not bossing Mary around concerning how to use her native language (that really would be arrogant); she doesn’t have to use they anywhere she doesn’t choose to. I’m just commenting on her amazing unwillingness to take anybody’s writing as evidence about what is grammatical, rather than as grounds for (however implausibly) calling the writer ignorant or careless. She clings to a sort of faith-based grammar: She thinks there are rules that we should follow even if native-speaking grammarians and fine playwrights and novelists disregard them—even if nobody in the world follows them (recall her remark: “No way shall I ever be convinced to change this in my writing or listening”). Why such a resolutely and hermetically theological view?

Some people clearly have an oversimplified misconception of the rule: “They must always refer to a group of entities” or something of the sort (“clarity_please” seems to have such a view). They write trying to explain to me, as if I were in elementary school, that “simple arithmetic” should tell me I am wrong. They seem not to realize that trying to suck grammatical truths out of naive conceptions of meaning is like trying to get blood out of a turnip. But they just stick with their misconceptions against all evidence, Wilde and Byron and Austen and White and Pullum be damned.

Some people may think I am pushing some kind of modern political correctness to avoid the apparent sexism of “Everyone should bring his own lunch,” but they are simply uninformed: singular they antedates modern feminism by hundreds of years. What I’m saying here has nothing to do with expungement of the apparent sexism of putatively sex-neutral he. It’s simply that I never cease to be amazed at such determined refusal to look at the evidence for English sentence structure the way we typically look at the evidence for, say, anatomical structure.

Normal people don’t say “No way will I ever accept the existence of a furry creature with a beak”: The discovery of the duck-billed platypus settles it against that opinion. When the topic is grammar, it seems that for some people nothing can ever settle anything.

[A brief update: For the people who have asked me why they takes plural agreement: "singular they" is an abbreviatory name, and it does not imply anything about agreement. They always takes the plural agreement form, regardless of its meaning; and everybody always takes the singular agreement form. That does not mean it's a contradiction for they to have everybody as its antecedent. Consider Everybody hopes that they are going to be the lucky one. The main clause subject everybody requires the singular form hopes; the subordinate clause subect they requires the plural form are; semantically, they expresses a bound variable; everything is as it should be. The sentence is fully grammatical.]

Return to Top
This entry was posted in Grammar, Mistakes, Style, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (48)


http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/01/05/dogma-and-evidence/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en