Oh! The Damage to Our Mother Tongue!

I cannot pass this up!

Norm Geras writes in Tradition, tradition:

Suppose you set out deliberately to write a column which would be so obviously laughable a decade or three on that it already is laughable, to put together a sad rant about how everything is going to the dogs, you couldn't do much better than the piece I've just read by David Gelernter. It's an 'end of civilization as we know it' lament, and the particular thing that's at stake for him is our language.

Read the rest and the rant he is referring to.

David Gelernter needs to get his facts straight. Gender-neutral language was the baby of American big business, not the Women's Liberation Movement (though they liked it for obvious reasons). AT&T was the first to rewrite all corporate documents in an effort to get better executives (through more competition) by insuring the promotability of women. Other corporations followed suit - for purely mercenary reasons ;-)

The implications of the Civil Rights Act made the government then follow suit.

The publishing industry then followed suit, again for the purely business reasons I outline here.

So, quit bawl-babying about them evil feminists, will ya? Don't you think it's about time you guys got used to it?

What's more, the singular "they" is going to destroy the English language? Give us a break: it has been in use since before Shakespeare's time.

May God grant everyone their heart's desire.
Shame on Bill for damaging the English language like that.

Jeez, I wonder why (she says, scratching her head) these traditionalists don't mind the singular you which replaced thou much later? Why do they blow a gasket only when such a change brings women from out behind the literary hajib? Hmmm?

The English language is (or at least till now) has been forged in speech, not writing. In speech, for many centuries now, all native speakers of English use have used gender-neutral language when in mixed company. It's only polite to do so.

Of course, he and man mean what we all think they mean, and studies show that we all think they mean "adult male." Gelertner couldn't be more wrong when he denies that. Pendants don't determine what words mean to us: the users of the English language determine what they mean.

Hence, unlike our forebears of the 7th century, we'd never say that the "princess is a wonderful man." Even these traditionalists would never dare say that, would they?

Learn more by clicking the "gender-neutral language" label below.

     

More on Using the Singular "They"

Using the Singular They, Them and Their

• These are payments made to an employee because of physical or mental incapacity that renders them unable to fulfill their duties.
• Nobody got their paycheck yesterday.
• Everybody loves their dog.
• If a client calls, tell them I'll be back at nine o'clock.
• When anybody does that to us, we feel like asking them who they think they are.
• Nobody in their right mind would do that.

Do notice that everybody loves their dog, not their dogs. So, we say —

Everyone was blowing their nose.

— instead of —

Everyone was blowing their noses.
If you get confused, look at the subject (everyone) and ask yourself whether we say Everyone is (singular) or Everyone are (plural). Since we are talking about one person, she or he has but one nose.

Also notice that, since they is normally plural, it takes a plural verb. So, we say —

Somebody murdered her, and they are going to pay for their crime.

— not —

Somebody murdered her, and they is going to pay for their crime.
Educated native speakers of English are unlikely to make any of these mistakes. Yet there's one mistake it's easy to make with any pronoun: giving it an ambiguous antecedent. So, as with all pronouns, make sure there's no doubt what word the singular they refers to.

We connect a pronoun to the nearest preceding noun that agrees with it in number. So, since they is normally plural, look out for another plural noun, especially one nearer than the one you refer to. For example, if you fill in the blank below with they, two nouns will compete for it:

When an applicant notifies the other residents, ______ must file a Form 2b within thirty days.

You can't use they in the blank to refer to applicant, because residents is nearer and plural. So readers would think you mean that the other residents must file, not the applicant. Therefore, though the applicant is an indefinite person, the only nonsexist solution is —

When an applicant notifies the other residents, he or she must file a Form 2b within thirty days.

     

How to Use the Singular "They"

If English is your second language, be careful with the singular they. The rules can be confusing. But if you're a native speaker of English, you should have no problem if you just proofread like you ought. For, you've been using the singular they in speech all your life. Therefore, you don't need to remember the rules, because they're instinctual to you by now.

Nonetheless, here are the rules ;-)

To learn how to use the singular they, just pay attention to how you use it in speech. That is, use the singular they instead of he or the he-or-she combination only when referring to a generic person — an indefinite person, who could be of either sex and could be either a collective entity or an unknown one. In other words, because the "editor" in the sentence below is a definite (defined) person, you can't write —

The editor from upstairs who was helping arrived yesterday. They....

— because we won't connect they with editor. Instead, we'll stop reading at they, wondering who "they" are. We interpret they as singular only when it refers to an indefinite person. Since the editor in this example is a definite person, they doesn't work. In that sentence, the only pronouns you can use for editor are he, she, or the he-or-she combination. Again, for example, native speakers of English don't say —

I went to the doctor yesterday, and guess what they said.

— because that doctor is a definite person. Since this example is in the first person, even the he-or-she combination makes no sense, because the speaker knows the sex of this doctor. (Well, okay, somebody who wanted to conceal the sex of that doctor might say I went to the doctor yesterday, and guess what he or she said? But normally, in the first person, you must pick he or she to refer to a definite person.)

That's all just common sense, isn't it? So, if you're a native speaker of English, don't worry about this indefinite-person qualification, because you instinctively know when you can use the singular they.

Note that the person referred to must be indefinite, not their sex. Here is a sentence in which the indefinite person's sex is definite, because all these debaters are women.

Had both the children been there, the affair might have been determined too easily . . . and every body had a right to be equally positive in their opinion, and to repeat it over and over again as often as they liked.

That's the narrator in Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austin

So, in this example, using the singular they doesn't make sex indefinite — just irrelevant.

The same rules hold for the plural them and the plural their. This is why the most common form of the singular they is their referring to indefinite singular words like whoever, each, every, everybody, nobody, somebody, anybody, everyone, no one, someone, and anyone.

More on using the singular they next time.

     

The Singular "They"

You often have yet another option for eliminating he, him, and his: replace them with they, them, or their.

But, you say, that's a grammatical error: they and its derivatives are plural!

Not always. Notice that in everyday speech we often use they and its derivatives in the singular. English-speaking people have been doing this since the thirteenth century when he came to mean "male." Writers since Chaucer have been doing it, too. Here's an example from Shakespeare's As You Like It:

God grant everyone their (not his) heart's desire.
The three great unabridged dictionaries of the English language firmly establish this usage. They are the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's New International Dictionary, and Random House's Dictionary of the English Language. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary prepared the first entries establishing this usage between 1909 and 1915. Here is what the Random House Dictionary of 1987 says:

Long before the use of generic HE was condemned as sexist, the pronouns, THEY, and THEM were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance.

Yes, I know what your high-school English teacher said. That's why the Random House Dictionary added that note above — to contradict grammarians. Here's why.

Using they in the singular instead of the gender-specific he became popular in writing during the eighteenth-century, as women became literate and authors naturally started writing for them too. Grammarians had a thermonuclear reaction to this trend. What nobody else finds confusing, they found very confusing, declaring that we cannot use the same pronoun in both the plural and the singular.

But if that's the real reason for their meltdown, why did they say nothing about the plural pronoun you having recently replaced thou for use in both the plural and the singular?

Something's showing, isn't it?

The only conceivable reason for their howling is that, in the case of you, they had no masculine pronoun to impose on us instead. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that grammarians rage only about issues that involve gender.

They decreed the "he/man" words gender-neutral and persecuted authors who used the they in the singular, characterizing them as ignorant and uneducated. For two centuries, few writers dared incur their wrath. Thus pedantry, language policing, word-watching, was born.

Their descendants overreacted to the same degree when journalists started using the singular they in print. Big business had invented nonsexist language (to get better executives by insuring the promotability of women). Government agencies had followed suit (for Constitutional reasons in the wake of the Civil Rights Amendment). Of course, the Women's Liberation Movement thought nonsexist language was a good idea and used and promoted it, but otherwise had nothing to do with it. Yet, pedants cry that the singular they is something new and that gender-neutral language is just "political correctness" imposed on the ignorant by a rancorous Women's Liberation Movement.

Like their eighteenth-century forebears, they warn that English shall be destroyed any minute now by continuing this 800-year-old practice of using they in both the plural and singular.

But language isn't carved in stone: it's whatever the population using it makes it. So, in a pinch consider using they, them, or their in the singular if you can do so without ambiguity. More on this next time.

     

Eliminating the Possessive Pronoun "His"

Often, eliminating his is harder than eliminating he or him, especially if you have a he, him, and his in the same sentence. Yet, you have six ways to eliminate his.

To avoid using "his":

• Cut the word his.
• Use an article (a, an, or the) instead.
• Switch to the plural.
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "his or her" for "his."

Follow examples. In the first two, just cut the word his.

A senator must use his good judgement.

Every player in this program must be prepared to spend his summers at camp.

Each player must bring a driver's license or other photo identification.

Players must bring their driver's license or other photo identification.

You must bring your driver's license or other photo identification.

A driver's license or other photo identification is required.

Each player must bring his or her driver's license or other photo identification.

     

Eliminating the object pronoun "him"

In the last example of the previous post, notice that I wrote "she or he" instead of "he or she." Using these expressions interchangeably is good, because it avoids the subliminal suggestion in always putting he first. But it has a drawback: we're so used to reading he or she that she or he seems unidiomatic and calls attention to the writing. But only the first time and only for the second it takes to interpret, so don't consider this little speed-bump a distraction.

Either way, the he-or-she method has limited use, because it can quickly lead to writing littered with he-or-she's, as in monstrosities like this —

He or she can't fulfill the second part of his or her mission if he or she doesn't see the opposing net player making his or her move on the ball.

He (a subject pronoun) is easier to avoid than him (an object pronoun), and both are easier to avoid than his (a possessive pronoun).

To avoid him, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "him."
• Reword the sentence to eliminate the need for "him."
• Substitute "him or her" for "him."

Here are examples of all but the last method.

Eliminating the Object Pronoun "Him"

Original: The best way to pressure a person is to confront him with choices.

Revised: The best way to pressure people is to confront them with choices.


Original: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make him hit the very return he usually tries to not hit.

Revised: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make receivers hit the very return they usually try to not hit.


Original: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply tell him how it makes you feel.

Revised: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply say how it makes you feel.

     

Avoiding Sexist Language

The problem is English's third-person-singular personal pronouns: there's no gender-neutral one, except it.

Other languages, like French, have this problem too. But in them nouns (i.e., the names of persons, places, and things) still have gender, too (inherited from Latin). So, gender hasn't such strong sexual connotations in these other languages as it does in English, where only pronouns referring to a human or animal still have gender. Because of these sexual connotations, the word gender, which originally meant "genus," has come to mean "sex."

You can avoid this sexual designation for an animal or infant by using "it." But you can't refer to a person as "it." We naturally refer to a newborn infant as "it" till it develops a personality. Parents are the first to see a personality in the baby. Similarly, we may refer to a stray dog as "it," but we never refer to our pet dog as "it."

So, for example, how do we talk about a hypothetical dog owner? We can say The owner must be ready to battle for dominance before he or she brings home a rescued Cairn Terrier. Fine, but if you've tried the "he or she" solution, you know what's wrong with it: you soon have a mess of he-or-she's, him-or-her's, his-or-hers's, and himself-or-herself's.

Eighteenth-century grammarians decided to just redefine he and its derivatives to mean "he or she." But nobody has the power to change what he, him, and his mean to the English-speaking people of the world. Words mean what we all use them to mean in everyday speech, and nobody can control that. So teachers defining them as "genderless" or "generic" is an exercise in futility. And putting a disclaimer in the front of your book, telling readers you mean them "genderlessly" or "generically" is an exercise in futility.

Therefore, if you write a sentence about the typical day of the average major league baseball player, say He takes batting practice before lunch. If you write a sentence about the duties of the average Girl Scout, say She sells cookies every spring. But if you write a sentence about how the average medical doctor works, don't say He runs tests before diagnosing.

Try —
They run tests before diagnosing.
The doctor runs tests before diagnosing.
Doctors run tests before diagnosing.
You have tests run before the diagnosis.
Tests are run before the diagnosis is made.
She or he runs tests before diagnosing.

From these examples we can see that, to avoid he, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "he."
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "he or she" for "he."

Prefer the first three methods, because the passive voice and he-or-she methods have drawbacks. Switching to the plural is the most versatile method, but you often must switch the surrounding sentences to the plural as well.

     

Oh, those darned third-person singular pronouns!

This turns into an even hotter topic than whether American English is legitimate or not. So, let me start off this series on how to avoid gender-specific language with the justification for avoiding it.

The bottom line is that you must use gender-neutral language to get published. Nonetheless, a decent respect for the opinions of all requires more of a reason than expediency.

So, let me mention at the top that language isn't a moral issue. It belongs to no one, let alone the monarch of the United Kingdom.

It isn't private property: it's community property. It is the property of all who speak it. The world over. THEY make the rules and change them at will. Not grammar teachers and pedants. Okay?

Writing is a service industry. So, to be profitable, it must please the customer.

Notice that native speakers of English use nonsexist language when speaking in mixed company. In fact, because of this habit, they usually do likewise whenever appropriate, even when speaking to all males.

This usage dates back to the 13th century. We see it in Shakespeare's line:

God grant everyone their heart's desire.

Why? Because it's instinctive to use the gender-neutral their instead of his. Just listen to yourself: you'll find that you use it all the time.

Why? Because it's simple courtesy to the half of your audience that is female. By using this inclusive language, you treat them like they are there. They won't like it if you don't. So, don't expect them to pay for a slight to their very existence.

And the argument that his means "his or her" doesn't hold water. Since a language is the property of its whole native-speaking community, THEY define the meaning of words, not professors of English. Tests prove that masculine pronouns and man-words mean "male" to native speakers of English.

Indeed, there was a time when they didn't. In the Dark Ages a native speaker of English would say that a certain queen was a "a wonderful man." Man meant "human" back then. But no native speaker of English would say that today, because man now means "adult male." Whether grammarians like it or not.

And the problem of meaning is far worse in English than in languages like French, in which all nouns still have gender. In English, only sexual beings are refered to with gender. So, in English, the word gender has stopped meaning "kind" and has come to mean "sex."

Since native speakers of English use gender-neutral language when they talk, why should they write according to different rules?

In my next few posts, I'll show how it's done. It may seem hard at first, but that's just due to your HABITS in writing. Once you get used to it, writing in gender-neutral language becomes second nature.

     

Nonsexist Language: The Pronoun Problem - Part 2

As I mentioned at the end of Part 1, he (a subject pronoun) is easier to avoid than him (an object pronoun), and both are easier to avoid than his (a possessive pronoun).

To avoid him, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "him."
• Reword the sentence to eliminate the need for "him."
• Substitute "him or her" for "him."
  

Here are examples of all but the last method.

Eliminating the Object Pronoun "Him"

Original: The best way to pressure a person is to confront him with choices.
Revised:The best way to pressure people is to confront them with choices.

Original: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make him hit the very return he usually tries to not hit.
Revised: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make receivers hit the very return they usually try to not hit.

Original: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply tell him how it makes you feel.
Revised: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply say how it makes you feel.

Often, eliminating his is harder than eliminating he or him, especially if you have a he, him, and his in the same sentence. Yet, you have six ways to eliminate his.

To avoid using "his"

• Cut the word his.
• Use an article (a, an, or the) instead.
• Switch to the plural.
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "his or her" for "his."

Here are examples.

Eliminating the Possessive Pronoun "His"

• A senator must use [his] good judgement.
• Every player in this program must be prepared to spend [his] summers at camp.
• Each player must bring a driver's license or other photo identification.
• Players must bring their driver's license or other photo identification.
• You must bring your driver's license or other photo identification.
• A driver's license or other photo identification is required.
• Each player must bring his or her driver's license or other photo identification.

Link

     

Nonsexist Language: The Pronoun Problem

The problem is English's third-person-singular personal pronouns: there's no gender-neutral one, except it.

• In the Nominative Case (when we use them as subjects), they are he, she, and it.
• In the Objective Case (when we use them as the objects of verbs), they are him, her, and its.
• In the Possessive Case, they are his, her(s), and its.

Other languages, like French, have this problem too. But in them nouns (i.e., the names of persons, places, and things) still have gender, too (inherited from Latin). So, gender hasn't such strong sexual connotations in these other languages as it does in English, where only pronouns referring to a human or animal still have gender. Because of these sexual connotations, the word gender, which originally meant "genus," has come to mean "sex."

You can avoid this sexual designation for an animal or infant by using "it." But you can't refer to a person as "it." We naturally refer to a newborn infant as "it" till it develops a personality. Parents are the first to see a personality in the baby. Similarly, we may refer to a stray dog as "it," but we never refer to our pet dog as "it."

So, for example, how do we talk about a hypothetical dog owner? We can say The owner must be ready to battle for dominance before he or she brings home a rescued Cairn Terrier. Fine, but if you've tried the "he or she" solution, you know what's wrong with it: you soon have a mess of he-or-she's, him-or-her's, his-or-hers's, and himself-or-herself's.

Eighteenth-century grammarians decided to just redefine he and its derivatives to mean "he or she." But nobody has the power to change what he, him, and his mean to the English-speaking people of the world. Words mean what we all use them to mean in everyday speech, and nobody can control that. So teachers defining them as "genderless" or "generic" is an exercise in futility. And putting a disclaimer in the front of your book, telling readers you mean them "genderlessly" or "generically" is an exercise in futility.

Therefore, if you write a sentence about the typical day of the average major league baseball player, say He takes batting practice before lunch. If you write a sentence about the duties of the average Girl Scout, say She sells cookies every spring. But if you write a sentence about how the average medical doctor works, don't say He runs tests before diagnosing.

Try —

• They run tests before diagnosing.
• The doctor runs tests before diagnosing.
• Doctors run tests before diagnosing.
• You have tests run before the diagnosis.
• Tests are run before the diagnosis is made.
• She or he runs tests before diagnosing.

From these examples we can see that, to avoid he, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "he."
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "he or she" for "he."

Prefer the first three methods, because the passive voice and he-or-she methods have drawbacks. Switching to the plural is the most versatile method, but you often must switch the surrounding sentences to the plural as well.

In the last example above, notice that I wrote "she or he" instead of "he or she." Using these expressions interchangeably is good, because it avoids the subliminal suggestion in always putting he first. But it has a drawback: we're so used to reading he or she that she or he seems unidiomatic and calls attention to the writing. But only the first time and only for the second it takes to interpret, so don't consider this little speed-bump a distraction.

Either way, the he-or-she method has limited use, because it can quickly lead to writing littered with he-or-she's, as in monstrosities like this —

He or she can't fulfill the second part of his or her mission if he or she doesn't see the opposing net player making his or her move on the ball.

He (a subject pronoun) is easier to avoid than him (an object pronoun), and both are easier to avoid than his (a possessive pronoun). But that's a subject for a future post.

     

Avoid sexist language.

Sexist language is language that gives priority to the male, usually disregarding the female. Since language is what we think with, and since language enters the brain to affect how we think, the widespread use of sexist language causes sexism. But notice the difference between using sexist language and being a sexist. By itself, writing in sexist language isn't sexism. Indeed, most writers using sexist language aren't sexists. Many use it inadvertently or because they were taught to. Including many women.

Yet, since the thirteenth century, in everyday speech, native speakers of English have customarily used nonsexist language. In fact, you don't hear sexist language used in face-to-face conversation with women or in mixed company. This is the way we learned to speak English from the moment we began learning to talk. This custom grows out of the very purpose of communication and common courtesy. So, don't treat your readers differently in writing than you would face-to-face.

Yes, this means that occasionally you will have to break a "rule" pontificated by grammar teachers. But grammarians don't own a language: the population of its native speakers do.

If you are writing a cover letter, synopsis, or book proposal, more than half your readers will be women. If you are writing a book or novel for a general audience, more than half your readers will be women. Many women and men notice sexist language. But nobody notices nonsexist language, because it's natural and easy to write.

Here are the reasons why you should use nonsexist language:

• It's the standard, so you'll have to self-publish if you don't.
• It doesn't pay to offend some customers, alienate some customers, or both with your product.
• Even women not offended by sexist language are disengaged by it, so it's bad for business.

Notice that THIS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE. If it upsets you, you're probably not cut out to be a professional writer, because your writing is all about your ego instead of about the reader.

Sexist language boils down to using the false generics, or "he/man" words, as though generic. These are the word he and its derivatives (him, his, himself) and the word man and its derivatives (such as workman, spokesman, chairman). These derivatives of the word man are a special case, because we have no choice but to use them unless a gender-neutral substitute is available. Also, in fiction, to avoid calling attention to the writing, you'll use a familiar old man-word instead of a new gender-neutral replacement -- till that new word has come into widespread usage.

But you should nearly always avoid sexist language in the use of man, he, him, his, and himself.

More on some easy ways to do this in later posts.