They is Singular!

Posted on 15 September 2008. Filed under: feminism | Tags: , , |

As an English teacher, I’m frustrated…

this isn’t going where you think…

by all the people who use “he” to mean “people,” and then justify it by recourse to The White God of Grammar. For them, New Feminist offers the following excerpt from Steven Pinker’s Language Instinct, which just can’t get enough exposure:

The next time you get corrected for this sin, ask Mr. Smartypants how you should fix the following:

Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.

Now watch him squirm as he mulls over the downright unintelligible “improvement,” Mary saw everyone before John noticed him.

The logical point that you, Holden Caulfield, and everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasp is that everyone and they are not an “antecedent” and a “pronoun” referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a “quantifier” and a “bound variable,” a different logical relationship. Everyone returned to their seats means “For all X, X returned to X’s seat.” The “X” does not refer to any particular person or group of people; it is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships. In this case, the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to. The their there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all. The same goes for the hypothetical caller: there may be one, there may be none, or the phone might ring off the hook with would-be suitors; all that matters is that every time there is a caller, if there is a caller, that caller, and not someone else, should be put off.

On logical grounds, then, variables are not the same thing as the more familiar “referential” pronouns that trigger number agreement (he meaning some particular guy, they meaning some particular bunch of guys). Some languages are considerate and offer their speakers different words for referential pronouns and for variables. But English is stingy: a referential pronoun must be drafted into service to lend its name when a speaker needs to use a variable. Since these are not real referential pronouns but only homonyms of them, there is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow they, their, them for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists’ recommendation of he, him, his. Indeed, they has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences.

Words can be both singular and plural without changing form – witness sheep and fish. “They” was once indisputably one of those words, until the first grammar book writers decided to make “he” the pronoun of choice for explicitly political reasons.

If only people who – rightly – respected grammar also respected the history of grammar.

Make a Comment

Make a Comment: ( 5 so far )

blockquote and a tags work here.

5 Responses to “They is Singular!”

RSS Feed for New Feminist Comments RSS Feed

I disagree. Language changes. We don’t use English based on what it’s been in the past. We use English based on what it is now.

Everyone is a singular indefinite pronoun.

The proper pronoun should be she or he at the end of the sentence. I happen to use she, but they (although a case may be made for its appropriateness in the past or possibly in the future) is not correct.

Everyone should bring her own beer to the party is correct (and preferable, in my book).

Everyone should bring his own beer to the party is also correct (but not preferable, in my book).

Everyone should bring their own beer to the party is not correct (but may be preferable in the future if people decide to switch they back to being singular).

So you really think it should be: “Mary saw everyone before John noticed him”? Even though that “grammatical” sentence doesn’t make sense?

“They” was once indisputably one of those words, until the first grammar book writers decided to make “he” the pronoun of choice for explicitly political reasons.

You need to document this assertion with examples from actual writing throughout English history.

Sure — let’s start with the dictionary. From the mother of them all, the Oxford English Dictionary:

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or she’).
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].

More examples. From Jane Austen: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

Other authors, from Shakespeare to Bernard Shaw: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html

Various translations of the Bible: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html

I’d just like to point out that a simple Google search and the use of a good dictionary pulls up all this and much more.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...