Sweden adopts gender-neutral pronoun

[cob]

I am referring to AP Style, which dictates that using "they" in a singular sense is wrong. I am not saying it has never been done. I do it myself. Even so, it is wrong.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/

Cobb, the AP Style only came about because of the need to keep with a set of rules for newsprinting. You can't apply that to everyday English usage.

I can in my life. I write for a living. Any time I use "they" in the singular, my editors are all over me.

And to everyone talking about dialect and things of this nature, I get where you are coming from. Cormac McCarthy often uses the word "they" to mean "there" when his characters are speaking. However, he does this to set the tone, to be authentic to the place, and things like this. He does it to misuse the language on purpose. That is very different than misusing it and pretending you are not.

I get why this is an issue and why people want to use the language this way. As I said before, it is because we don't have the right word and there is often no better option. Everything else just sounds terrible. And I certainly understand that language evolves and rules can be broken in many situations. So I supposed what I would say is that we may not have any choice but to break the rules in certain situations, but I think that doing so is shame and that we would be better off to fix the language.

I also think that a lot of the reason why we think all of the other options are poor (such as writing "his or her") is just because we are lazy when we speak. We say things in the wrong fashion all of the time, when we are not writing. Slowly, that invades the way that we think about language. Then, when we write, we think that things that are correct "sound funny" and so we find it natural and acceptable to start breaking the rules while writing as well. This would not happen if we were not lazy when we spoke, and if we did not have this idea that people who use the language correctly sound overly formal, but there is no fixing that.

[Mathmo]

I also think that a lot of the reason why we think all of the other options are poor (such as writing "his or her") is just because we are lazy when we speak. We say things in the wrong fashion all of the time, when we are not writing. Slowly, that invades the way that we think about language. Then, when we write, we think that things that are correct "sound funny" and so we find it natural and acceptable to start breaking the rules while writing as well. This would not happen if we were not lazy when we spoke, and if we did not have this idea that people who use the language correctly sound overly formal, but there is no fixing that.

Spoken language is different from written language, sure. This doesn't make written language "right" and spoken language "wrong". Speech is terribly ungrammatical (is that a word?) - I've certainly seen that as I've been doing an awful lot of transcribing conversation for work in the last few months - but it's not "wrong". Speaking grammatically would, I suspect, sound ridiculous and stilted - people (or at least the people I speak to on a semi-regular basis, which encompasses a fairly wide range of age / class / etc) don't even speak in full sentences, most of the time, let alone being picky about tenses agreeing and so on.

Obviously in the context of being paid for writing, you have to follow the rules that the people who pay you want you to follow. But that doesn't make that kind of English "correct" in any universal sense.

[edit the sad parts]

I like they because it is not "his or her". What if the person in question is not a him or a her? They works!

Why is it important to disclose someone's gender or even allude to it? I don't think it is.

[Sonic#]

So I supposed what I would say is that we may not have any choice but to break the rules in certain situations, but I think that doing so is shame and that we would be better off to fix the language.

So, the choices are between breaking an imaginary and arbitrary rule enforced by publishers, and fixing a language that's only broken when the rule is taken as true? Yeah, I'm going to break the rule, which is to say I'm going to write in a formal style that affords the least awkward phrasing, and treat "they" as a matter of style rather than grammar. If the editors demand correction, that's their prerogative, but they're acting as the last bastion of an antiquated rule.

I also think that a lot of the reason why we think all of the other options are poor (such as writing "his or her") is just because we are lazy when we speak. We say things in the wrong fashion all of the time, when we are not writing. Slowly, that invades the way that we think about language. Then, when we write, we think that things that are correct "sound funny" and so we find it natural and acceptable to start breaking the rules while writing as well. This would not happen if we were not lazy when we spoke, and if we did not have this idea that people who use the language correctly sound overly formal, but there is no fixing that.

I learned language through speech, and then learned grammar as I learned how to write. The dialects that I learned still had rules and even grammar, though because they differed from the mainstream dialect and from writing, they were often judged "incorrect." I also learned that certain styles are given to certain situations. In speech, I codeswitch between a southern vernacular, an Appalachian, and a general educated dialect without even realizing it. Chalking dialectical differences or the differences of speech and writing up to "laziness" is a very reductive move, a lazy move. It's the very same move that allows people to think that Southern or cockney speakers are unintelligent.

One point I don't want to miss - prescriptive linguistics is useful. Having a formal standard of writing or communication helps maintain the communicability of ideas across places and time. However, it's only a standard, only a prescription of how rules should work. The 18th century grammarians actually made English change its rules because they insisted that the language work more like Latin. Some rules (like those against double negatives) are now indistinguishable from the standard, while others (like those against split infinitives) are only upheld by the most stringent grammarians. The rule against singular "they" is a rule of the second type; formal language couldn't deeply abide an adjustment away from a useful form, and it's here to stay, as grammarians increasingly note.

So if the standard form emphasizes maximum communicability, then it ought to respond to the invisible rules of language which are (a) most widely recognized and (b) less ambiguous and more efficicent in usage.[1] An occasional gender-neutral personal singular "they" (rather than the two-pronoun plus conjunction form "he or she") will only grow in popularity, while "whom" will be replaced even more completely by "who." Comma splices, pronoun and tense agreement, and other rules will remain standard. Some editors will continue to insist on the Oxford comma, while Chaucers will write complaints to their editors on the changes they wreak in their manuscripts. Language after the singular "they" will go on, and has gone on.

[1] This is where the arbitrariness slips in. When some dialects use double negatives and others don't, the standard chooses one, slaps a reason on it, and says, "Don't do the other." Whatever the other effects of that, I hate it when people or groups are then maligned because their dialect disagrees with the standard, especially outside of formal writing.

[cob]

So, basically, everyone seems to take the stance of: "It's not wrong, it's just different! When people use language differently, that's their choice."

What if we took that approach with math?

It is different because it is wrong. It is understood by everyone because we are accustomed to the same mistakes.

Take texting, for example. I can write: "Can U come here 2nite" Everyone will know what I mean, even though I should have written: "Can you come here tonight?" Just because it is understandable or connected to a certain group (based on age, location, etc) does not mean that abuse of language is something that should be accepted.

This is essentially the same thing, just on a less drastic scale.

[Butterfly North]

Language isn't analogous to maths. Language evolves while mathematical proofs are a priori true. I mean, fifty years ago those standards you're talking about would explicitly forbid much of what you deem to be acceptable wheareas 2+2=5 will always be wrong unless we alter the number that is denoted by the symbol '5'.

Anyway, I think you mean that we take the stance that: "It's not wrong, it's just different! When people use language differently, that's their choice." It offends me that you are abusing the language so.

[Sonic#]

Not choice, exactly. At least, a lot of the language choices we make are not conscious, but are still systematic. Different systems can prevail in different circumstances and different places, from the level of a region (Scotland; the Northeast) to the level of a family (idiomatic usage). If I were to talk about wooden nickels outside of my family or where many of them came from, others would find it quaint and odd; if I were to pronounce every consonant of "them" to my family, I would be understood but considered odd. So these usages are context and not person specific, which is why your calling them lazy is so odd. (How can a system of language, like a dialect, be lazy?)

In the case of singular "they," so many dictionaries and grammarians already consider it either correct or inevitably to be considered correct. So it's already in use and has long been use in high-end formal and literary discourses, only caught by pedants who insist on obeying an even stricter rule.

If you want to make an analogy to math, you need to distinguish between systems of articulation and the truth of a possible statement within the system. 2+2=5 is a possible statement following the rules of mathematical statement, but it is an untrue one, violating the established mathematical rules for addition of integers. On the other hand, "The White House is blue" is a linguistically possible statement and untrue; yet, such a statement can be said without violating any linguistic rule. Colloquially, the first is bad math, while the second is good language.

If you wanted to make a more appropriate analogy, what if we wrote five times two equals ten as "5x2=10." If we didn't agree beforehand that "x" was always a multiplier and never a variable, then the statement could be confusing. If other characters were available, they might want to use "*," while if none were, they might want to avoid using "x" as a variable. There, just like in the case of singular "they," the usage would depend on the context, on accustomed usages, and what people with previous experience could presume from the statement. Given that using singular "they" rarely results in such baffling ambiguity, it can't be said to need correction or adaptation in the same way.

[Mathmo]

On the subject of maths and language, there is more variation in maths than you might think. For a start, there are variations in terminology (and sometimes people use the same words to mean different things, which is why they have to be careful at the beginning of papers to state definitions clearly). For example some people will see the natural numbers as {0,1,2 ...} and others as {1,2 ...} and both of these are valid and reasonable choices which are to some extent context-dependent ({1,2,3 ...} are the positive integers so they're a reasonable collection of things, but for some things you might want to do in set theory it makes sense to lump 0 in with all the positive integers so it's easier to say you'll look at {0,1,2 ...} rather than writing down "oh and this works for 0 as well" every time). Some people feel strongly that one or other of these is the "correct" way to see things. Others see it as a pragmatic thing, with neither being more "correct" but one or other being more appropriate in a given situation. Which is, really, quite similar to the different ways people may feel about grammar ...

Also, there are different areas/systems of maths within which different things are valid (e.g. looking at set theory with/without the axiom of choice, or looking at different constructions of set theory). There are areas of maths where you can talk about "infinity" as a thing and manipulate it and have ideas like "when you reach the point at infinity", and there are areas of maths where you can only talk about infinity as "a thing that you can get close to but never reach". Different fields of maths have their own conventions/rules/understanding of "what is allowed as valid maths in this area". This is kind of analogous to different dialects of speech, but I'm not sure it's a particularly useful analogy.

[lillerina]

"Correct" language privileges one particular type of upper class English dialect, ignoring regional and class variations. Within social justice, it makes sense to use the tools we have to break privilege where we can, and singular 'they' is a tool that's been in our linguistic toolbox for centuries. If, within social justice, we can use neologisms like 'kyriarchy' and 'mansplain', we should be able to use the singular they. Within other contexts, such as journalism or law, it makes sense for there to be certain standards held as correct so as to avoid ambiguity.

I have friends who have 'they' as their pronoun of choice. Why is an arbitrary language standard more important than respecting their gender identity? To me, it isn't.

[cob]

Anyway, I think you mean that we take the stance that: "It's not wrong, it's just different! When people use language differently, that's their choice." It offends me that you are abusing the language so.

Haha, fair enough. You have me there.

I have friends who have 'they' as their pronoun of choice. Why is an arbitrary language standard more important than respecting their gender identity? To me, it isn't.

I agree completely that respecting them is important, and I apologize if it came across as if I was advocating anything else. I'm certainly not. I'm just advocating the creation of a new word so that they don't have to have a "pronoun of choice." They can just have a pronoun that is set aside for that purpose. No choice to be made.

I think the main thing about the whole thing that bothers me is that language and the correct use of it seems to be largely deteriorating. I am always for trying to keep that from happening in any way possible. Is this really a big deal? No. Can we understand what people mean when they use "they" as a singular word? Certainly. It's just the whole idea of a slippery slope. This may not be a big deal, but it shows people that we do not respect the language enough to follow the rules, and then we end up with sentences like "i am going 2 the store do U kneed something that they have their?"

[Mathmo]

I think the main thing about the whole thing that bothers me is that language and the correct use of it seems to be largely deteriorating. I am always for trying to keep that from happening in any way possible. Is this really a big deal? No. Can we understand what people mean when they use "they" as a singular word? Certainly. It's just the whole idea of a slippery slope. This may not be a big deal, but it shows people that we do not respect the language enough to follow the rules, and then we end up with sentences like "i am going 2 the store do U kneed something that they have their?"

Has it always been thus? (I don't know, I'm just wondering). I suspect that this kind of variation, street slang, etc is easier to notice now because we have the internet and we do a lot of informal communication in writing, whereas I am guessing that a few hundred years ago this would not have been the case. But I strongly suspect that it has always been the case that language has been changing, and some people perceived this as it being degraded/deteriorating, and other people didn't.

Also, I suspect regional variations in language were more pronounced before the advent of radio/TV/the internet, so I wonder if today we are actually closer to a common 'standard' language than in times past? Does anyone know about the history of this kind of thing?

[lillerina]

I have real problems with both the slippery slope argument and with the term 'correct language'. As I've explained upthread, the notion of a correct language privileges upper class English over regional dialect. Any linguist should know that there is no one 'English' because it's an umbrella term for a group of inter-comprehensible languages. When you say 'correct' English, I suspect you mean 'formal' English, but calling it formal English emphasises that there are contexts where it is correct and contexts where it is less important. Calling it 'correct' English implies that there is, or should be, a universal standard for English which is applied indiscriminately. I also think that it would be silly to create a new term so that we can stop using a standard that has been in place for hundreds of years. There are other gender neutral pronouns available to people; some people prefer singular 'they' anyway. We can continue to teach our children about the differences between their/there/they're and your/you're, we can continue to teach them formal English and the situations where it is applicable, and at the same time as doing these we can accept the use of they as a gender neutral singular pronoun.

[cob]

I think the main thing about the whole thing that bothers me is that language and the correct use of it seems to be largely deteriorating. I am always for trying to keep that from happening in any way possible. Is this really a big deal? No. Can we understand what people mean when they use "they" as a singular word? Certainly. It's just the whole idea of a slippery slope. This may not be a big deal, but it shows people that we do not respect the language enough to follow the rules, and then we end up with sentences like "i am going 2 the store do U kneed something that they have their?"

Has it always been thus? (I don't know, I'm just wondering). I suspect that this kind of variation, street slang, etc is easier to notice now because we have the internet and we do a lot of informal communication in writing, whereas I am guessing that a few hundred years ago this would not have been the case. But I strongly suspect that it has always been the case that language has been changing, and some people perceived this as it being degraded/deteriorating, and other people didn't.

Also, I suspect regional variations in language were more pronounced before the advent of radio/TV/the internet, so I wonder if today we are actually closer to a common 'standard' language than in times past? Does anyone know about the history of this kind of thing?

Those are actually two phenomenal points, Mathmo, even though you're proving me wrong here. You're probably right. Perhaps it has always been this way. We just don't see it in history because for so long only the most educated people could even write at all. So all of the poor use of language was not preserved. Now, anyone can write on a cell phone or the Internet, so we see it. I hadn't looked at it that way at all. Very interesting to consider.

[cob]

I have real problems with both the slippery slope argument and with the term 'correct language'. As I've explained upthread, the notion of a correct language privileges upper class English over regional dialect. Any linguist should know that there is no one 'English' because it's an umbrella term for a group of inter-comprehensible languages. When you say 'correct' English, I suspect you mean 'formal' English, but calling it formal English emphasises that there are contexts where it is correct and contexts where it is less important. Calling it 'correct' English implies that there is, or should be, a universal standard for English which is applied indiscriminately. I also think that it would be silly to create a new term so that we can stop using a standard that has been in place for hundreds of years. There are other gender neutral pronouns available to people; some people prefer singular 'they' anyway. We can continue to teach our children about the differences between their/there/they're and your/you're, we can continue to teach them formal English and the situations where it is applicable, and at the same time as doing these we can accept the use of they as a gender neutral singular pronoun.

You're right that there is no one type of English that is used. There are dialects. However, there is one form of correct (formal, if you will) English from which the others are derived due to mistakes in grammar, word choice, etc. I don't think you have to proclaim all of those to be "correct" simply because they exist.

[Butterfly North]

^But that isn't true, dialects need not be 'derived' from formal language at all. Since language is always changing and since there has historically been a regional aspect to this evolution you can easily have Language A evolving into Language B and Language C. What happens when Language C happens to be adopted by the ruling classes and you start to get written dictionaries and rules for grammar? Language C becomes formal english/french/whatever. It may then seem to those who have been educated in this language that Language B is a crude copy of their own, but that is mistaken. They can only say that Language B is incorrect if they can be sure that what the speaker is aiming at is Language C, which of course... they aren't. They're speaking their own language correctly. I think what Lilly is saying is that no group has the right to say that their own language is better/righter/correcter than another. As such, when there is an evolution in the use of language (in this case, when a group adopts 'they' as a gender neutral pronoun) by labelling it as incorrect we are saying that we have the power to decided which evolutions count and which are aberrations. It's a pretty elitist view on language.

[rowan]

The course I've had on the history of human language made a good case for "formal" language not actually being "real" language because it doesn't evolve on the same timescale that natural languages (spoken) do. It really changed my view on language as a whole, and what it is and what it is for. So, I recommend that you look into something like that. The one I listened to was put out by the teaching company.

[Fitzi]

It will (if it will) work only within the feminist community only. That's for sure.