Singular they is in the news again, this time not simply as an alternative to the obsolescent generic masculine he, or the cumbersome he or she, but in discussions of what pronouns to use for trans or gender-nonconforming individuals. Although the high-profile Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner have publicly opted for the feminine pronouns she, her, and hers as they transition, not everyone feels included in the traditional male-female binary, and some people wish to avoid gender marking altogether, so they choose invented gender-neutral pronouns like hir and zie, or singular they, their, and them.
Commentators have long observed that English lacks a common-gender third-person singular pronoun—of all the personal pronouns, only he and she express gender. It, though ungendered, typically refers to things and animals, rarely to people. In the mid-nineteenth century, a few language commentators began to argue that English would be improved if a word were found to fill the gap, making it easier to refer to a person whose gender is not known, or to use when gender is irrelevant, and pronouns like na, ip, and xe were coined (you can read about the early history of invented gender-neutral pronouns here). Even though two of them, thon and he’er, have appeared in standard dictionaries, invented pronouns are seen as strange, and often unpronounceable, and they don’t attract a large following,. These early word coiners avoided singular they as an option, probably regarding it as ungrammatical. But for centuries, speakers and writers have slipped into singular they without giving it much thought.
Singular they occurs as early as the 1300s, and it appears in Chaucer, Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Swift, Addison, Austen, and even George Orwell, well known for his criticism of the politicization of language. But grammarians, editors, and usage critics have traditionally condemned singular they for pairing a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent. The resistance of these gatekeepers of correctness may be weakening, though, as speakers and writers continue to find singular they natural and useful. Idiom invariably trumps grammar—as we see in such long-established phrases as between you and I, which resists the admonitions of purists—and I’d guess that singular they even appears in the speech and unedited writing of its harshest critics.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Ben Zimmer reports that copy editors—whose job it is to root out errors, inconsistencies, deviation from the preferred style book, and infelicities of expression—are becoming more open to singular they, particularly when it’s not used to refer to a specific person. But most of the style manuals that guide writers and editors still caution against using it. Although the fourteenth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (1993) acknowledged a revival of singular they, them, and their and recommended their use, they walked back that advice in the face of strong objections in more recent editions. The current sixteenth edition tells writers,
Many people substitute the plural they and their for the singular he or she. Although they and their have become common in informal usage, neither is considered acceptable in formal writing, so unless you are given guidelines to the contrary, do not use them in a singular sense. [par. 5.227]
Similarly, both the American Psychological Association and the Modern Language Association disapprove of singular they. It’s not that their style books want to revive the sexism of the generic masculine, but they are unwilling to relax their insistence that a singular noun cannot take a plural pronoun. Instead they recommend recasting sentences in the plural to avoid the stylistically awkward repetition of he or she, the non-inclusive generic he, or the grammatically questionable singular they. Recasting a sentence in the plural isn’t always possible or appropriate.
As early as 1927, the grammarian Otto Jespersen, who based his analysis of English structures on what speakers and writers of the language actually do rather than on made-up rules about what they should do, found that English writers often have no alternative to singular they because English lacks both a “common-sex” pronoun and a “common-number” one (a common-number pronoun would cover the many cases that are neither singular nor plural; Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles II:137-38). The Oxford English Dictionary offers further evidence of well-known writers using singular they over the centuries. In addition, a couple of usage guides are now on record approving singular they. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1989) sets objections of singular they against the long and respectable history of its use by well-regarded writers, concluding,
The plural pronoun is one solution devised by native speakers of English to a grammatical problem inherent in that language—and it is by no means the worst solution. [s.v., they]
And the latest edition of The New Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1996) dismisses objections to singular they in light of the historical record of English and observes that, with few exceptions, the construction is “passing unnoticed” by speakers of standard English as well as by copy editors. And a task force is planning to ask the APA to accept singular they in its style guide.
Most of the discussion about singular they concerns sentences that would generate an alternative he or she to refer to a person whose gender is not specified. Here’s a typical example:
Everyone loves their mother.
Indefinite pronouns like everyone, someone, and anyone are technically singular, though they’re often plural by implication. Everyone refers to an unspecified individual within a large group of unspecified individuals. That’s why people don’t have much of a problem with everyone . . . their constructions. However, these indefinites take a verb inflected as singular. In other words, you can’t say,
*Everyone love their mother.
Those who accept everyone . . . their may have more difficulty with the slightly more marked case where the antecedent is generic but more noticeably singular, and they appears in a following clause or sentence:
If a student wants to change major, they should contact an advisor.
As we see from Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, such constructions are also common in the historical record.
Moving pronoun and referent closer together, though also common among English writers, may accentuate the singular/plural clash, and it may reduce the construction’s acceptability for some people simply because it is more noticeable. Consider this example where singular they occurs in the same clause as the referent:
When a student wants to change their major . . .
But the real difficulty, not treated in earlier usage books or style guides, occurs when the antecedent is a specific, named person, rather than an unnamed member of a class of persons—for example, Carol, rather than, a student—and where singular they can’t be considered a replacement for the coordinate he or she:
Meet Carol. They prefer the pronouns they, them, and their.
This construction is likely to be perceived as unusual in writing, though it too is very common in spoken English.
Distance between noun and referent may be a factor here as well. Consider this example, where the pronoun occurs in the same clause:
Carol prefers their burger medium rare.
These last examples, which tend to occur in transgender and gender nonconforming contexts, or when a person informs others what pronoun they prefer, have provoked the most discussion recently.
Mixing gender politics with language reform seems a recipe for controversy. When the marriage-neutral honorific Ms., which dates to the beginning of the twentieth century, started going mainstream in the 1970s, some critics overtly attacked the title as radical feminist overreaching, while others hid their social conservatism behind the more acceptable cloak of grammatical purism and resistance to language change. Neither argument stopped Ms. from becoming a permanent and popular addition to what many had imagined was the unalterable set of honorifics Mr., Miss, and Mrs.
No matter what anybody thinks about the gender issues motivating the latest interest in singular they, the grammatical objection that plural pronouns can’t refer to singular antecedents is simply wrong. In addition to the six-century history of singular they in the work of respected and careful writers, the royal or editorial we shows a use, albeit a narrow one, where a plural pronoun functions as a singular:
We are not amused.
We will see that singular they isn’t going away any time soon.
More to the point, in the seventeenth century, the plural pronoun you began replacing singular thou. In time, thou, thy, and thee became obsolete, along with ye, once the subjective second-person plural, as did the singular verb forms associated with thou—Thou art surely mistaken—particularly in standard usage. The second-person singular th- forms persist regionally in the UK, and they’re also used to evoke a humorous sense of old-fashionedness: Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Even when the referent is singular, singular you typically takes a plural verb:
Do you like your burger?
Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame.
This may also be the case with singular they:
Carol prefers their burger medium; they want ketchup, but no onions.
The following is not likely to occur:
*They wants ketchup, but no onions.
Style guides may move toward a more general acceptance of singular they, and considering the widening discussion of the need for pronouns responsive to today’s complex gender discussions, we can expect to see increased prominence for invented pronouns and for singular they, their, them in contexts where they refer to a clearly-specified individual, when he or she seem inappropriate. Invented pronouns, because they are new and unfamiliar, may highlight the gender motivation involved more clearly than singular they, but in the long term, when gender nonconformity becomes less culturally remarkable, singular they may prove more successful thanks to its long history as a singular in other contexts.
----
For the whole story on gender-neutral and nonbinary pronouns, click to order your copy of my new book, What’s Your Pronoun? Beyond ‘he’ and ‘she.’
