<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: everybody...their</title></head><body>
<div>At 3:27 PM -0400 4/17/01, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>"A player has to be responsible for
their actions in this league." --<br>
Ernie Grunfeld</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
What would Mr. Grunfeld say if asked about this utterance? [I have no
idea;<br>
I've never met him.]<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>He might say: "Oops, I meant
'his'." [OK, we all make boo-boos.]</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Only if it's a "performance error" rather than a fact
about his idolect, an idiolect which is by no means unique to
him.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>He might say: "I feel one should
use 'their' in all cases, to advance<br>
sexual equality." [OK, each man has his notions, but I don't
have to like<br>
them.]</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>doubtful, given what I know about Ernie Grunfeld; in any case,
no similar explanation is available for the "female" THEIRs
exemplified below.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>He might say: "I think the plural
pronoun must be used since 'actions' is<br>
plural." [If my opinion were solicited, I would strongly
object.]<br>
He might say: "I meant that each individual player must be
responsible for<br>
the actions of all the players." [Hmm ....]</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Etc.</blockquote>
<div>None of the above, I'd wager.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#000000">In a paper Steve Kleinedler and I gave a
couple of LSAs ago, "Parasitic Reference vs. R-based
Narrowing: Lexical Pragmatics Meets<i> He-Man",</i> we
noted the tendency to use THEY/THEIR as "increasingly the
pronoun of choice even for non-specific singular antecedents of known
sex", as in the Grunfeld example or these (where
"their" is female in reference):</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">I can't help it if<b>
somebody</b> doesn't want<b> their</b> husband and then<b>
somebody</b> besides<b> them</b> decides<b> they</b>
do. </font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" size="-1"
color="#000000"> -"Serial mistress" Pamela Harriman,
quoted in<i> The Mistress,</i> by Victoria
Griffin </font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><b>No mother</b> should be
forced by federal prosecutors to testify against<b> their</b>
child. </font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" size="-1" color="#000000">-Monica
Lewinsky's mother's attorney </font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On the other hand, as we also argued,<font color="#000000">
"when the sex is unknown but the referent sufficiently specific
or individuated, the<i> they</i> often seems not entirely successful,
even when it would come in handy"</font>, as in our
(constructed) example</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#000000">(#)I've met this hot Transcendental
Grammarian, Chris Jones, in my bi chat room and I'm totally smitten
with them.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">If we're right about these claims, the use
of singular THEY/THEIR is more complicated than just a feminist
plot.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Such observations are incorrect IMHO. I
contend that "he" acts both as<br>
masculine and as common-gender pronoun. Furthermore, grammatical
gender<br>
need not correspond to sexual characteristics of the
referent.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>One problem I have with this claim is the extensive empirical
literature that indicates that "common-gender he" is
interpreted by both male and female hearers and readers as masculine,
and tends to exclude female referents. Another is the
theoretical argument that tends to show that neither HE nor
(especially) MAN is really common gender in practice, specifically if
one can't construct a male exemplar or image. (Actually, that
AHD4 usage note under MAN says something similar.) I provide
some additional data at the end of this note.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>>Were the well-known feminists
Chaucer and Shakespeare making the same<br>
political point when they used "their" with singular
non-specific antecedents?<br>
<br>
I don't think so. As in the case of Grunfeld, I haven't met these<br>
gentlemen, though. Use in quoted dialogue would not have the same<br>
implications as self-expressive use, of course. And my (or our)
grammar may</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>deviate a little from Shakespeare's and
a lot from Chaucer's.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<div>No doubt, but my point is that the tradition of sex-neutral
indefinite "singular" THEY is older and at least as
well-established as that of mandated "common gender" HE,
which was instituted (as Bodine and others show) in the 18th century
by (male) grammarians who wore their political agenda clearly on
their sleeves. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Well, on the bright side, it's nice that I've finally found a
subject I can disagree with Doug about; I was beginning to think we
were the same person.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>larry</div>
<div>============</div>
<div>P.S. Additional data and discussion from the Horn &
Kleinedler (2000) paper mentioned above. As usual, # indicates
bizarreness or anomaly.</div>
<div>---------------------</div>
<div><font color="#000000">"Given the traditional default of
adult males as the prototype members of the category HUMAN, we
predict that when and only when a male image can verify a
proposition, the quasi-generic<i> man</i> is reasonably
acceptable. As shown by the contrasts in (14), however,
when world knowledge rules out verification by (adult) male
exemplars, the quasi-generic is excluded, no matter how strongly the
local context encourages a generic interpretation."<br>
<br>
(14) <x-tab>
</x-tab><br>
Man is the only mammal capable of suicide.<br>
Man is the only mammal capable of rape.<br>
#Man is the only mammal that menstruates.<br>
Man is the only mammal that is embarrassed by his
{nakedness/sexuality}</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">#Man is the only mammal that is
embarrassed by his pregnancy.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">#Man, being a mammal, breast-feeds his
young. <font size="-3"> (from Miller &
Swift 1991: 29)</font></font></div>
<div><font
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">(14') #Everyone should be able to
decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion.</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" size="-1" color="#000000">-New York
state legislator cited by Treichler & Frank (1989: 162) inter
alia;<br>
a similar quotation has been attributed to Sen. S. I. Hayakawa
(R-Cal.).</font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica" size="-1"
color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">[Data showing that HE/HIS is awkward or
impossible in situations where a female referent has been rendered
salient (but where truly common gender THEY/THEIR is possible, modulo
prescriptivist complaints about number disagreement):]</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">(16)<x-tab>
</x-tab>#<b>Any boy or girl</b> who thinks that<b> he</b> knows the
answerŠ<br>
<font size="-2"> <br>
</font>(17) <x-tab> </x-tab><b>The
candidate</b> may ask you about local employment options for<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>his</b> spouse/#<b>his</b> husband or wife.<br>
<br>
(18)<x-tab> </x-tab><b>Every child</b> should be
taught how to wash<b> his</b> {private parts/genitalia}.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>#<b>Every child</b> should be taught how to wash<b>
his</b> penis or vagina.<br>
<br>
Note in particular that semantic equivalence-the fact that x is
y's spouse iff x is y's husband or wife-is
irrelevant. When the quasi-generic (but
prototype-evoking)<i> he/his</i> is replaced by the true
sex-neutral<i> they/their</i>, the sex-linked bizarreness disappears,
although the traditional ire of the prescriptivists may not be so
easily assuaged.<br>
<br>
(16')<x-tab> </x-tab><b>Any boy or girl</b> who
thinks that<b> they</b> know the answerŠ<br>
<br>
(17') <x-tab> </x-tab><b>The
candidate</b> may ask you about local employment options for<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><b>their</b> husband or wife.<br>
<br>
(18')<x-tab> </x-tab><b>Every child</b>
should be taught how to wash<b> their</b> penis or vagina.</font><br>
<font color="#000000"></font></div>
</body>
</html>