everybody...their

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>>>"A player has to be responsible for their actions in this league." --
>>>Ernie Grunfeld

>"No mother should be forced by federal prosecutors to testify against
>their child." -- Monica Lewinsky's mother's attorney

These persons may be trying to make a generalized reflexive pronoun,
something English sadly lacks. I see no reason to prefer it over "his" or
"her" respectively in these examples.

>"I can't help it if somebody doesn't want their husband and then somebody
>besides them decides they do." -- Pamela Harriman

This person apparently suffers from aphasia, possibly as a result of
chronic abuse of third-person plural pronouns.

>(#)I've met this hot Transcendental Grammarian, Chris Jones, in my bi chat
>room and I'm totally smitten with them.

(#)Chris e-mailed me a picture of themself; they have the sexiest mullet!

>>... I contend that "he" acts both as masculine and as common-gender pronoun.
>
>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 ....

Well, you have to know who your audience is. I'm sure many male and female
readers would interpret "parasitic reference" as something referring to
vermin. Usually the context will clarify the pronoun's sense. In doubtful
cases, "he/she" or "him or her" or something will usually be clear --
usually more clear, I think, than the third-person pronouns. Of course
different persons may have different opinions about what "sounds good".

Many of Larry's examples are interesting (thanks); I confess I'd never
thought of some of these points. My doubtless-often-puerile ad-hoc
rejoinders follow.

>#Man is the only mammal that menstruates.

To me, this merits only half of a "#". If I saw this in a Jared Diamond
book, I probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

>Man is the only mammal that is embarrassed by his {nakedness/sexuality}
>#Man is the only mammal that is embarrassed by his pregnancy.

I would prefer "its" instead of "his" in these (in fact I consider "its"
correct). I concede half of a "#" with "pregnancy" even then. I'll concede
a whole "#" however for "Unlike other mammals, man is embarrassed by his
pregnancy."

>#Man, being a mammal, breast-feeds his young.

I give this one a whole "#". To me, however, "man" used in this fashion is
borderline archaic/poetic/polemical/religious and not generally appropriate
for science (perhaps my perception here is idiosyncratic), and the clash
between the word and its context provides some of the unnaturalness. This
word "man" belongs in a context like "the relationship between God and Man"
or "the relationship between Man and State" rather than in one like "the
relationship between the chimpanzee and the human [being]". I don't know a
fully elegant solution, but I might prefer "The human, being a mammal,
breast-feeds its young." [No doubt some will object to the "its", but I
don't: here "the human" refers to an animal, like "the chimpanzee".] [I
would not like "Did Neanderthal Man menstruate regularly?": I would prefer
"Did Neanderthal women menstruate regularly?".]

>#Everyone should be able to decide for himself whether or not to have an
>abortion.

A stupid sentence worthy of a politician. This will not be improved much by
putting "themselves" for "himself" for two reasons: (1) it can't apply well
to "everyone" anyway, nor even to "every woman", nor even to "almost every
woman"; (2) more importantly, "themselves" leaves open and in fact (to me)
fortifies the possibility that the woman's autonomy may be limited by the
requirement of approval by husband or family, and I don't think this is
what is intended here. I think "Everyone ... herself" is an improvement. I
suppose "Every pregnant woman should be able to decide for herself whether
or not to have an abortion." gets close to the sense desired, and it's
clear enough. It is amusing to try the #-ed sentence with "an abortion"
replaced with "a mastectomy" -- which of course almost any man, woman, or
child COULD have.

>[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):]
>
>(16)    #Any boy or girl who thinks that he knows the answer
>
>(17)    The candidate may ask you about local employment options for #his
>husband or wife.
>
>(18)    Every child should be taught how to wash his {private
>parts/genitalia}.
>         #Every child should be taught how to wash his penis or vagina.
>
>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) he/his is replaced by the true sex-neutral they/their,
>the sex-linked bizarreness disappears, although the traditional ire of the
>prescriptivists may not be so easily assuaged.
>
>(16')   Any boy or girl who thinks that they know the answer
>
>(17')   The candidate may ask you about local employment options for their
>husband or wife.
>
>(18')   Every child should be taught how to wash their penis or vagina.

The third-person word does the job in these examples, I admit. Still, I
find the results repulsive (others may find them elegant). There is very
seldom the need to use an expression with "or" in the first place, which is
what gets one into this mess. I prefer the following:

(16")  Any person who thinks that he knows the answer

(17")  The candidate may ask you about local employment options for his or
her spouse.

(18")  Every child should be taught how to wash his or her genitals.

Or:

(16"')  Any boy or girl who thinks that he or she knows the answer

(17*)  The candidate may ask you about local employment options for a
husband or wife.

(18"')  Every child should be taught how to wash his penis or her vagina.

Other examples may be different. Consider:

"Careless reproduction is discouraged here in the Free People's Democratic
Republic. One mistake is tolerated; but if any citizen produces two
unauthorized children, they will be sterilized. Abuse of children is
strongly prohibited. Last week somebody molested two infants; as soon as
they are identified they will be put to death."

Clearly "he or she" is better than "they" here, unless indeed the children
are to be sterilized or killed.

How often can one produce an analogous example of "he or she" or the like
causing a similar problem with interpretation?

A somewhat different problem can occur with "... or ...":

(17"')  The candidate may ask you about local employment options for his or
her husband or wife.

(17"")  The candidate may ask you about local employment options for his
wife or her husband.

(17""')  The candidate may ask you about local employment options for his
or her wife or husband.

All of these are awkward IMHO, so I was left with (17*) above. In some
written contexts, "his/her husband/wife" or so might be OK.

English has a number of pronoun deficiencies, including the one addressed
here, and also the lack of inclusive versus exclusive "we", the lack of a
standard distinctive second-person plural, and some others. I think
scrapping number agreement promiscuously is a poor remedy for what is
usually a minor problem. Of course I concede that it's a matter of taste to
a large degree.

-- Doug Wilson