mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/15/85)
> : Nancy Parsons > Just want to share a small victory (I love to celebrate)... > > Last night, Crossroads in Faith Ministries, an organization working in the > field of domestic violence, adopted a set of bylaws containing the > following footnote: > > Throughout this document, the personal pronouns "they," "them," and > "their" are used to indicate third person *SINGULAR* when the referent > may be either female or male (a grammatical form practiced for > centuries by reputable writers such as Shakespeare, Shaw, and Scott > Fitzgerald). > > One reason this is significant is that the organization is one of typically > "traditional" or "conservative" church people who have come to recognize > that traditional language transmits values and behavioral models that > contribute to attitudes leading to domestic violence. > Wait a minute. Are you saying that the use of 'he' and 'she' instead of the grammatically incorect, ambiguous 'they' promotes domestic violence?????? Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. Aside from making it more dificult to understand what we say or write to each other, what specific "victory" is derived by not using 'he' or 'she'? It is always possible to express oneself in a gender neutral manner; one may have to think a bit before speaking though. God forbid we should have to think before speaking or writing! Now that we have had a female candidate for the Vice Presidency of this country, now that we are seeing the fruits of these past twenty years of activism, with women in the work force making their way up their various fields' ladders, is it really advancing the cause of and of benefit to women to advocate greater vagueness in the language? Frankly, I find nothing to celebrate here. I have no problem with a language evolving from the grass roots. New words are constantly created to fill gaps in meaning. But this trend to a generic, bland, boring, confusing, WRONG 'they' is not evolution but retrogression. Sorry for the flame tone, but I am surprised and dismayed when I see normally clear thinking folks like Parsons embrace such mush. Marcel Simon
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/17/85)
> Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. Because it is not always clear that everyone must be EITHER a "he" OR a "she". -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/18/85)
> > Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. > > Because it is not always clear that everyone must be EITHER a "he" OR a "she". > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) Sorry, but unless you have invented a new genus of human, every one is either a 'he' or a 'she'. This does not imply the superiority or degradation one one with respect to the other. This acknowledges that the human species is divided in males and females. Marcel Simon
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (03/19/85)
> > Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. > > Because it is not always clear that everyone must be EITHER a "he" OR a "she". > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) *** REPLACE THIS Aargghh . . . . *** The relationships which develop and the manner in which useful work goes on in this society is biased by which gender the people involved are. This is not a conscious thing and many people are working hard trying to change this but is still a fact of life. The search for a non-gender identifying pronoun (s) is really a cop-out since if the biases which cause so much trouble where sex/gender are concerned didnot exist then there would not really be a need to hide (comoflage) the gender of the people involved. The oriental tradition/philosophy of the ying/yang (sp) expresses best that feminine (masculine) are not sex specific. They are gender specific and more and more men and women are learning that there are aspects within themselves which are traditionally thought of as belonging to the opposite gender. It is the society taught fear instilled in all of us of showing these portions of ourselves which has been the root of discrimination of sex/gender. Think what things might be like if men were not afraid of that part of themselves which they classed as feminine, qualities of compassion, tenderness, the need to allow emotion room to happen.etc Perhaps looking at some of the great statesmen, artists, authors etc would provide a good place to start answering that thought. ======================================================================= Every one is entitled to their own stupid narrowminded opnions these are mine jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie ========================================================================
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (03/19/85)
Nancy Parsons (original posting) > > Just want to share a small victory (I love to celebrate)... > > > > Last night, Crossroads in Faith Ministries, an organization working in the > > field of domestic violence, adopted a set of bylaws containing the > > following footnote: > > > > Throughout this document, the personal pronouns "they," "them," and > > "their" are used to indicate third person *SINGULAR* when the referent > > may be either female or male (a grammatical form practiced for > > centuries by reputable writers such as Shakespeare, Shaw, and Scott > > Fitzgerald). > > > > One reason this is significant is that the organization is one of typically > > "traditional" or "conservative" church people who have come to recognize > > that traditional language transmits values and behavioral models that > > contribute to attitudes leading to domestic violence. Marcel Simon (response) > Wait a minute. Are you saying that the use of 'he' and 'she' instead of the > grammatically incorect, ambiguous 'they' promotes domestic violence?????? Sigh... No. Sexist language (using "he" when "she or he" is meant; always putting "he" before "she") tends to promote domestic violence because of the attitudes it fosters. Personally, I don't much care whether we use "she or he" or the singular "they" or make up some new pronouns. Many people will complain about it whatever we do: "she or he" is awkward; singular "they" is grammatically incorrect; new pronouns are not part of the language. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to continue giving males the credit for what women accomplish or to make positions of power and influence sound as though they were reserved for males by referring exclusively to "he/him/his" when what is meant is someone of either sex. So I will use one or more of the non-sexist options, take the flack that results, and encourage others to do the same. > Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. I am unaware of anyone suggesting "eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language." I advocate using them *ONLY* when a specific gender is intended. > Aside > from making it more dificult to understand what we say or write to each other, > what specific "victory" is derived by not using 'he' or 'she'? The "victory" was not in the choice of "she or he" over the singular "they"; it was in the fact that people recognized the harmful influence of sexist language and were willing to do something about it. In my opinion, almost any choice is better than continuing to use sexist language. > It is always > possible to express oneself in a gender neutral manner; one may have to think > a bit before speaking though. God forbid we should have to think before > speaking or writing! This feels like an attack. Marcel, I do try to think before speaking or writing. And I don't advocate that other people should not do so. > Now that we have had a female candidate for the > Vice Presidency of this country, now that we are seeing the fruits > of these past twenty years of activism, with women in the work force > making their way up their various fields' ladders, is it really advancing > the cause of and of benefit to women to advocate greater vagueness in the > language? Frankly, I find nothing to celebrate here. A few visible advances do not win a war nor eradicate the mindset of centuries. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion. I find using "he" to refer to people of either sex the worst sort of "vagueness in the language." > I have no problem with a language evolving from the grass roots. Then it would *SEEM* that your choice of the three options, unless you are advocating continued use of sexist language, would be the singular "they," since that is the choice evolving from grass roots. > New words > are constantly created to fill gaps in meaning. But this trend to a generic, > bland, boring, confusing, WRONG 'they' is not evolution but retrogression. "Wrong" by what standard? Do you consider grammatical rules as absolutes? I don't. They are often useful, but when they maintain a harmful status quo, they can and should be changed, in my opinion. Evolving to a singular "they" is surely not all that different from evolving to a singular "you" (which suffers the same potential for confusion, but we are used to it). Are you as eager to return to "thou" to maintain grammatical purity as you are to maintain "he"? > Sorry for the flame tone, but I am surprised and dismayed when I see normally > clear thinking folks like Parsons embrace such mush. I'm glad you perceive me as "normally clear thinking." However, phrases like "embrace such mush" tend, in my opinion, to promote emotionally muddied thinking, so I try not to use them, and I try to see beyond them when they are used by others. Frankly, I haven't figured out whether you are promoting sexist language over all other options or are simply upset by the singular "they" which offends your sense of grammatical correctness (which I fully understand, having come from that position myself). Any clarification would be most appreciated. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/19/85)
[Original posting from Nancy Parsons and my response deleted. See references for text] > > Sigh... No. Sexist language (using "he" when "she or he" is meant; always > putting "he" before "she") tends to promote domestic violence because of > the attitudes it fosters. > By changing the language, are you not attacking the symptom rather than the cause? As I said, it is always possible to express oneself gender-neutrally. The failure of a speaker or writer to do so is an indication of laziness and/or unclear thinking. Why penalize the already much-abused language for its users' faults? > Nevertheless, I'm not willing to continue giving males the credit for what > women accomplish or to make positions of power and influence sound as though > they were reserved for males by referring exclusively to "he/him/his" when > what is meant is someone of either sex. So I will use one or more of the > non-sexist options, take the flack that results, and encourage others to > do the same. > See above. One does not have to use 'he' or 'she' if the sex of the person one is speaking of is not known, or is irrelevant. 'One' does the job very well. One can also rewrite the sentence so a pronoun is not required. > > > Now that we have had a female candidate for the > > Vice Presidency of this country, now that we are seeing the fruits > > of these past twenty years of activism, with women in the work force > > making their way up their various fields' ladders, is it really advancing > > the cause of and of benefit to women to advocate greater vagueness in the > > language? Frankly, I find nothing to celebrate here. > > A few visible advances do not win a war nor eradicate the mindset of > centuries. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion. I find using "he" > to refer to people of either sex the worst sort of "vagueness in the > language." > Precisely. With so much left to do, why should we waste our time on trivial or counterproductive pursuits? Why not instead work toward goals that will make a difference: the universal availability of quality, affordable day care; the narrowing of the gap between women's and men's wages; the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; and so many others. If we reach or get sufficiently close to these goals, sexism in the language will not be an issue. Languages are not sexist, people are (What a cliche!! Sorry about that) To look at the problem from another angle, what would you do if the language was French, which has the concept of gender built into its grammar? Every noun is masculine or feminine, which determines the gender of the pronoun used. Before you say that French is just more sexist, reflect on some fine ironies: 'clitoris' and 'vagina' are masculine; 'testicle' and the slang word for 'penis' are feminine. The one really sexist rule in that language is that in speaking of a collection of people of both sexes, the masculine plural is used ('ils') One can get around even that, however, by not speaking of specific he's or she's, but of generic 'personnes' (which just happens to be feminine) My point in this rather long digression is that in all languages that I know about, it is possible to be gender neutral without language modifications. So why change the language? To digress further, my wife, who speaks Japanese, reports that it, despite having no grammatical gender, is a more sexist language, because it has entirely different vocabularies for males and for females. You might want to apply your energies to Japanese (:-) > > "Wrong" by what standard? Do you consider grammatical rules as absolutes? No, I consider grammatical clarity an absolute requirement. > > I'm glad you perceive me as "normally clear thinking." However, phrases > like "embrace such mush" tend, in my opinion, to promote emotionally > muddied thinking, so I try not to use them, and I try to see beyond them > when they are used by others. Frankly, I haven't figured out whether you > are promoting sexist language over all other options or are simply upset by > the singular "they" which offends your sense of grammatical correctness > (which I fully understand, having come from that position myself). Any > clarification would be most appreciated. Hope the above were clear enough. Mine is an emotional response. I am appalled at how poorly people express themselves these days and I cringe at efforts to legitimize the horrors that are perpetrated in the vernacular. > > Nancy Parsons Marcel Simon
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (03/19/85)
> Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. Because they *aren't* trivial. The effect of language is all-pervasive, and has a key role in developing a child's perceptions of the world, as well as a subtle effect on our way of thinking whenever it involves use of the language. > Aside from making it more dificult to understand what we say or write to > each other, what specific "victory" is derived by not using 'he' or 'she'? How, pray tell, does using the generic ``they'' make things ``more difficult to understand''? As a matter of fact, I find *less* ambiguity in its use, since it clearly indicates that sex is unimportant, whereas the use of ``he'' always implies the possibility of restriction to males. The use of ``they'' introduces a singular/plural ambiguity that is much less of a problem, since context usually makes it quite unambiguous. > It is always possible to express oneself in a gender neutral manner; one > may have to think a bit before speaking though. God forbid we should have > to think before speaking or writing! And except for language purists (who have problems with the inherently ambiguous nature of natural language), the use of ``they'' is a lot more natural than the convolutions necessary to eliminate such pronouns altogether. This leaves the mind clear to think about other aspects of meaning. > Now that we have had a female candidate for the Vice Presidency of this > country, now that we are seeing the fruits of these past twenty years of > activism, with women in the work force making their way up their various > fields' ladders, is it really advancing the cause of and of benefit to > women to advocate greater vagueness in the language? Frankly, I find > nothing to celebrate here. Neither do I--your rhetorical question seems to be a non sequitur. > I have no problem with a language evolving from the grass roots. New > words are constantly created to fill gaps in meaning. Actually, it is more common for old words to take on new meanings. Except for compoundings, acronyms, and slang--all derivations from older words--few words are ``created'' these days. > But this trend to a generic, bland, boring, confusing, WRONG 'they' is > not evolution but retrogression. I fail to see how you have supported your point. Besides, considered in the abstract, how could a sexless personal pronoun *not* be boring and bland? > Sorry for the flame tone, but I am surprised and dismayed when I see > normally clear thinking folks like Parsons embrace such mush. Your article is hardly a paragon of clear-thinking, either. Of course, mine isn't, since I obviously embrace such ``mush''. Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which are not. As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts, and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the very structure of our society. > > Marcel Simon -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
lmf@drutx.UUCP (FullerL) (03/20/85)
I agree with Nancy on this issue and am amazed at how many people have totally missed the point. For a group of traditionally oriented people to realize that sexist language is a problem and do something about it is definitely a victory. Some years ago only the most radical of us would recognize it as an issue. It may seem trivial to some but I've been in too many situations where women were not seen, heard or acknowledged to consider language a non issue. (For example, a meeting of 60 people [56 men, 4 women] where generic secretaries are referred to as she, generic engineers are referred to as he, and the meeting is closed with that's all I have gentlemen.) Thank you Nancy for sharing your news with us. Too bad some people took it as an opening for attack and criticism. Lori Fuller ihnp4!drutx!lmf
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/20/85)
> > > Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial > > > tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. > > > > Because it is not always clear that everyone must be EITHER a "he" OR a "she". > > -- > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) > > Sorry, but unless you have invented a new genus of human, every one is either > a 'he' or a 'she'. This does not imply the superiority or degradation one one > with respect to the other. This acknowledges that the human species is divided > in males and females. > > Marcel Simon You are, of course, referring to sex, in which case you're usually right, rather than referring to gender, in which case you're only right in the majority of cases. Since the preceeding article referred to gender rather than to sex, you should remember that that means "social role" rather than "genital sex". But then, since nobody else is interested in these subtleties, nevvver minnnd.... Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
bek@duke.UUCP (Barrett E. Koster) (03/20/85)
In article <825@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP
Nancy Parsons questions Marcel Simon's response to her
original posting (etc.) on 'they' vs. 'she or he'....
legislated vs. grass root origin, etc.
As a current student in linguistics, I could debate the validity of
various types of origins of words (but I won't).
What I want to say is that I heard a rumor that 'he' was in fact
legislated (England 5 centuries ago) to be non gender specific.
In this case, the particular government's action has
resulted in a terrible disservice to women. However, isn't it the
role of government to do things that can only be done if everyone
does it? (changing standard unit of measure, money, anti-
polution campaigns...) I mean, couldn't the govt. just decide on
a pronoun now and legislate it into existence? We obviously
need one.
Barry duke!bekjmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (03/21/85)
In article <825@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: >Marcel Simon (response) >> Wait a minute. Are you saying that the use of 'he' and 'she' instead of the >> grammatically incorect, ambiguous 'they' promotes domestic violence?????? > >Sigh... No. Sexist language (using "he" when "she or he" is meant; always >putting "he" before "she") tends to promote domestic violence because of >the attitudes it fosters. Hmmm.... "Sexist language tends to promote domestic violence". Do you have any research/evidence/etc. to back up your claim? I don't remember ever seeing any, and frankly, I doubt that there is any. Actually, I don't remember seeing anything showing or suggesting that "sexist language" i.e. using "he" when one means "she or he" or "s/he" (my personal favorite, but a touch informal) fosters bad attitudes, but I may have missed something ... John p.s. I'm not saying that "he" or "she" is better than "she or he", but I'm unconvinced that it is worse, and it sure is a lot simpler to use one word rather than three.
brando@linus.UUCP (Thom Brando) (03/21/85)
In article <2297@drutx.UUCP> lmf@drutx.UUCP (FullerL) writes: >Thank you Nancy for sharing your news with us. Too bad some people took it >as an opening for attack and criticism. > Lori Fuller ihnp4!drutx!lmf I'll second that! Thom Brando {decvax,utzoo,philabs}!linus!brando.UUCP
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (03/25/85)
In article <271@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >>>Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial >>>tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language. >>Because it is not always clear that everyone must be EITHER a "he" OR a "she". >Sorry, but unless you have invented a new genus of human, every one is either >a 'he' or a 'she'. This does not imply the superiority or degradation one one >with respect to the other. Specific people are male or female; hypothetical people usually don't have to be referred to as specifically male or female. However, it's quite common for the default to be male. How would you feel if (as a ten-year-old boy) all stories about doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, etc, were about women, all males stayed home raising children, and the occasional male engineer was ALWAYS called a 'man engineer', instead of just 'engineer'. Kind of discouraging, say what? Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/26/85)
> Ed Hall: > How, pray tell, does using the generic ``they'' make things ``more difficult > to understand''? As a matter of fact, I find *less* ambiguity in its use, > since it clearly indicates that sex is unimportant, whereas the use of ``he'' > always implies the possibility of restriction to males. The use of ``they'' > introduces a singular/plural ambiguity that is much less of a problem, since > context usually makes it quite unambiguous. > 'One' does that too, and it does not have a singular/plural ambiguity. > And except for language purists (who have problems with the inherently > ambiguous nature of natural language), the use of ``they'' is a lot more > natural than the convolutions necessary to eliminate such pronouns > altogether. This leaves the mind clear to think about other aspects of > meaning. > Sorry, but it goes the other way around. If you have a clear conception of what you want to say, you will have no problem with stating it clearly. Using linguistic shortcuts is an indication of incompletely formed prop[ositions. > Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those > elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which > are not. As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts, > and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the > very structure of our society. Say what!!!! Ambiguous language does precisely the opposite. It prevents those with whom one communicates from understanding the important points of the communication, surely the opposite of the communicator's intentions. Unless one communicates with the intent of deceiving or otherwise not being understood, one should strive for as little ambiguity as possible (unless of course, one is a diplomat :-) Marcel Simon
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (03/29/85)
> Specific people are male or female; hypothetical people usually don't have > to be referred to as specifically male or female. However, it's quite common > for the default to be male. [stepping in gingerly where angels fear to tread ...] Somehow, I've never felt that "he" _necessarily_ refers to males, just as "you" isn't necessarily singular. Maybe that's why I have trouble -- politically unfashionable though it currently might be -- empathising with people who _insist_ that "he" necessarily refers to males. Other languages have their share of such overloaded words, e.g. German with "sie" (and arguing that "we're not concerned with German here" is a cop-out!). For someone who wants, nonetheless, to identify "he" with "male", I don't see why Marcel's suggestion of using "one" isn't adequate -- makes for a somewhat constrained style of expression, perhaps, but certainly a whole lot more palatable than, say, "they is ...". -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray CSNet: debray@sbcs
harmon_c@h-sc1.UUCP (david harmon) (03/30/85)
> > Ed Hall: > > How, pray tell, does using the generic ``they'' make things ``more difficult > > to understand''? As a matter of fact, I find *less* ambiguity in its use, > > since it clearly indicates that sex is unimportant, whereas the use of ``he'' > > always implies the possibility of restriction to males. The use of ``they'' > > introduces a singular/plural ambiguity that is much less of a problem, since > > context usually makes it quite unambiguous. > > > > Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those > > elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which > > are not. As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts, > > and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the > > very structure of our society. > Say what!!!! Ambiguous language does precisely the opposite. It prevents > those with whom one communicates from understanding the important points of > the communication, surely the opposite of the communicator's intentions. > Unless one communicates with the intent of deceiving or otherwise not > being understood, one should strive for as little ambiguity as possible > (unless of course, one is a diplomat :-) > I think the original poster meant "generality", not ambiguity. The use of "they" promotes generality. It also promotes ambiguity slightly, but I think the trade is worth it. > Marcel Simon Dave Harmon harvard!h-sc1!harmon.arpa (I think)
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (04/02/85)
> ... > For someone who wants, nonetheless, to identify "he" with "male", I don't > see why Marcel's suggestion of using "one" isn't adequate -- makes for a > somewhat constrained style of expression, perhaps, but certainly a whole > lot more palatable than, say, "they is ...". > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > > uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray > CSNet: debray@sbcs Do you know anyone who says "they is ..."? Do they also use "you art" when addressing one person? I use "you are ...". When I use "they" to replace "he/she" I say "they are ..". -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/02/85)
> > > Ed Hall: > > > Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those > > > elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which > > > are not. As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts, > > > and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the > > > very structure of our society. > > Say what!!!! Ambiguous language does precisely the opposite. It prevents > > those with whom one communicates from understanding the important points of > > the communication, surely the opposite of the communicator's intentions. > > Unless one communicates with the intent of deceiving or otherwise not > > being understood, one should strive for as little ambiguity as possible > > (unless of course, one is a diplomat :-) > > > I think the original poster meant "generality", not ambiguity. The use of > "they" promotes generality. It also promotes ambiguity slightly, but I think > the trade is worth it. > Dave Harmon I meant ``ambiguity'', as a *means* of indicating ``generality''. You're right, so far as the implications of what I said, but I felt it important to point out that AMBIGUITY CONVEYS MEANING AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT IMPORTANT. Marcel seems to feel that ambiguity implies some failure of communication. Things are quite the contrary--by avoiding the superfluous specification of things that are not part of our message we communicate our intentions more precisely. This facet of natural language--the ability to clarify what is important by making what is *not* important ambiguous--is one of its most powerful features. (As an aside, I might mention that this is the source of many of the ``hard problems'' in the artificial ``understanding'' of natural language.) The ability to be selectively ambiguous permits language to be far more than an instrument of documentation. It allows language to be a tool of creativity, a force for change, both a molder of culture and a product of that culture. It allows innumerable shades of meaning, permits the generalizations from which many insights grow, and enables a process of self-renewal--the ``evolution'' of which Marcel speaks. I'm amazed at the arrogance some people have, speaking of language as if they were its master--as if they had somehow invented it. The fact is, they'd be capable of little more than stone-age grunts and sighs, and little of what we'd consider ``thought'', if they hadn't been given the product of thousands of years worth of humankind's cognition--their language. How much of that entity we call ``society'' is language? I guess its full signifigance is better expressed in the negative: take away those parts of it which involve language as their chief agent, and how much ``society'' is left? Damn little. Now do you see how the ``insignifigant'' neglect of half of the human species by that very force which is most peculiarly human, *is* so important? -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall NOTE: For brevity, I've not completely addressed the point at issue-- the use of ``they'' as a singular pronoun. I will do so in my next posting.
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (04/03/85)
Saumya Debray: > Somehow, I've never felt that "he" _necessarily_ refers to males, just as > "you" isn't necessarily singular. Maybe that's why I have trouble -- > politically unfashionable though it currently might be -- empathising with > people who _insist_ that "he" necessarily refers to males. Nancy Parsons: The issue is not what is politically fashionable, nor is it a question of whether or not we agree that "he" does not necessarily refer to males (most of us agree that it doesn't). The problem (as shown by studies--see "Words and Women" by Casey Miller and Kate Swift) is that in cultures using the Engilish language, we who have "never felt that 'he' necessarily refers to males" do, in fact, think male when "he" is used generically. Does anyone really imagine a woman when they hear a statement such as "The farmer milks his cows twice a day"? Or "The employee and his spouse are entitled to the following benefits"? Etc. Some of the effects of such mental assumptions are surely obvious. Some of the more subtle (and harmful) ones are examined in "Words and Women." > Other languages > have their share of such overloaded words, e.g. German with "sie" (and > arguing that "we're not concerned with German here" is a cop-out!). The issue is not one of male vs. female gender in language *PER SE*. Rather, it is one of the psychological effect of such language, which can only be determined by studies. I am unaware of any such studies in any language other than English, would probably not understand them if I knew about them, and have my hands more than full just dealing with English. No, I do not consider this a cop out. > For someone who wants, nonetheless, to identify "he" with "male", I don't > see why Marcel's suggestion of using "one" isn't adequate -- makes for a > somewhat constrained style of expression, perhaps, but certainly a whole > lot more palatable than, say, "they is ...". I suppose you chose "they is..." because you also use "you is..." :-) I, for one, have no problem using "one" in much of my communication. But having no hang ups about a singular "they," I find it more comfortable to say, "If anyone is cold, they should..." rather than "If anyone is cold, one should..."(or "that one should..."). Likewise, I find it awkward to refer to the Executive Director of an organization (whose gender will vary over time) as "that one has this responsibility" and "that one has that duty" etc. "They" is more palatable (your expression, and one implying a personal judgment of the individual using it) to me. And, besides, adding a footnote to explain the reason for the singular "they" gives one the opportunity of reminding people of the detrimental effects of sexist language. :-) Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (04/03/85)
Marcel: > By changing the language, are you not attacking the symptom rather than the > cause? Nancy Parsons: No. "...a language is not merely a means of communication; it is also an expression of shared assumptions. Language transmits values and behavioral models to all those people who use it." (From the preface of "Words and Women" by Casey Miller and Kate Swift.) I agree with this opinion, and therefore disagree that language is merely a symtom. > As I said, it is always possible to express oneself gender-neutrally. > The failure of a speaker or writer to do so is an indication of > laziness and/or unclear thinking. Agreed. But many (most?) people are lazy and/or think unclearly. I, for one, have little hope for this to change much. But I know that language changes constantly. > Why penalize the already > much-abused language for its users' faults? The phrase "penalize a language" doesn't convey much to me. I'm concerned about changing people's attitudes toward women more than maintaining a language that changes constantly anyway. > ...One does not have to use 'he' or 'she' if the sex of the person > one is speaking of is not known, or is irrelevant. 'One' does the job > very well. One can also rewrite the sentence so a pronoun is not required. True enough. But this, too, results in some awkwardness. In fact, I tend to think that the only "satisfactory" (in my opinion) solution will be a combination of uses of "one," of "she or he," of singular "they," and rewriting to avoid pronouns, depending on what is most "comfortable." > ...With so much left to do, why should we waste our time on > trivial or counterproductive pursuits? Why not instead work toward > goals that will make a difference: the universal availability of > quality, affordable day care; the narrowing of the gap between women's > and men's wages; the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; and so > many others. If we reach or get sufficiently close to these goals, > sexism in the language will not be an issue. Languages are not sexist, > people are (What a cliche!! Sorry about that) I'm sure you realize that this is an opinion with which I disagree. I believe that language is a strong factor in maintaining attitudes that interfere with all of these other efforts. > ...Mine is an emotional response. I'm glad we got that straight! :-) Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/08/85)
> Ed Hall: > I meant ``ambiguity'', as a *means* of indicating ``generality''. > You're right, so far as the implications of what I said, but I felt it > important to point out that AMBIGUITY CONVEYS MEANING AS TO WHAT IS AND > IS NOT IMPORTANT. Marcel seems to feel that ambiguity implies some > failure of communication. ... [Hall goes on to elaborate on the above point. He does so very clearly. I have deleted it in the interest of brevity, but strongly encourage everyone to read the posting (<2376@randvax.UUCP> ] You are absolutely right. Ambiguity is useful in conveying "body english" as it were, through the language. We are no longer in agreement when you assert that ambiguity is desirable in "everyday" communication. A lot of problems are caused by one of the communicating parties not quite getting the intended shade of meaning. This is not a matter of "owning" the language, but as my 10th grade teacher always said, "if I don't understand what you said, then you have not said anything." I don't see the value of increased ambiguity if the price is occasional "noise on the communications line." To continue on the computer analogy, not all of us do flow control, or can request retransmission. This feeling is the basis for my lonely (and probably foolish) resistance against the singular 'they' as an instrument of gender neutrality. Marcel Simon