Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T17:40:43.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular they

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Donald G. Mackay
Donald G. Mackay
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the goals of prescriptive grammar and the causes and consequences of the rift between prescriptive and theoretical linguistics. It also proposes a principle for guiding prescriptive recommendations in the future as well as a theoretical framework and procedure for predicting the consequences of prescriptive recommendations. The procedure illustrates a hypothetical prescription: the substitution of singular they for prescriptive he. Projected benefits the prescription include neutral connotation, naturalness, simplicity, and lexical availability. Projected costs include covert and overt referential ambiguity; partial ambiguity; conceptual inaccuracy; loss of precision, imageability, impact, and memorability; bizarreness involving certain referents and case forms; distancing and dehumanizing connotations; unavailability of the ‘he or she’ denotation; potentially disruptive and long-lasting side effects on other areas of the language. Procedures are also illustrated for determining the relative frequency of such costs and benefits and for estimating the relative disruptiveness of the costs normal language use. Implications of the data for several issues general interest to linguistics and psychology are explored. (Ambiguity, language change, prescriptive grammar, theoretical linguistics, language planning, pronouns, neologisms.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , December 1980 , pp. 349 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bever, T. G. (1975). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In. Bever, T. G., Katz, J. J., & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability. New York: Crowell Co.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. & Langendoen, D. T. (1975). A dynamic model of the evolution of language. In Bever, T. G., Katz, J. J., & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability. New York: Crowell Co. 433–63.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular ‘they,’ sex-indefinite ‘he,’ and ‘he or she.’ Lang. Soc. 4:129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M. (1962). Current American usage. New York: Funk and Wagnall.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language 50:111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Drake, G. (1977). The source of American linguistic prescriptivism. Lang. Soc. 6:(3). 323–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiwitz, J. (1978). Another plea for E. America, Psychological Association Monitor 9:(8.3).Google Scholar
Graham, A. The making of a nonsexist dictionary. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Green, W. H. (1977). Singular pronouns and sexual politics. College composition and communication 28:150–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. (1978). A survey of sex-indefinite pronouns: Anyone can use ‘they’ if they try. Women and Language News 4:( 1.5).Google Scholar
Kidd, V. (1971). A study of the images produced through the use of the male pronoun as the generic. Moments in Contemporary Rhetoric and Communication 1:25–30;Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women's place. Lang. Soc. 2:45–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. (1970). Essentials of English grammar. New York: Holt. Rinehart.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. G. & Konishi, T. (1980). Personification and the pronoun problem. Womens Studies International Quarterly, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1978). Using and understanding the generic masculine. A social-psychological approach to language and the sexes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1976). Review of language and women's place. Reason. (08) 40–42.Google Scholar
Miller, C. & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, P.The Roberts English series. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. J. (1978). Can ‘she’ and ‘he’ coexist? American Psychologist 33(8). 782–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1977). Linguistics and feminism. In Ellison, F.. English, J. & Vetterling, M. (eds.). Feminism and philosophy. Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar