Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T08:53:35.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pronominal disagreements: The stubborn problem of singular epicene antecedents1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Michael Newman
Michael Newman
Affiliation:
Department of English, Hunter College/CUNY, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how speakers on certain TV interview programs resolve problems of agreement with formally singular epicene antecedents. The form most frequently used is they, although he does appear fairly often. Some forms found in written English hardly occur. It appears that they is not used simply to avoid a commitment to gender. Rather, three factors appear to contribute to speakers' choice of pronominal: presuppositions about gender roles associated with the referent, notional number of the referent, and the extent to which the referent can be posited as a specific individual. The idea that there is a gap in third person singular pronouns in spoken English is criticized. (Pronominal gender, agreement, semantics, usage, English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 447 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Abbott, B. (1992). Some remarks on the notion, “specificity.”Google Scholar
Abbott, R. (1984). Unisex “they.” English Language Teaching Journal 38:45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, D. (1981). The epicene pronoun: The word that failed. American Speech 56:83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, D. (1986). Grammar and gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. Handbook of American Indian languages, part I. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular they, sex-indefinite he and he or she. Language in Society 4:129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12. New York: Academic. 289–310.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language: The loaded weapon. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and anaphora: A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. (1987). Pronouns under control? A reply to Liliane Tasmowski and Paul Verluyten. Journal of Semantics 5:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: St. Martins.Google Scholar
Close, R. (1978). Concord with “every,” “none,” “some,” and “any.” English Language Teaching Journal. 32:324–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, E. (1988). Generic masculine pronominal usage and sex-linked occupational stereotypes among high school students. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1984). The avoidance of androcentric generics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 50:5–20.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric relations in English and French. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (1987). Anaphoric pronouns: Under linguistic control or signalling particular discourse representations? Journal of Semantics 5:233–60.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337–62.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (forthcoming). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, F. W., & Treicher, P. (1989). Language, gender and professional writing: Theoretical approaches and guidelines for nonsexist usage. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Fries, C. (1940). American English grammar. New York: D. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles 23:629–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1982). Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Semantics 6:81–133.Google Scholar
Green, W. (1977). Singular pronouns and sexual politics. College Composition and Communication 28:150–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal. College English 43:794–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khosroshahi, F. (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Language in Society 18:505–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Langendoen, T. (1970). Essentials of English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2:1–22.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. (1980). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular they. Language in Society 9:349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. (1983). Prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 38–53.Google Scholar
MacKay, D., & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:661–73.Google Scholar
Martyna, W. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication 28:131–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1980). The psychology of the generic masculine. In Borker, R. & Ferman, N. (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Martyna, W. (1983). Beyond the he/man approach: The case for nonsexist language. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 25–37.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1979). Prototypes, pronouns and persons. In Mathiot, M. (ed.), Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir, and Whorf revisited. The Hague: Mouton. 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, M. (1990a). Current generic pronoun usage. American Speech 65:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, M. (1990b). On generic pronoun usage: They as a singular pronoun. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender. Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newman, M. (forthcoming). Non-canonical pronoun – antecedent agreement: A study of usage of epicene antecedents and related constructions. Teachers College, Columbia University. Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (1978). Prescriptive grammar in reappraisal. In. McCormack, W. & Wurm, S. (eds.), Approaches to language. The Hague: Mouton. 581–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, A. (1977). Sexism in children's books and elementary teaching materials. In Nilsen, A., Bosnajian, , Gershuny, H., & Stanley, J. (eds.), Sexism and language. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 161–79.Google Scholar
Nilsen, A. (1984). Winning the great he/she battle. College English 46:151–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, F. (1983). Number in indefinite pronouns and correlatives. USF Language Quarterly 22:13–16.Google Scholar
Pateman, T. (1982). MacKay on singular “they.” Language in Society 11:437–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I., & Hankemer, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anachronic processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:325–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, E. (1983). Sexist grammar revisited. College English 45:348–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, E. (1988). The tribunal of use: Agreement in indefinite constructions. College Composition and Communication 39:410–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. & Hacker, S. (1973). Sex role imagery and the use of generic “man” in introductory texts: A case in the sociology of sociology. The American Sociologist 8:12–18.Google Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (1978). Sexist grammar. College English 39:800:11.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1977). Linguistics and feminism. In Vetterling-Braggin, M., Elliston, F., English, J., & Vetterling, M. (eds.), Feminism and philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. 154–66.Google Scholar
Weidmann, U. (1984). Anaphoric they for singular expressions. In Watts, R. & Weidmann, U. (eds.), Modes of interpretation: Essays presented to Ernst Leisi on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Tubingen: Narr. 59–68.Google Scholar
Wiese, B. (1983). Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics 2(2):373–417.Google Scholar