by David Balashinsky
I had the good fortune to be off from work yesterday and so had the opportunity to listen to Here and Now which, where I live, airs on WSKG radio at 12:00 noon. Yesterday's show featured an interview with sociolinguist and author Valerie Fridland who was there to discuss her new book, Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English.
I
was not aware of the fact that so many people become so exercised about
their linguistic pet peeves or what they believe to be misuses of the English language as to
become impelled to write indignant emails about them to radio shows. However, this phenomenon formed the backdrop not only of yesterday's interview but also (at least to some extent) of Fridland's book which on her site is described as "A lively linguistic exploration of the speech habits we love to hate - and why our 'like's and 'literally's actually make us better communicators."
For my part, I do not object to "like" nearly as much as I object to "you know" but that phrase did not come up during the interview. (I do not know whether Fridland addresses "you know" in her book and, if she does, whether she is as forgiving of it as she is of "like," "literally," "um" and ""uh.") However, I found myself experiencing my own outrage at certain usages that did come up during the broadcast. Not coincidentally, these happen to be several of my own favorite pet peeves so, like any indignant language lover who fires off an angry email, I am sharing them now - except, of course, that I get to vent spleen here on my blog.
First is the use of the singular "they." I loathe the use of "they" as a singular pronoun not
because I oppose the existence of a gender-neutral pronoun but simply
because "they" is already taken (as a plural) and its use as both a singular and
a plural is often confusing and grates on the ears
like fingernails on a chalkboard. There really should be a better
alternative and I hope someone can come up with one. In the interview, Fridland claims that "hundreds" of alternative, gender-neutral singular pronouns have been tried but that none has caught on in the way that "they" has. Fridland attributes this to the fact that the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is "an organic development." Not having read her book, I do not know how Fridland defines this term but it's probably safe to assume that by "organic development" she means a change in language that is unconscious and "natural." I understand that English is always changing but I also know that people misuse words all the time and how we speak is inevitably influenced by what we hear and learn from others. For this reason, common misuses of words tend to spread and become even more common until at last, through the alchemy of semantic change, a frequently misused word becomes a legitimate way of expressing the idea that it was formerly improperly used to convey.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, after contacting Fridland
directly and receiving not one but two very gracious and hugely
enlightening responses, I believe it is fair to say that, at least from
Fridland's perspective, it is neither. A sociolinguist views the
evolution of language much as a biologist views evolutionary changes in a
species over time: these changes are neither "good" nor "bad" but
merely adaptive. As Fridland pointed out in her first email, the pronoun "you," exactly like "they," is used in both a singular and plural sense and this does not seem to bother anybody - at least not now. I hadn't considered this and, honestly, this got me 98 per cent of the way there.
And yet it is hard for me to let go of the idea that not every change is for the better. Isn't it possible that, while language may be characterized by "organic development," like everything else it also tends to degrade from sheer entropy? Over time, a building will begin to sag and its foundations give way until the building collapses. At room temperature, food will decay and what once might have been dinner is now slimy and putrid. That might be great for bacteria but it's not so great for the larger, more complex organism who was hoping to make a meal out of that rotting food. This illustrates the principle that, depending upon one's point of view, change can be either "organic development" or simply organic decay.
But this is where the view of the sociolinguist can actually be liberating. As Fridland explained to me in her second email,
Over the long haul, language evolves in ways that meet the needs of speakers, but not always in ways that meet the social desires of those who have come to feel tied to the conventions of use at any one point in time on the long continuum of a language's history. This is the crux of why people are so vehement in their views about language - it is a resource both intensely personal (communicating our own views and experiences) and, at the same time, communal (based on a set of conventions and usages that arise via collective agreement). When people start messing with what we feel is established as normative use - especially when those speakers belong to groups less valued or well thought of socially, economically and politically (be it due to age, gender, ethnicity or region) - it irks us that they are changing the conventions we have helped to establish. Toss in the fact that these norms have been taught to us every year in grammar class and so are validated in that way that these new forms are not and you get fierce opposition. I think what is key is to realize that many of the forms that one or two centuries ago really angered people are now the things we all say without the dissolution of our ability to communicate having resulted. One great example is that we now are not only using 'you' for both singular and plural but also using it as a subject pronoun (as in "You went home") when 'you' historically was only used for objects, and 'ye' was used exclusively for subjects. In the 16th century, 'you' and 'ye' seem to have started to fall together, likely because in fast speech they sound similar and because in certain sentences it was a bit hard to tell which one should be used. For instance, "ye know that man" becomes 'Know ye that man" where the subject 'ye' now is in a position that 'you' typically occupies, i.e., following the verb. Thus 'you' started to get used in that case instead, creeping into 'ye' territory one grammatical inch at a time. The result? Now all we say is 'you' and 'ye' is nowhere to be seen. Has language been destroyed because of this change we didn't even know had happened? Not really. But when someone today does something similar such as saying "him and I are going to the party," we get upset with this grammatical infraction - one which we actually commit every time we use 'you' as a subject. We might socially disfavor it, but that is . . . [no] worse . . . than what we did with 'you' and 'ye.'
That got me the rest of the way there - at least, intellectually. And yet I still have a visceral antipathy for the singular "they."
There is another dimension to the question of whether "they" ought to be accepted as both a singular and a plural pronoun. In realms such as language, where education, skill, artistry and rules figure prominently (and aren't these precisely what give language its charm, beyond its strictly utilitarian function?), changes over time can be either conscious and inorganic or unconscious and organic. An example of a conscious, inorganic change in language - and one, for the better, in my opinion - would be the now ubiquitous title "Ms." as an alternative to "Miss or "Mrs." There was nothing at all natural or "organic" about the way "Ms." was incorporated into everyday usage. Its adoption and popularization were the result of very conscious and deliberate campaigns which arose in response to the inherent sexism of the use of either "Miss" or "Mrs."
A further development along these lines would be to abandon "Ms." and "Mr." altogether in favor of a gender-neutral title such as "Mx.," which is now the leading choice among those expressing a preference. To me, however, "Mx." seems inelegant and awkward in the same way that "Latinx" does. On the other hand, "Ms." undoubtedly seemed unnatural and awkward when it was introduced, also. And while there is a certain logic and even validity to "Mx.," the same, apparently, cannot be said of "Latinx."
"They," as a singular pronoun, falls somewhere in between the organic development that Fridland talks about and the inorganic change in language that is consciously advocated as a way to rectify inequity, as in the case of "Ms." I do not dispute that "they" has a long history of use as a singular pronoun but the organic development by which it came to be used was not a result of gender consciousness or of a rejection of heteronormativity and sexual-binary normativity. People have misused "they" when they meant to say "he" or "she" for decades. It is only recently that advocates for a more inclusive language have argued for the use of "they" specifically as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. That is certainly a much more valid reason for its use than sheer carelessness or ignorance.
That said, and aside from my longstanding objection to the use of "they" as a singular pronoun on strictly grammatical and aesthetic grounds, my argument has been that, if we are going to use "they" as a singular pronoun, we should at least follow the rule of grammar that a pronoun and a verb must agree in
number. In other words, we should be consistent, especially if there is any hope of the singular "they" acquiring any grammatical legitimacy. Thus, for example, one ought to say "they is," not "they are." Here are several additional examples of the correct way to use "they" as a singular pronoun in a sentence: "They is the president and CEO of that organization,"
or, "They writes for The Guardian and is a frequent contributor to other
publications," or, "They is going to be delivering a lecture on
semiotics which you won't want to miss because they is the leading expert on this topic." Admittedly, using the correct verb forms, as in these examples, grates on one's ears, but no more so than the singular "they" does. And if we are being asked to get used to "they"
as a singular pronoun, don't we have a right to expect the champions of
the singular "they" to get used to conjugations such as "they is"?
On the other hand, though, there is the powerfully convincing example that Fridland cites in which "you" is used as either a singular pronoun or a plural pronoun but always with a verb form as though it were a plural. We never say "you is." Yes, maintaining agreement in
number between the singular "they" and the accompanying verb would serve
the purpose of making it clear that one is speaking about
one person and not more than one and so avoid the confusion that may occur with the use of the singular "they," as in this example: "The committee members and the chair could not come to an agreement about the budget because they were afraid that the funds would not be allocated properly." In that sentence, does "they" refer to the committee members, to the chair of the committee, or to all of them? Now try this: "The
committee members and the chair could not come to an agreement
about the budget because they was afraid that the funds would not be
allocated properly." Awkward, yes, but at least we understand that it is the chair of the committee and not the committee members who has reservations about approving the budget.
Of course, all this awkwardness and confusion could be avoided by using a different, gender-neutral pronoun altogether. However, if we are to use the singular "they," using it in a way that preserves agreement in number between the pronoun and the verb would, over time, as our ears become accustomed to it,
have the added virtue of conferring more legitimacy on the use of "they" as a singular, specifically gender-neutral pronoun
because it would make it unambiguous that the speaker used "they" deliberately as an affirmation of the non-binary gender of the person
being spoken about rather than that the speaker used "they" simply out of
carelessness.
To be clear, I am not objecting here to a person's choice of pronouns
but to the inappropriate use of the verbs that accompany them. As I have written elsewhere, I respect the
right of everyone to identify herself, himself, or themself
in any way that she or he or they chooses to. Indeed, I do not
regard it as "woke" so much as common courtesy to respect the wishes of
each person to be addressed and identified as she, he or they wishes.
(And I say this not only as someone who bristles when people
presume to call me "Dave" rather than by my real name - David - but as someone who legally changed his last
name as an act of public repudiation of what I had long regarded as the ethnic self-abnegation of my forebears.)
So much for "they." Secondly,
I was flabbergasted to hear Professor Fridland use the expression
"flash forward" (at 4:40 in the interview). No! No! No! It is "fast forward" - not "flash forward." This expression is used metaphorically -
as Fridland used it - but comes, unless I am completely mistaken about this,
from tape cassette players which included a "Play" button, a "Stop"
button, a "Rewind" button and - you guessed it - a "Fast Forward"
button. If one wanted to quickly advance the tape, one would press
"Fast Forward," hence the use of this phrase to mean rapidly advancing
and skipping over the contents of something in order to get to the desired location much later on or farther along in
the sequence. "Fast forward" is therefore now used synonymously with phrases such as "skipping ahead to the present time. . .," or "bringing us up to the present moment. . . ." "Flash forward" seems to be a corruption of "fast forward" and it also seems to be used exclusively by young people - at least, I have only ever heard young people use it. This tends to confirm what I suspect is the cause of the change from "fast forward" to "flash forward," namely, the fact that most young people
nowadays have never even seen, let alone operated, a tape cassette player. They are, however, familiar with flash drives. It is my hypothesis, therefore, that their familiarity with this more contemporary recording technology is the source of the corruption of "fast forward" into the increasingly prevalent "flash forward." I also have to
infer from her use of "flash forward" that Fridland falls into the
category of post-boomer.
The broader point of Fridland's comments and, I assume, of her recent
book, is that, because language is always changing and because this change reflects a natural process - the organic development of language cited above -
one should respect neologisms and new constructions and be less dogmatic
about English. Fair enough. But this raises another point which is my
third pet peeve. Namely, if language is always
changing, including its grammatical rules, the meaning of words, etc.,
then why even bother teaching grammar in the first place? Why teach
English as a subject to native English speakers? When I was in elementary school, we all laboriously diagrammed
sentences and learned what words to use, how to use them and how not to
use them. Was that all a gigantic waste of time? It seems as though what Fridland is arguing is that every usage is valid. Anything goes. This would be consistent with what one of my English
professors back in college stated, namely, that dictionaries are
descriptive, rather than prescriptive. As it happens, though, this is emphatically not what Fridland is arguing. As she explained to me,
Language is self-sustaining and a remarkable and highly rule governed system - just not by the rules we tend to think of when we talk about 'language rules' typically. People often mistake linguists to be saying there are no rules, but this is far from true. Language can't operate without cognitive and articulatory rules that are deeply tied to how we understand and produce language. . . . Natural inherent linguistic rules . . . allow language to keep thriving and changing without losing meaning or utility. . . .
These "inherent linguistic rules" differ, then, from "the social rules that have just become what we like to do [but do not reflect] what we need to do as language speakers."
So perhaps it's not unreasonable to say that, at least to some extent, the rules of grammar that we all struggle with are constructs (and, therefore, artificially rigid) in a way that the "cognitive and articulatory rules" to which Fridland refers are not. If I understand her correctly, what Fridland is saying is that the formal rules of grammar - as taught - differ from the inherent logical rules of language itself. I can accept that. But if that is true, then I still maintain that no
professor or grade-school teacher should ever again wield the red pen when grading a
student's paper and criticize or "correct" her grammar, spelling,
punctuation or (alleged) misuse of a word.
One last point - you'll notice that I used the pronoun "her" rather than
"their" just now to refer to an individual of unspecified sex or gender. As much as I
loathe the use of "them," "they" and "their" in the singular, I also appreciate
that the universal "he" or "him" when used to refer to an unidentified individual
reflects the patriarchal and sexist roots of our society and actually perpetuates patriarchy and sexism by reinforcing the concept that maleness is
the standard or the default in relation to which everything else is a subsidiary variation. Accordingly, for decades now I have (with rare exceptions) used "her" or
"she" instead of "him" or "he." It's true that feminine pronouns are
not inclusive and therefore "privilege" females, however, I figure that
white males have enjoyed the benefits of affirmative action in language as in most other things for at least 5,000 years so it's probably time to give someone else a chance.
Revised, and with grateful acknowledgement to Professor Valerie M. Fridland, Ph.D., on 30 April 2023
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
