Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!ames!elroy!aero!gm@romeo.cs.duke.edu From: gm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Greg McGary) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: The unfortunate `generic masculine' in English (long) Message-ID: <14647@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: 6 Jun 89 01:47:36 GMT Sender: news@aerospace.aero.org Lines: 485 Approved: nadel@aspen.aero.org What follows is a paper my wife wrote in the fall of '88 for her Women's Studies class at Duke U. In *my unbiased opinion* 8-), it is a very interesting and well written paper (her professor thought so as well!) It concerns the use of masculine pronouns in English to denote persons of either sex. The conclusion of the paper is that the `generic masculine' is hardly generic--its use tends to crowd women out of the minds of English readers and listeners. Anyway, I hereby offer it to the group as an item of interest... --gm The He/Man Headache by Wendy K. Lowe (c/o Greg McGary gm@cs.duke.edu) It is generally agreed that we can learn a lot about a culture simply by studying its language. By doing so, we begin to understand its social customs, mores, and attitudes. Within a given culture, changes in social circumstances, attitudes etc. are often reflected in the language, making language change an integral part of human history. Ironically a major landmark in the history of English is the attempt in the 18th century to inhibit the process of change. Two hundred and fifty years after the advent of prescriptive grammars, we still look upon grammarians as the authorities on usage and are reluctant to formally challenge their rulings. Beginning in the early 1970's however, feminists drew attention to what they felt was a gross error in judgement on the part of these grammarians: the decision to prescribe `he' as the only acceptable generic, singular pronoun, thereby condemning the use of alternate forms such as `he or she' and singular `they.' Feminists argue that `he' has never successfully adapted to its generic role and should therefore be replaced. Traditionalists strongly oppose such change insisting that it is destructive to the language and semantically unnecessary. The result has been a series of debates over the nature of language and its relation to sexism. When the arguments are compared, feminists and other supporters of nonsexist language appear to have the more defensible position. The first argument involves each side's interpretation of the prescriptive grammarian's role. The traditionalists represent a modern version of the 18th century grammarian who hoped to play an influential role in determining the future of English. Baugh and Cable describe the prescriptive grammarian of this period as a man who was not content to record fact; he pronounced judgment. It seems to have been accepted as self-evident that of two alternate forms of expression one must be wrong. As nature abhors a vacuum, so the 18th century grammarians hated uncertainty... Once a question had been decided, all instances of contrary usage were unequivocally condemned [Bau78, p. 276]. The goal at that time was to establish a perfect, standard language. The improved version was to be frozen, in an attempt to deny English the natural tendency to change. Modern traditionalists recognize that language cannot be permanently frozen, yet they still oppose change on the grounds that it contributes to the "decay" of the language. Examples of the modern traditionalist attitude are given in articles by Wendy Martyna and Alleen Pace Nilsen. Nilsen quotes Robert L. Spaeth, a dean at St. John's University who insists that the proposed non-sexist "changes in English usage would do considerable damage to the language." He accuses the National Council of English Teachers of treating "the language like an innocent puppy waiting to be neutered for the convenience of his human masters..." [Nil87, p. 41]. William Buckly, Jr. also rejects change, complaining that the use of `he or she' causes "distortions [which] ring in the ear" [Mar83, p. 28]. Similarly, "the ugly and awkward `he or she' forms offend the traditional eye" of writer Edward Devol [Mar83, p. 28]. Robin Lakoff reinforces this argument when she states that the pronoun system is fundamental to the language and too firmly embedded in people's subconscious minds to be changed [Lak73, p. 75]. None of these arguments seems terribly convincing. For example, Spaeth seems to have forgotten that language, unlike a puppy, is a tool used by humans to communicate. It is difficult to sympathize with Buckley and Devol as they are merely complaining about the unfamiliar, while Lakoff 's argument is plausible, but shortsighted. Modern linguistic liberals reflect the views of George Campbell who stated in _Philosophy_of_Rhetoric_ (1776) that "it is the grammarians' only business to note, collect, and methodise" the language. He maintained that a rule derives its authority and value only from people's conformity to it. [Bau78, p. 283]. The feminist argument, concurrent with that of Campbell, focuses on the prescriptivists' lack of concern for actual usage. Linguist T. G. Bever, for example, blames "... grammarians [for having] reveled in the luxury of being able to ignore why we say what we say, how we say it and how others understand it" [Mac80a, p. 350]. Donald MacKay disapproves of prescriptivists' "intuitive judgements" and suggests that "a usage should be prescriptively recommended if and only if the benefits of the usage outweigh the costs, where benefits facilitate communication and costs make communication more difficult (relative to all other means of expressing the same concept)" [Mac80a, p. 352]. He argues that "by ignoring linguistic knowledge, prescriptivism has remained narrow, uninformed, and unprincipled, following arbitrary, unconscious or poorly formulated criteria and biases rather than general rules or principles." In the same vein, Ann Bodine asserts that when the generic `he' was established in favor of `he or she' and singular `they,' the decision was not based on logic or ease of communication, but on the belief in the intrinsic superiority of the male members of society [Bod75]. As we will see later, many scholars feel that in this case, the alternatives are far more desirable. Arguing in favor of change, the linguistic liberals offer historical perspective on the issue of evolution in language. Alma Graham, executive editor of the _American_Heritage_Dictionary_ states that the masculine generic is not an intrinsic, immutable element of English, since its semantic function has already undergone significant change. In Old English, prior to 1000 A. D., the word `man' was used exclusively in the generic sense. The words `wif' and `wer,' were the sex specified words for female and male respectively. Gradually, the word `man' was expanded to include the concept of `wer.' Subsequently, the word `wer' fell into disuse [Web86, p. 22]. Donald MacKay also argues against the claim that pronouns are immutable by pointing to the adoption of the third person pronouns `it,' `she,' and `they' as well as the elimination of the second person pronouns `thee,' `thou,' `thine,' due to changes in the class system [Mac83, p. 352]. The second point of contention in the battle over the generic masculine is that of semantics. The question is, do these masculine terms function as true generics, clearly understood by all parties? In other words, do `he' and `man,' when not referring to specific males, really mean `he or she' and `men and/or women' ? Naturally, traditionalists say yes, while liberals say no. Traditionalists have persistently offered the existence of the prescription itself as support for their argument. In 1976, Frank M. complained to "Dear Abby:" "I'm tired of the ignorance of those who insist that the word `man' applies only to males. My dictionary has several definitions, of which the first two are: 1) human being, person ... 2) the human race. So why don't we stop all this asinine change of words?" [Mar83, pp. 27-28] In 1971, the Harvard linguistics faculty echoed this sentiment in the Harvard Crimson, stating that the use of the masculine as unmarked "is simply a feature of grammar, [so] there is really no cause for anxiety or pronoun-envy on the part of those seeking such changes" [Mar80, p. 70]. Anthony Burgess, also spoke for many traditionalists when he maintained that his usage of the generic masculine is neutral and charges that "women force chauvinistic sex onto the word" [Bla78, p. 140]. Spurred on by these complaints, feminists have spearheaded the liberal cause, by actively seeking real answers to this question of semantics based on extensive research and practical studies. Many recent studies have investigated whether `he' is an adequate, consistently used, clearly understood generic term. If the masculine pronoun is indeed inadequate, one might expect the following experimental results: 1. Speakers and writers will often use alternative constructions to denote the third person singular unmarked form for humans and animals. 2. Listeners and readers will incorrectly interpret a generic use of the pronoun as specifically male. Indeed, these results were obtained in studies by DeStefane, Kuhner & Pepinsky, 1978; Eberhart, 1976; Hamilton, 1985; Hamilton & Henley, 1986; Harrison, 1975; Harrison & Passero, 1975; Hyde, 1984; Kidd, 1971; MacKay, 1980b; MacKay & Fulkerson, 1979; Martyna, 1978; Moulton, Robinson & Elias, 1978; Schneider & Hacker, 1973, Shimanoff, 1977; Silveira, 1980; and Wilkinson, 1978 [Hen87, p. 6]. In her well known experiment in 1978, Martyna set out to discover whether 40 Stanford students would consistently use the prescriptive `he' to refer to antecedents of undetermined sex. Unaware of the purpose of the experiment, the students were asked to complete 48 sentences, half written and half oral. The experimental sentence fragments (those which were not fillers) contained antecedents that were predominantly male related (engineer), female related (nurse) or neutral (person). In the first two categories, the majority of responses included `he' and `she' respectively, but in the third category, alternatives such as `they,' `he or she' and repetition of the subject were used. Martyna found that the use of these alternatives was dependent on the student's sex, and whether the response was spoken or written. Females, for example, were more likely to find a way around using `he' in all three categories. Both males and females were more likely to use alternatives in the written responses. In addition, the most common written alternative used was `he or she' while the most common spoken alternative was `they.' Surprisingly enough, the female preference for alternative pronouns for sex indefinite antecedents was not due to the students' attitudes toward the women's movement but rather to the lack of visualization in response to subjects like `people.' Only 10% of the females reported visualization in relation to neutral subjects, while the among males the figure was 60%. All but one of the males reported specifically male imagery. This lead Martyna to conclude that when males use the generic `he,' they are thinking in terms of the specific and are therefore less likely to substitute alternatives [Mar78]. Alleen Pace Nilsen supports this conclusion, based on her work with young children. She suggests that as children, boys and girls imagine themselves, specifically male or female, in response to neutral subjects. Boys, however, soon learn that they, as male, fit into a very broad category encompassing everyone and everything that is not explicitly female. Visualization in reference to anything not female, especially when accompanied by the pronoun `he,' is therefore a natural response. Girls, however, must somehow fit themselves into this `he/man' category, a confusing concept which makes imagery less likely by the time they reach college age [Mar78, p. 137]. The goal of a study conducted by Donald MacKay and David Fulkerson in 1979 was to determine whether the pronoun `he,' used generically, was understood to include males and females, and the extent to which the pronoun affected the interpretation of the antecedent. Ten men and ten women attending UCLA listened to 32 tape-recorded sentences and were asked to respond yes if the sentence could refer to one or more females, and no if not. The 12 experimental sentences all included the generic pronoun `he.' They differed in the nature of the antecedent: predominantly male, female, or neutral. (i.e., "When a botanist is in the field, he is usually working." "A nurse must frequently help his patients get out of bed." "A bicyclist can bet that he is not safe from dogs.") Twenty filler sentences were included which contained sex specific pronouns. (i.e., "The old housekeeper cleaned her carpet before sunrise.") If the students understood the `he' as modern traditionalists would argue they should, the answer to the question "Could this statement refer to females?" should have been yes in all 32 cases. However, the error rate for the experimental sentences using the generic `he' was 87%. 95% of the subjects made at least one error while 80% made no correct responses at all. The error rate for filler sentences using gender specific pronouns was only 2%. When questioned after the experiment, the students demonstrated fairly accurate knowledge of the male/female ratio in each of the referent classes mentioned. This ruled out the possibility that students were excluding females to correspond with real figures. It also demonstrated the power of the pronoun to determine the nature of the antecedent, dominating the meaning of the sentence. This study, as well as that of Martyna and numerous others with similar findings suggest that "`he' deserves to live out its days doing what it has always done best--referring to `he' and not `she'" [Mar78, p. 138]. These studies have all been instrumental in demonstrating that the pronoun `he' is not consistently used or understood as a generic, and that when a generic is intended, more accurate alternatives are often employed for the sake of clarity. It is not surprising that these experiments exposed the inadequacy of the masculine as generic, since it is nearly impossible for us to imagine a sexless human being. Within our society, gender distinctions are extremely important, and strongly influence the social ethos. The importance of gender is seen in the extension of its influence to animals, inanimate objects, and concepts. After surveying children's literature in 1980, MacKay and Konishi concluded in their paper "Personification and the Pronoun Problem," that personified animals were usually referred to as `he' or as `she,' rather than as it ; moreover, the gender of these animals was assigned to conveniently correspond to sex role stereotypes: `he' animals were typically chosen to represent types of animals that are larger, stronger, and more active. Typically, the adjectives describing `he' animals were strong, brave, wise, clever, mischievous, deceitful, angry, furious, mighty, monstrous, wild, savage, while those assigned to `she' animals were sweet, pretty, weak, passive, timid, foolish, poor. Children are constantly exposed to male lions that are courageous, powerful, and clever, in contrast to female mice that are meek, helpless, and hysterical. [Mac80b, pp. 149-155] According to Julia Stanley, these stereotypical characterizations of male and female with regard to non-human antecedents are longstanding. Murray, in his English Grammar (1795) states that Figuratively, in the English tongue, we commonly give the masculine gender to nouns which are conspicuous for the attributes of imparting or communicating, and which are by nature strong and efficacious. Those, again, are made feminine which are conspicuous for the attributes of containing or bringing forth, or which are peculiarly beautiful or amiable. Upon these principles the sun is always masculine, and the moon, because the receptacle of the sun's light, is feminine... Time is always masculine, on account of its mighty efficacy... [Sta78, p. 803] Separate but equal, however, was not at all the intention, as other examples illustrate that men were believed to be obviously superior. As early as 1553, Wilson advocated referring to a man before a woman in a sentence such as "my father and mother..." since, due to "natural order," "the worthier is preferred and set before. As a man is sette [sic] before a woman" [Bod75, p. 134]. A century later, in 1646, Poole stated, "The Masculine gender is more worthy than the Feminine" [Sta78, p. 803]. In his Theory of Language (1788) James Beattie explains that God is referred to as `he' because "the male being, according to our ideas, is the nobler sex" [Sta78, p. 804]. Goold Brown, in the _Grammar_ _of_English_Grammars_ (1851) unequivocally states that "Those terms which are equally applicable to both sexes ... should be called masculine in parsing..." not for simplicity or as a formality, as traditionalists claim, but because "in all languages, the masculine gender is considered the most worthy..." [Sta78, p. 804]. By 1746, the first definitive rule sanctioning exclusive use of the generic pronoun `he' occurred in the grammar book of Kirby: "The masculine Person answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female..." [Bod75, p. 135]. Stanley argues that inclusion of females was often seen as unnecessary, since women were not considered full citizens. Denied access to education, women were often illiterate, and unlikely to contribute to the advancement of the society, other than by bearing children. It is therefore not surprising that grammarian John Fell, in his _An_Essay_Towards_English_Grammar_ (1784) could write such a sentence as "Many wise and learned men have made use of our language in communicating their sentiments to the world, concerning all the important branches of science and art" [Sta78, p. 801]. It is clear from these examples that in many cases, the generic `he' was actually intended as specific. Many modern examples suggest that the terms `man,' `he,' etc. still imply male superiority. Men are often treated as more healthy or normal, more representative of humanness, more worthy of attention, and therefore more likely to be spoken to or about [Sil80, p. 167]. This level of attention becomes obvious to school children whose school books treat men and boys as subjects far more often than they do women and girls. In spite of the fact that the population of women in the real world is greater than that of men, a sample of school books from 1975 identified seven times as many men as women and twice as many boys as girls. The use of the male pronoun is equally telling. Out of 940 examples of `he,' only 32 were used as generic [Gra75, p. 58]. This statistic supports the argument that children are exposed far more often to the specific use of `he' than to the generic. Therefore, when `he' is actually intended as a generic, amid a profusion of specific usages, it is likely to be misunderstood as specific. Jeanette Silveira cites an amusing example from the writings of Erich Fromm illustrating the tendency to equate `man' with `male:' "... man can do several things that the animal cannot do ... his vital interests are not only life, food, access to females, etc..." [Sil80, p. 169]. In this case, the term `man' obviously does not include women--unless, of course, Fromm was referring to lesbians. Evidently, the generic masculine is an inadequate way of expressing the concept of male and female at the same time. Clearly, an alternative to the generic masculine is necessary. The most common spoken alternative to generic `he' is the singular `they.' However, traditionalists, grammar texts, educational institutions, publishers, and most people's mothers still insist that the singular `they' is grammatically incorrect. The acceptance of this alternative has therefore become another battle in the generic `he' war. The linguistic liberals argue that "someone left their sweater," should be acceptable, for a number of reasons. One reason is that while `they' disagrees with the antecedent in number, `he' disagrees in gender. Each is incorrect by one count, yet `he' is at a further disadvantage as it excludes the majority of the population [Bod75, p. 133]. A second reason is that "despite almost two centuries of of vigorous attempts to analyze and regulate it out of existence, singular `they' is alive and well" [Bod75, p. 131]. A recent example of this widespread phenomenon was seen in a membership invitation mailed from the Smithsonian Institution. It stated, "If a friend wishes to become a member, please ask them to write for information" [Kol86, p. 332] I recently overheard my younger sister utter another (perhaps less elevated) example to one of her friends: "Everyone says they like you." I realized that if she had said "everyone says he likes you," I would have assumed that a group of people was commenting about an admiring male. Other examples heard in the everyday conversation of native speakers holding bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees include "Not one single child raised their hand," and "An archeologist can copy only what they see." Just listening to people speak is enough to convince most people that singular `they' is extremely common. According to Bodine, this "incorrect" use of `they' is not a modern invention. She claims that, prior to the late 18th century, it was widely used in both written and spoken English without opposition. She refers to many examples cited by Poutsma, McKnight, and Visser; the authors they cited include Austen, Thackeray, Mill, Scott, Dickens, and Trollope. It was not until 1795 that L. Murray, a prescriptive grammarian, condemned the use of the singular `they.' His Rule V reads: "Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents in gender, number, and person..." As a violation of this rule he cites the sentence: "Can anyone, on their entrance into the world, be fully secure that they shall not be deceived?" Following Murray's proscription of the singular `they,' there was a "virtual explosion of condemnation of this usage" [Bod75, p. 136]. Some grammarians dedicated several pages to this problem. In 1850, the issue seemed to be so important that the British Parliament decreed that "in all acts words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females..." [Bod75, p. 136]. Although lawmakers insist that this language creates no injustice, Marguerite Ritchie's survey of several hundred years of Canadian legal history suggests that the Federal Interpretation Act (the Canadian version of the British law cited above) has failed to prevent judges to exclude women according to the social climate or their own biases. Questions of exclusion have also arisen in United States courts with reference to such issues as a scholarship fund set up for "worthy and ambitious young men," and the legal notion of "a reasonable man" [Mar83, p. 32]. In spite of these grammatical rules and acts of parliament, convincing people to stop using singular `they' has not been an easy task. In 1880, an American prescriptive grammarian, R. G. White, complained that "their is very commonly misused with reference to a singular noun. Even John Ruskin has written such a sentence as this: `But if a customer wishes you to injure their foot or to disfigure it, you are to refuse their pleasure' " [Bod75, p. 136]. White admits that there is no truly appropriate pronoun to denote `he or she' but nonetheless insists that "`his' is the representative pronoun, as mankind includes both men and women." White further emphasizes the social bias when he reminds us that the "man is the larger, the stronger, the more individually important..." [Bod75, p. 137]. Although `they' has long been used as an alternative to the generic masculine, it is only one of many suggestions. MacKay points out that additional alternatives are necessary as the singular `they' cannot simply be substituted for `he' in all instances. For example, the sentence "If a scholar has no faith in their principles, how can they succeed," is unclear [Mac80a, p. 355]. It is for this reason that many professional organizations, publishers and journals have developed guidelines which emphasize the flexibility of the language rather than any one solution to the problem [Ric82, p. 263]. Many scholars have suggested and used neologisms--among the numerous suggestions are shim, thon, E, and tey. For many, a neologism is the only acceptable answer to the pronoun problem. Realizing the difficulties involved in development and implementation, however, these scholars usually advocate the use of the many available alternatives in the interim [Mac83, p. 365]. As we have seen, even longstanding alternatives to sexist language are met with considerable scorn. Yet this consistent and intense opposition has not diminished the determination of those who support nonsexist language, but has encouraged them to do further research and conduct additional studies to prove their case. In doing so they have developed several well supported arguments which seem far more convincing than the Strident complaints of traditionalists. References [Bau78] Baugh, Albert C. & Thomans Cable. A History of the English Language. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, third edition, 1978. [Bla78] Blaubergs, Maija S. Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2:244-261, 1978. [Bod75] Bodine, Ann. Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular `they', sex-indefinite `he', and `he or she'. Language in Society, 4:129-146, 1975. [Gra75] Graham, Alma. The making of a nonsexist dictionary. In et. al. Barrie Thorne, editor, Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, pages 57-63. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, Massachusetts, 1975. [Hen87] Henley, Nancy M. This new species that seeks a new language: On sexism in language and language change. In Joyce Penfield, editor, Women and Language in Transition, pages 3-23. New York State University Press, New York, 1987. [Kol86] Kolln, Martha. Solutions to the great he/she problem. In et. al. Paul Eschholz, editor, Language Awareness, pages 332-334. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1986. [Lak73] Lakoff, Robin. Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2:45-80, 1973. [Mac79] MacKay, Donald G. & David C. Fulkerson. On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18:661-673, 1979. [Mac80a] MacKay, Donald G. On the goals, principles and procedures for prescriptive grammar: Singular `they'. Language Society, 9(3):349- 367, December 1980. [Mac80b] MacKay, Donald G. & Toshi Konishi. Personification and the pronoun problem. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3:149-163, 1980. [Mac83] MacKay, Donald G. Prescriptive grammar and the pronoun problem. In et. al. Barrie Thorne, editor, Language, Gender and Society, pages 38-53. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, Massachusetts, 1983. [Mar78] Martyna, Wendy. What does `he' mean?: Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28(1):131-138, Winter 1978. [Mar80] Martyna, Wendy. The psychology of the generic masculine. In et. al. Sally McConnell-Ginet, editor, Women and Language in Literature and Society, pages 69-77. Praeger, New York, 1980. [Mar83] Martyna, Wendy. Beyond the he/man approach: The case for nonsesixt language. In et. al. Barrie Thorne, editor, Language, Gender and Society, pages 22-35. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, Massachusetts, 1983. [Nil87] Nilsen, Alleen Pace. Guidelines against sexist language: A case history. In Joyce Penfield, editor, Women and Language in Transition, pages 37-45. State University of New York Press, New York, 1987. [Ran84] Randall, Phyllis R. The history of `they' as generic. Women and Language, 8(2):52, Winter 1984. [Ric82] Richmond, Virginia P. and Paula Dyba. The roots of sexual stereotyping: The teacher as model. Communication Education, 31:263, October 1982. [Sil80] Silveira, Jeanette. Generic masculine words and thinking. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3(2):165-178, 1980. [Smi78] Smith, Dorothy E. A peculiar eclipsing: Women's exclusion from man's culture. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 1:281- 295, 1978. [Smi85] Smith, Philip M. Language, the Sexes and Society. Basil Blackwell Inc., New York, 1985. [Sta78] Stanley, Julia P. Sexist grammar. College English, 39(7):800-811, March 1978. [Web86] Webb, Lynne. Eliminating sexist language in the classroom. Women's Studies in Communication, 9:21-29, Spring 1986. -- Greg McGary -- 10310 Main Street #354, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 voice: (703) 266-7249 -- {decvax,hplabs,seismo,mcnc}!duke!gm data: (703) 266-7258 -- gm@cs.duke.edu