#singular they

Bjorkman, B. M. (2017). Singular they and the syntactic representation of gender in English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2(1). Open access link

Konnelly, L., & Cowper, E. (2020). Gender diversity and morphosyntax: An account of singular they. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5(1). open access link

Conrod, K. (2022). Abolishing gender on D. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 67(3), 216-241. Open access link

in chronological order because these papers are all basically responding to each other; this papers focus on the (morpho)syntax and semantics of english singular 'they' referring to specific people (like they/them pronoun-users).

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche  . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’

Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older. {read}

Plot of the Poem

The romance opens (and returns later) in the Kingdom of Sicily and Apulia. The author displays considerable intimacy with the geography of this Norman kingdom.[31][32]

King Embron and his queen Felise have a baby son, who is kidnapped and raised by a kindly wolf who knew the king’s brother was aiming to kill the child.[33] The wolf was in truth a prince of Spain, transformed by an evil stepmother.[34] The child is discovered one day and adopted by a cowherd as his son “Guillaume”.[35][33] He is of great prowess and draws the notice of the emperor of Rome, who brings Guillaume to court as the valet to his daughter Melior. They fall in love with each other,[36] but she struggles with the unknown origins of her valet.[37][38] And then, his prowess becomes even more renowned after Guillaume is instrumental in defeating the Saxons.[39]

Though Melior’s love grows stronger, a contingent of the Greek Emperor arrives with the Greek prince’s proposal of marriage to the Roman princess. The Roman Emperor Nathaniel gives immediate consent. The lovers flee into the woods disguised in bear-skins. The same Spanish prince turned wolf (Guillaume’s cousin Alphonse[9]) appears to the fugitive couple, providing them with food and drink stolen from the clerics and peasants.[40] The marriage ceremony had been prepared in Rome, but the bride’s disappearance angers the Emperor who orders a search in the woods. The wolf holds the soldiers at bay, but witnesses come forward having seen the bears leave town. The theft of the bearskins is discovered, and the ruse unravels. The wolf now takes the lovers on a journey towards Apulia, but along the way at Benevento (Bénévent) they are discovered by miners while taking shelter inside what they mistakenly thought was an abandoned mine or quarry. A posse arrives to capture them, but the wolf diverts attention by carrying off the magistrate’s child, and they escape. The wolf has the couple wear deerskin as disguise.[41]

So, poll! Do you ever use singular agreement with singular they? If it matters for you, specifically referring to the nonbinary use - that is, they referring to a specific person (as opposed to referring to words like "someone")

a French(-canadian) ranting

[French will follow, image has translation in ALT]

Francophones, especially in Canada, tend to be insecure about their language. And I understand that. Especially with the Académie Française, France, and the fact that in North America, we're in an ocean of English. There's a reason to be insecure.

Divide and conquer.

Our governments worry about things that aren't important, that aren't real problems, just so we'll forget their lousy record and the real problems.

The Quebec government is ruining our province in terms of health, education, and the protection of vulnerable people. They make authoritarian decisions (or threaten to do so) like special laws to prevent strikes (caused by their shitty management), bills to prevent things that aren't even problems (street prayers, saying "bonjour-hi" (or just, the english language in general) in a store, etc.), building highways that have been proven by studies (that cost millions) to be useless, and stubbornly insisting on not giving a damn about the environment and public transportation.

And now, banning inclusive writing in government communications.

Why?

Because it's not a real problem. Because people will "agree" with them. Because "it's woke to say "iel" (singular they) and woke people are all snowflakes." Because people will focus on that instead of the shitty records the government is having.

Without realizing that step by step, the Legault government is becoming more and more authoritarian, and that's not something we should be okay with. We can feel Trump's influence on our politicians' agendas.

Inclusive writing isn't just "for iels" (read her trans/non-binary people). It's a concept that's existed for years simply to be inclusive of everyone. Like, writing "les étudiants-es" or "les canadiens-nes" because it's faster than writing "les étudiantes et étudiants."

Inclusive writing has been increasingly used for over fifteen years. It's been adopted in everyday life and it legitimizes the existence of trans and non-binary people. And that scares the government. They'll pretend it confuses people, when it's quite the opposite: they're annoyed by the fact that it confuses the people less and less.

Anyway, I'm pissed off.

[French]

"I saw a dog! They were playing with a ball."

"There were multiple dogs?"

"What? No. I saw *A* dog."

If I were talking with a group of five friends, and Alan preferred "they", I'm only likely to ever use singular they for Alan if I specify them first.

Unless I'm referring to all five, I'm going to need to specify who I'm talking about, be it one or more people, anyway.

Basically, I don't think the problem is singular they.

I have encountered this version of the idiom often. No one I have asked about it appears to have difficulty understanding that it’s about people having different preferences, more or less. No one I asked even brought up the use of the word “their” paired with the singular “each.”