Let Dr. Mike Zizzi teach you to "elevate" your world via truly *authentic* writing (and speaking! and listening!) Our world needs more of YOUR voice (not AI's).
This section of the blog will focus on topics and discussions related centrally to writing. The term writing implies putting words together in a ‘string,’ whether in print or (more likely these days) on a screen.
Of course, lots of “writing” topics overlap the conceptual boundaries of other blog sections, such as Discourse and Society, Rhetoric, Dialogue, and even Workplace Comm.
Look around! You’ll find interesting things in every category, including this one.
I will initiate our “Writing” blog topic with the somewhat-controversial subtopic of “pronouns today.” Below this necessary preamble, by which I mean to invite readers of ALL political stances, I will reply with my opinion on how YOU should handle the “politically correct pronoun” issue, in your personal practice of everyday speech.
As with all my own posting on this blog (or anywhere I, personally, write and post anything), I will strive to say (and evoke, from you, should you post a reply) things that fall outside of “what everybody says, blah blah, blah.”
So brace yourself. Should you prefer to read (and/or post) the same-ol’, same-ol’ (opinions that you already agree with, of course!), you can find that stuff, by definition, just about anywhere/everywhere on the Web. In fact, just hold still, and it will find you. God invented algorithms for a reason!
On *this* blog, I will strive to challenge your assumptions, test your intellect, and enlighten your dark corners, starting right now with this issue of pronoun propriety.
Please note that, unlike almost everybody with an opinion on this matter, I, dear reader, have spent hundreds of hours in university classrooms teaching the ins and outs of pronoun use and abuse.
The majority of college-level writing instructors don’t even bring up the topic, unless for political purposes – grammar, that’s rarely the motivation. In contrast, when I teach writing, my pronoun lessons have always taken a front seat – yes, for grammatical reasons: pronouns get messed up often. I have loved demystifying pronouns across a career’s worth of bright, eager, and grateful learners. Yes, it’s a pet topic.
Also, I hope you will appreciate that that my criticism of what I am generalizing as “politically correct pronouns” hold unique value, because it does not come from any political stance. That’s rare. Most stances on this subject come noticeably from the right or left. My stance is rooted not in politics but in grammar.
I love the mantra “words matter,” but, to me, the phrase means a lot more than a cheap, unschooled, and vague justification of any politicized position, as this “bumper sticker” usually functions, in my critical view, which is informed by nine rigorous years of intense and specific graduate study (along with 30+ plus years of university teaching on the subject), backed by the premise that, indeed “words *do* matter.”
We can call that the *thesis statement* of this entire blog. Because words do matter, I have conceived and put up this blog – and the “teaching website” that brings the blog to you. Yes, words matter, so let’s get them right, starting right now with pronouns.
Please note that most critics of “politically correct pronouns” are coming from a conservative political place. In their criticism, they are not trying for fairness; they do not seek truth; they are simply and clumsily trying to win some anti-left political points. Their criticism tends to reveal abundant animosity and therefore offers little of value, except for pleasing those with the same view, who love the reinforcement.
In political fairness and to demonstrate the neutrality I claim, I will point out that the advocates for “politically correct pronouns” offer little support for any basis for ignoring the rules of grammar, which I am calling central to language as an expressly human attribute and resource. When pressed for a rationale, such advocates for “pronoun distortion” proclaim that the pronoun bending is necessary because “words matter.”
Well, we agree there. But I say, so does grammar. Asserting that “words matter” cannot, without more substantial support, justify the “okaying” of unnecessary breeches of grammatical convention. With issues of “gender” quite prominent in social science research, where is the research that shows that contorting conventional pronoun use has done one iota of good for anybody, except for soothing certain political sensitivities?
There, now I have offended both sides. I told you I was neutral! In contrast to the customary partisanship, I intend to bring to this controversial subject some refreshing fairness and goodwill – to all – along with a passion for excellence and artistry in language.
I’ll end this preamble with a reminder of my blog’s primary ground rule and ask that you honor it, if you wish to join the conversation. Namely, please strive to stay interesting, engaged, on-topic, open to other views, and always respectful. We want to model a noticeably “civil” mode of civic discourse.
Critics, in these fractious times, say that a civil civic discourse no longer exists. Well, it’s going to exist right here. It’s going to take a bunch of us. You are cordially invited to join in.
So let’s pull the blankets off our “politically correct pronouns” and examine the naked truth. For both clarity and validity, I will present this “truth” – as I will argue for it – alongside its two usually-absent handmaidens, explanation and support. Just asserting that “my way is right . . . because ‘Words Matter,’ don’t you know?” isn’t going to cut it. Please consider the following chain of reasoning.
1) As human beings, we, alone (among animal species), make up a great deal (some say all) of the world we know out of “language.” We “constitute” our worlds from this material. It’s our best trick, as humans!
Can your pet communicate to you a need to get let outside? Of course. That does not require language, just a “signal,” like scratching at the door. Signals are immediate indications of the status quo – the way things are – at least to the one signaling. Bark, bark, bark – get out of my yard.
Don’t confuse signals with the basis of language: symbols – not immediate *signals,* but atemporal (timeless) markers of “meaning.” Your pet can signal “I’m hungry,” but Muffy can’t ask, “What’s for dinner tomorrow”? That would require language – a system of symbols that can refer to more than the pressing here-and-now.
2) Language, therefore, constitutes a great deal of our world and also provides us with a means of “approving” (or not) of anything/everything that matters to us. Muffy, the dog, can signal “get out of my territory,” but it lacks any means whatsoever to say (or even think) “Hate to tell you, Fifi, but your new collar really makes your neck look fat.”
Without language, I might notice that you, in my immediate presence, appear somewhat *large,* but I couldn’t (thus wouldn’t) think of you as “fat.” Conversely, relatively *small* becomes “thin,” if I like you – or “anorexic,” if I don’t). Your pet does not care if someone at the door is “skinny,” but it might take note of “small.” Same with coyotes, pet owners take note.
3) Thanks to language, I can judge you, and even your physical (real and present) attributes, such as your size, will get converted, in my head, into words, like fat or skinny. No wonder we love our pets. They lack what it takes to “judge” anything, including us.
4) “Armed” with language, we humans go around judging (or at least assessing) just about everything that we find meaningful. And, since language gives us our very basis for making judgments, it’s among our chief bases for judging each other. Consciously or not (depending on the persons involved and their situation) we judge each other’s use of language.
For a moment of comic relief, allow me to define the “bad speller”: it’s someone who has misspelled a word that you know how to spell. The bad news? The words you might misspell seem correct to you, too. Not too many of us have won a spelling bee. Have you?
5) In the section of this website called “Writing Lessons,” I will demystify for you the ways of proper pronoun use. Unless you are already familiar, with expertise, with the term pronoun “case,” no, you don’t already understand these rules definitively.
No worries. I have taught this, with delightful and well demonstrated success, to hundreds upon hundreds of students. I can teach you, too.
But here, in this blog – with its goals of conversation and dialogue – I am going to reduce that whole “mess” to one rule, which I present not as the end-all, merely as the beginning. First, I will present the long-standing “grammatical rule.”
Then, old-school as I may be, I will stretch myself a little and offer a socially-aware and updated (and, to trained ears and eye, likely inoffensive) derivation of this rule – a way to show social grace while not degrading this thing that makes us human: our language.
Says the grammar rule: NEVER refer to ONE person as “THEY.” Remember, “Words matter.”
I know, this constraint will “cancel” one of your favorite means of “signaling” (like a barking dog) your “virtue.” Bark, bark, bark: “Look how virtuous I am. I respect people’s freedom to not believe in gender – traditional or in any other form.”
But here’s the good news (for the now-offended): it may require “excellence in language,” (not just barking), but you can – even without risking sounding like a “barking dog” – portray that very social sensitivity (if you so desire) with courtesy and grace. I treasure both.
Allow me to show the way and also to propose – right here and now – an updating of the grammar rule, such that our capitalized word, NEVER, turns into the more-lenient “usually don’t.”
First, here’s how to show a gracious accommodation for the deeply personal sensitivities of others, while following the rules of grammar. In a great many (not all) cases, you can simply make the pronoun’s “antecendent” (the thing the pronoun refers to) PLURAL, which then makes the use of the plural pronouns (they/them/their) appropriate.
Old School says, “To each, *his* own.” Please note that “each” means each one, hence singular.
My second-wave feminist grandmother (in there with the likes of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, but, unlike them, an English/speech teacher of renown) defended that usage, when I pressed her about it, circa 1980.
She said “I know damn well that ‘to each his own’ means me (as a woman), too. It’s clean, elegant, and correct. I am not about to obfuscate the real fairness issues by ‘bastardizing’ our language. Keep your male singular pronoun, but give me equal opportunity and pay me fairly!”
By the ‘70s and ‘80s, this aphorism had become: To each, *his or her* own.
From Gram, “Oh, that’s fine, but hardly as elegant – not clean and clear, but in bounds. I would not say it that way, but I don’t mind if others feel the need to.”
Let’s move to the present (2020s). Nowadays, we have a new (very popular, in some places, even required), way to say it, a way that is politically (if not grammatically) correct: To each, *their* own. Obviously, we just removed the gender implicit in our singular pronouns, his and her.
My grandmother strove always for graciousness. That’s old school, too. But she loved language and would rail against, in her words, “bastardizing” our language in the name of political correctness. So, channeling her, I will use this example to show my grammatically-correct fix of “pluralizing the antecedent, to de-gender the subsequent pronoun, as some would appreciate.
Simply, “To *all,* their own.”
It loses elegance and refinement, but it satisfies both grammatical form and a current emotional need of many people. In this way, it’s both correct and “sensitive.”
That’s just one example. Other cases require more ingenuity, but, dear reader, please note that you will not be able to reply to this post with an example I cannot “de-gender” and still stay grammatically correct. I do it all the time, and I can do it every time. So can you, with help.
That said, please allow me to present an updating of “the rule.” My update acknowledges that language will always evolve and “the rules” will never stop changing.
Here is the change I find reasonable and also indicative of how regular and even reasonably educated people (maybe you!) actually speak, even when striving for grammatical correctness, the way a writing student of mine would do, turning in a paper for a grade.
So I present the “Dr. Zizzi grammatical update” on pronoun “agreement” (with its antecedent):
When the gender of the “antecedent” (person the pronoun refers to) is unknown – even if known to be just one person, go ahead and use the plural pronoun. (Ouch – there, I said it!)
Yes, this breaks the traditional rule, but grammar rules do evolve, and I’d rather they evolve with some rationale behind them – not just a throwing-up of the hands (or a throwing-up at all) of “screw the rules – I need to signal my virtue, and you can’t stop me.”
My rationale, as a grader of tens of thousands of college papers? Almost everyone already makes this “mistake.” I’m not proffering a “bastardization” of language; I’m just acknowledging the need for increased gender-sensitivity in today’s “talk” and also the way most people talk, anyway, not really knowing the rules (as you would learn, if my student). Remember, in my writing class, I “cover” pronouns, not for reasons political, but grammatical.
——————-
Allow me to reiterate the “new rule.”: When the gender of a single person is unknown, it’s okay to refer to “them” in the plural, as I just showed – as in, “I see that someONE has let *their* dog run off its leash, and *they* therefore risk getting home minus their beloved pooch.”
Very few people these days would even know that such pronoun use mixes the singular with the plural. I can let the new rule stretch that far, since it’s so customary, a force that does, in time, cause the grammar rules to change, just to keep up with the “preponderance of practice” (just made it up!).
—————————
To help elicit some meaningful response to this essay-length conversation starter, let me inflame things a little by stating directly that our current “new rule” – acknowledged by many, including modern journalists, which allows for a “they” even when we know the biological sex (if not socially or personally construed “gender”) of the single person referred to (the pronoun’s antecedent) – shows not “virtue” but lack of writing skill and ingenuity. Do better, professionals. Set a better example. And do better, everybody, for the same reason.
To wit, please never bastardize our language by saying something like “the suspect was arrested, and *they* were then taken to jail.” I know you are trying to signal your virtue, but I would prefer you set a better example, showing both social sensitivity and your status as a *symbolizing* human, not a *signaling* canine.
Do better, everyone, journalists included. You can do it. Alas, Gram has passed on. Someone’s got to do the heavy lifting. I’m stepping up.
I invite responses to this, but not if you say the same thing that has been said (nowadays by AI, writing for you) a thousand times. We’ve all heard plenty of the same-ol’, same ol’ – to the point of throwing up or at least wanting to.
In the essay above, I’ve purposely avoided the syrup of ipecac, presenting something you’ve not read before. Respond to it directly, and you will necessarily do likewise.
On the other hand, rant the same ol’, same ol’, and I will have to remove your response for lack of necessity. Rather, please follow my only ground rule of “respectful dialogue aimed at seeking truth or at least new understanding,” and your much-appreciated post will stay right where you put it.
Thanks, and welcome to my blog. We are just getting started! And don’t forget: “Words matter.”
Leave a Reply