[riverkid]

MikeNewYork: A finite list of authors who have used a particular construction has some merit. Nevertheless, you are ignoring an equally long list of authors who carefully avoid the practice. That reduces the subject under discussion to a matter of opinion/taste/preference. I have no problem with that.



I, and language science, have a great problem with that, Mike. In this case, as in most dealing with prescriptions, opinion, taste and preference boil down to making bad decisions, at least part of the time.

I'm not saying that generic 'he' should be thrown out. It's part of the language. But the bull-headed insistence upon using this in all cases simply doesn't make any sense syntactically or semantically.

You have addressed none of the issues that have been raised and yet you think that your opinions and preferences, based on what, should hold some measure of guidance for students.


On a forum where students come asking for the "correct" way to do things, I think it is important to give those students answers that will be most acceptable to their teachers and others. Nobody will be penalized for avoiding the singular "they" (provided they do so in an acceptable way), but some students will be penalized for using that form. I often mention that many consider the practice to be acceptable, but many others do not.

That's grand. You should also be careful to instruct those students that they might want to avoid teachers who defend a position with only opinion/taste/preference. I'm really sorry, Mike, but honestly, I just can't fathom how that can be ever be described as the "correct" way.

Then, I often introduce strategies to avoid the use. That seems to me to be honest and fair. Let the students hear all the opinions; then let them decide.

Again, that's great. You've given your opinions. Mine is that if a teacher is recommending write-arounds, they have not delved far enough into how language really works.

Let me end with this quote and it isn't a pointed reference. It's a plea for the recognition that there is more than one way to skin the language. There's a place for formal writing and there's a place for the most casual of language.

And I bear no hard feelings whatsoever!

+++++++++++++++++

S Pinker

So these are the "language mavens." Their foibles can be blamed on two blind spots. One is a gross underestimation of the linguistic wherewithal of the common person. I am not saying that everything that comes out of a person's mouth or pen is perfectly rule-governed (remember Dan Quayle). But the language mavens would have a much better chance of not embarrassing themselves if they saved the verdict of linguistic incompetence as a last resort, rather than jumping to it as a first conclusion. The other blind spot is their complete ignorance of the modern science of language -- and I don't mean just the often-forbidding technicalities of Chomskyan theory, but basic knowledge of what kinds of constructions and idioms are found in English, and how people use them and pronounce them.

So what should be done about usage? Unlike some academics, I am not saying that instruction in grammar and composition are tools to perpetuate an oppressive white patriarchal status quo and that The People should be liberated to write however they please. Some aspects of how people express themselves in some settings [are] worth trying to change. What I am calling for a more thoughtful discussion of language and how people use it, replacing [bubbe-maises] (old wives' tales) with the best scientific knowledge available. It is especially important that we not underestimate the sophistication of the actual cause of any instance of language use: the human mind.