76

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in their bookcase.

or should it be:

Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his or her bookcase.

JEL
  • 32,781
Edward Tanguay
  • 14,007

8 Answers8

71

Certainly many usage guides have advised against use of this "singular they" on various "logical" grounds. Nevertheless, singular they has long been part of the English language, and there are various posts on Language Log giving examples of it being used in the Bible, by Shakespeare, by the president, by the Canadian Department of Justice, etc.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language's coauthor Geoff Pullum (a frequent Language Log contributor) calls the idea that they must never occur with a singular antecedent a myth.

There is no shortage of usage "experts" who advise against it, as the other answers in the question should make clear (though these days their reasoning tends away from a simple "it's wrong" towards something more defensive–"some people will think it's wrong, so avoid it"). But despite them, use of singular they occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.

It's not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. But use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed.

Community
  • 1
nohat
  • 68,560
  • 5
    I've always wanted to ask: What makes you (or the Language Log) assert that something used by the Bible, Shakespeare, Jane Austen, etc., etc., is "correct"? "Correct" is what sounds fine to the readers/listeners, and if a significant number of them feel it's wrong — this depends on the audience and changes with time — then you may as well avoid it. – ShreevatsaR Aug 06 '10 at 15:50
  • 18
    If a particular usage is used by those regarded as the greatest writers in the English language, then who is some piddly usage writer to say anything they write is wrong? But like I said, "use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed" – nohat Aug 06 '10 at 16:39
  • 1
    There was a really interesting post in the Economist language blog "Johnson" about this a couple weeks ago: "How better to show a prescriptivist wrong than to show that that a bogus 'rule' was repeatedly violated by the man considered the greatest writer of English ever?" – nohat Aug 06 '10 at 17:02
  • 1
    Thanks. Actually, I withdraw my previous. Usage writers cannot—must not—declare things wrong. What gets me is that the LL rails against style guides and "logical grounds" too. Language is a human construct and not merely something natural "out there", so surely we can make conscious choices about it. If a style guide or usage writer decides to advocate/proscribe some usage (regardless of right/wrong or past usage), surely they're free to do so; that's their job. I don't see how "Look, let's not use this…" can be rebutted by examples of actual usage! Anyway, I guess discussion is offtopic here… – ShreevatsaR Aug 06 '10 at 19:25
  • 7
    Mavens frequently appeal to older meanings and usages to justify their arbitrary pronouncements. (Other common gambits are "logic" and "clarity".) So the LL people are demonstrating that even on their own typical assumptions these people are not only wrong, but cannot be bothered to actually check to see whether their assertions are accurate at all. I don't think any of the linguists who post there would suggest that people should talk the way Shakespeare wrote, and I would wager a substantial sum that they never have. – Alan Hogue Aug 13 '10 at 18:30
  • 4
    @ShreevatsaR to come back to this old discussion, I think the point is that the usage writer doesn’t merely say “let’s not use singular they ”; they say “let’s not use singular they because it’s wrong for these reasons”. In that case, a rebuttal of “no, your reasons are specious, false, or based on incorrect data” seems perfectly apt. – nohat Sep 18 '10 at 01:09
  • 1
    Hearkening back to established authors' use of "singular they" is a kind of argument, but it isn't suasive. You can also find traditional arguments in support of "singular ain't" (i.e., "ain't I?"). Still, you would be remiss not to warn the English user that many consider "ain't" to be slangy and colloquial. The jury has been out on singular they for hundreds of years - Thomas Jefferson complained that English had no gender neutral pronoun. Those who press-gang "they" into such service will invariably be nagged by the sense that they're tying to get away with something. – The Raven Feb 27 '11 at 18:29
  • 3
    @The Raven most people who use singular "they" have no idea that anyone would think anything is wrong with it and are not nagged by a sense of trying to get away with something. In fact, they don't even think about it all—they just use it as part of their language. My analysis is not without its caveat though; as I said above, “use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed” – nohat Feb 27 '11 at 18:35
  • 1
    Yes, but nohat, you're begging the question that "singular they" is "correct." You have not demonstrated that at all. It is a subject of debate. It is not cleanly established that the error in question is "A-OK," or that its usage is unimpeachable. Most publications I've worked for explicitly address the matter in the house style sheet. You can't pretend that the matter is settled. Singular subjects require singular pronouns. English only makes exceptions for that with "vague" subjects like "staff," "a number," "the team," etc. – The Raven Feb 27 '11 at 19:31
  • 1
    The roundness of the Earth remains a settled issue even though the Flat Earth Society disputes it. – nohat Feb 27 '11 at 19:51
  • 2
    @The Raven what I wrote was "It's not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods." What, exactly, did I write that you think is wrong or that I should change? – nohat Feb 27 '11 at 20:38
  • The real question should be - does a native English speaker find it odd? or just uncommon? or it does sound completely out of place for 'them'? – pinkpanther Apr 25 '16 at 22:26
  • @nohat Why do we sometimes say, for example, salesperson instead of salesman/woman? That's for two good reasons: 1. to avoid mentioning the gender when it's not known; 2. to shorten the spoken/written thing (obviously when you use both man and woman, you are lengthening your word). Well, the reasons for using singular-they are the same; and you can't use another pronoun better than they in this case. – Snack Exchange Nov 01 '20 at 15:59
18

Up until very recent times the natural answer would have been "Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his bookcase", because "his" was also a gender-neutral pronoun. It turned out, however, that "his" could only function as a gender-neutral pronoun if it were a plot by the patriarchy or something, so we're in the process of trying out alternatives.

I've heard serious proposals to substitute "their", "his or her", "her", "its", and even "hisorher". Of those alternatives, I use "their" because it sounds the most natural to me, but usually I avoid pronouns altogether, as in, "This book should be book in the bookcase of anyone who loves the English language." That style has the additional advantage of making you sound formal and pedantic.

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
Taldaugion
  • 1,152
8

Second one (for writing purpose), if I believe the "THEY/THEIR (SINGULAR)" article.

A good general rule is that only when the singular noun does not specify an individual can it be replaced plausibly with a plural pronoun:

“Everybody” is a good example.
We know that “everybody” is singular because we say “everybody is here,“ not “everybody are here” yet we tend to think of “everybody” as a group of individuals, so we usually say “everybody brought their own grievances to the bargaining table.”
“Anybody” is treated similarly.

However, in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and “they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech.
It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing.

VonC
  • 14,744
  • 2
    +1, but note that the piece begins with "Using the plural pronoun to refer to a single person of unspecified gender is an old and honorable pattern in English…", and specifically points out that singular they is especially common with "everybody", "anybody", etc. (The question has "anyone".) – ShreevatsaR Aug 06 '10 at 15:50
7

I have gone to using their instead of the increasingly awkward him/her in all but the most formal of my writings. His or her is sounding very contrived, and it is no better to substitute her for him than to have him as the gender neutral pronoun. The use of their is increasingly common and should simply be accepted by grammarians, though it will probably take a century or so before the high and mighty accept this increasingly common usage.

MetaEd
  • 28,488
John Heckers
  • 71
  • 1
  • 1
3

See here or here or here.

Executive summary: His/her is to be avoided.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
3

In a business English course at WVU in 1987, I was taught to avoid the sexist language/agreement problem by making the subject plural:

AnyoneAll the people who love the English language should have copies of this book in their bookcases.

Community
  • 1
Fuhrmanator
  • 3,222
  • 2
  • 15
  • 25
0

In these days of exaggerated care for egalitarianism it is always a conundrum whether to use "his", "her" or "their". And perhaps we should be concerned about egalitarianism.

On the other hand, the traditional use of the masculine gender to stand in for both sexes still doesn't seem too outré to me. As a guy, perhaps I am missing something.

What I would do, if I were writing technical works, would be to write one with a masculine user, and the next time do it for a feminine user. Leave each work (whether an essay or a book) consistent as to gender of the subject user.

Alternatively, if you are a female writer, your user should always be female; and if a male writer, then male user.

Lot's of choices out there! Try to offend as many people as possible.

Cyberherbalist
  • 7,556
-1

Why do we sometimes say, for example, salesperson instead of salesman/woman? That's for two good reasons:

  • to avoid mentioning the gender when it's not known.
  • to shorten the spoken/written thing (obviously when you use both man and woman, you are lengthening your word).

Well, the reasons for using singular-they are the same; and you can't use another pronoun better than they in this case.

Snack Exchange
  • 357