Illustrations by Eve Arnold
Filling the Epicene Gap: Suggested gender-neutral third person singular pronouns
How do you discuss a person you don’t know the name and gender of? English speakers use pronouns in the first, second, or third person to refer to individuals in place of their names. The first and second personal pronouns are not gendered ? but then there is the third. The third person, singular “he,” “she,” and “it,” and plural “they,” is inherently gendered when discussing an individual. You are either a “he” or a “she,” with “it” being reserved for babies, animals, and objects. There seems to be a semantic gap for a third-person singular gender neutral pronoun, also known as an epicene pronoun ? it simply does not exist in proper English. This gap is acknowledged by linguists, but it also affects another sect of society: the transgender community. What happens when a problem that has been discussed by linguistic experts for over a century is co-opted by non-linguists? Interesting and possible solutions. As common speakers of a language get involved, they create their own unique solutions to language problems, such as the epicene gap, and implement them into their use of the language.
Due to the recent media focus on transgender individuals, the epicene pronoun is being discussed more and more in this context. Within the transgender community, those transgender individuals who do not identify within the traditional gender binary are most affected by the epicene gap. These individuals within the spectrum of gender identities and who use terms such as “non-binary,” “genderqueer,” and “bigender” to label themselves (LGBT Resource Center; Anagnori), face an interesting conundrum regarding their pronouns. Since they do not perfectly fit into society’s boxes of “male” or “female,” they do not feel comfortable being referred to with the traditionally gendered “he” or “she” pronouns (Chak). As the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s LGBT Resource Center explains in its guide to gender pronouns, the third-person pronoun binary of “he” and “she” is incredibly limiting for an individual who does not succumb to the gender binary. Due to this discrepancy between available pronouns and some individuals’ genders, there is a need for a pronoun that is third-person singular, like “he” or “she,” but that does not have a connotation of gender with regards to the noun it is replacing (LGBT Resource Center)?that is, the epicene pronoun.
Currently filling the epicene gap for many nonbinary individuals is the use of a singular form of “they.” This epicene pronoun has the most social and grammatical weight (Chak), and experts in the field expect it to succeed (McCurdy). In “On the Goals, Principles, and Procedures for Prescriptive Grammar: Singular They,” Donald MacKay of UCLA notes that one suggested epicene pronoun, epicene “he,” has an inherent assumed gender to readers, male, while “they” is inherently gender-neutral. Therefore, he concludes, the use of “they” sounds more natural in gender-neutral contexts, because it has no associated gender. However, “they” is the one epicene pronoun that “annoys” (Chak) the most linguists and grammar fanatics in general. Because of its origin as a plural pronoun, there is an academic debate over whether “they” is grammatically proper (LGBT Resource Center), and whether there is reason for it to be absorbed into the category of third-person singular pronouns. The arguments against the use of “they” focus primarily on grammatical reasoning. Due to the lack of gender and the fluidity of subject, “they” can create ambiguity and vagueness in a sentence. When ambiguity of number is added into the mix by making “they” both a singular and plural pronoun (MacKay 358), this confusion further increases. Despite some flaws, “they” thrives in society; for its use “as a pronoun to refer to a known person” who does not fit into the gender binary, the American Dialect Society voted singular “they” as the 2015 Word of the Year. “They” already exists within the English language as a plural gender-neutral pronoun. Speakers already know it (ADS) and may even use it in a singular fashion without even recognizing what they’ve said. The most common natural use of “they” in a singular form is sentences where the speaker does not know the gender of the subject (Chak). This variation of “they” also has a history of use within fiction, particularly British literature. Famous authors such as Chaucer, Jane Austen, and Shakespeare (ADS) have used the singular form of “they” within their works, dating it back more than six hundred years (LGBT Resource Center).
While the use of singular “they” as the English epicene pronoun of choice has been propelled almost exclusively colloquially, the discussion of the epicene gap has been a hot topic for linguists (Baron). This discussion has focused more on referring to an individual of unknown gender, not an individual with a non-binary gender. Solution upon solution was proposed, from using epicene “he” (MacKay), or epicene “she” (Baron), to adopting “one” as a formal pronoun (LGBT Resource Center). However, no existing word in the English language, excluding “they,” passed the scrutiny of linguists or of society ? epicene “he” and “she” were shot down due to the “sexist bias” (Baron 85) of linguists, and using “one,” as Baron notes through quoting a 1931 publication by G.L. Trager, is often “ridicule[d]” (86) by most English users due to its formality.
These are the constructed epicene pronouns, which were designed to offer gender neutral language in and outside of academia before transgender people were even part of the pronoun narrative.
A solution to the epicene gap did not exist in contemporary English vocabulary, so alternative solutions were developed by linguists and other academics. These are the constructed epicene pronouns, which were designed to offer gender neutral language in and outside of academia before transgender people were even part of the pronoun narrative. Proposed pronouns sought to either combine masculinity and femininity, such as “shem,” or to be completely epicene, such as “per” (Baron 86). Dennis E. Baron, a linguistics professor at the University of Illinois who recorded constructed epicene pronouns, subtitles his article on the epicene pronoun with “the word that failed,” because none of these pronouns ever saw heavy use in society.
Various pronouns and their forms (LGBT Resource Center)
Yet, out of the masses of pronouns Baron discussed, two actually snuck their way into the corner of the public eye ? neither of which, interestingly, were coined by linguists. The first was “thon,” a portmanteau of “that one,” whose coinage dated back to the mid-to-late 1800s (Anagnori; Baron 86-87, 89-90). “Thon” managed to find its way into two separate dictionaries ? the Standard Dictionary and Webster’s Second (Baron 87). This seemed like the answer to the pronoun question until “thon” faded back into obscurity, not returning with the publication of Webster’s Third (Baron 87). The other constructed epicene pronoun that found a little bit of spotlight still retains its recognition, however. Michael Spivak, a mathematics professor, used the pronoun “e” in his textbooks in order to make them gender-nonspecific (Thomas). Later, use of these pronouns in the online game LambdaMOO (Thomas), would give the Spivak pronouns more popular use on Internet games, science fiction, and transgender forums (McCurdy). Sue Thomas of Nottingham Trent University, who talks about her experiences with LambdaMOO in her article “Spivak,” states, “[Spivak pronouns] offered the chance to do some interesting experimentation” in terms of gender and identity online. Through the viral nature of the Internet, these pronouns became popular enough to be recognized alongside “he” and “she,” singular “they,” and other, newer pronouns, as seen on the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s LGBT Resource Center page. The existence of the Spivak pronouns, and those that developed following them, allowed a number of individuals online to anonymously explore their gender identities without having to deal with society’s preconceptions of gender identity and expression (Thomas).
The Internet is a powerhouse for social and linguistic change; as groups of like-minded individuals coalesce, their attitudes and viewpoints culminate into one hivemind-esque creative engine. It is this same creative engine that sparked another phase of rapid-fire epicene pronoun production in the early 2010s, which I had the privilege to witness firsthand. I refer to these pronouns as “nounself pronouns” or more formally “neopronouns” (pronouns-archive), due to their origins and their relatively new existence. A majority of the individuals coining these pronouns, including myself, were young teenagers, ranging from about thirteen to seventeen, who had developed a strong transgender community through the Internet. These teens, through a mixture of wanting to discover their identity and wanting to jump onto the newest trend, suddenly coined dozens upon dozens of new epicene pronouns for their peers’ use. Similar in vein to Baron’s glossary of constructed epicene pronouns in “The Epicene Pronoun,” there are over eighty different neopronouns listed on pronouns-archive, a blog on Tumblr that posts submissions from users who have coined their own pronouns and archives them into a cohesive body. In contrast to pronouns made in the 20th century, neopronouns have their origins in common, everyday words that nonbinary or transgender individuals think work well with their or others’ sense of gender identity. These pronouns are “deliberately more fanciful” (McCulloch) and simultaneously seek to affirm one’s gender as being neither completely male or female, as well as to play with society’s preconceptions of gender and what can or cannot be defined as a pronoun (Anagnori). A pronoun, inherently, is simply a short word that can be used on behalf of, or pro, a normal noun (McCulloch). Saying “Elizabeth walked into glubs house, then glub turned on the TV and glub plopped down next to glubs partner” may sound foreign and strange to someone who has never used a pronoun like “glub” (pronouns-archive) before, but it is infinitely more convenient to a writer or speaker than saying “Elizabeth walked into Elizabeth‘s house, then Elizabeth turned on the TV and Elizabeth plopped down next to Elizabeth’s partner.” Teenagers on Tumblr, however, are not linguists. A good chunk of these pronouns were ill-thought out and declined imperfectly, leaving gaps and missing pieces that cause their use to be unwieldy and inconvenient (Anagnori). Some of these pronouns, however, such as “vae” (pronouns-archive), which is pronounced and declined in the same vein as singular “they,” were adopted by a portion of nonbinary individuals as their pronoun of choice both online and off, demonstrating how something seemingly niche and restricted to a certain community can have rippling impacts.
Communal and social interactions created and popularized singular “they,” Spivak pronouns, and neopronouns, not a linguist with a doctorate. At the end of the day, language is something that is inherently of the people ? the only way that one person can order another to change their language is through the power of government and bureaucracy (McCurdy), which rarely happens. Despite what we are told is “right” or “wrong” by authority figures, people continue to speak how they do and our languages continue to evolve in complex and interesting ways. What linguists tried and failed to do themselves, the people accomplished without even recognizing ? proving that language is not a top-down system (McCurdy), but rather a grassroots campaign that linguists attempt to describe ex post facto.
Author: Stella Castor
I was excited for Professor Larracey?s E110 class, Language and Identity?, from the get go. As a transgender woman, I?ve often had to consider the interactions between language and my own identity, as being a part of the LGBTQ+ community means encountering numerous labels for sexualities, romantic orientations, and genders, all of which impact one?s sense of self immeasurably. It was no wonder, then, that I wanted to address an LGBTQ+ issue in my final contribution essay for Professor Larracey?s class. The true motivation for my essay lay, however, in a lecture I had received from a high school English teacher of mine ? one where he insisted, very strongly, that there was no grammatically correct way of being gender neutral in the third person, and that using the singular version of they? was grammatically incorrect. I?m not saying I?ve been holding a grammar grudge for years, but rather that was the first encounter I had with someone who legitimately believed that singular they? was absolutely and positively wrong. So, I wrote an essay on singular they?, and pronouns that came before it, and pronouns that have come after it. Researching the topic proved daunting ? there was not much literature that I could find discussing gender-neutral pronoun use, so I had to rely on more recent, LGBTQ+-focused non-scholarly articles and more dated, grammar-focused scholarly articles. However, the best part of researching this essay was using resources that I had gathered when I was a young trans teenager on the internet ? my discussion of neopronouns? near the end of the essay is almost entirely based off of my own experience with them, citing compilations of pronouns that young LGBTQ+ users made for themselves and their friends. While I occasionally felt out of my element when researching older gender-neutral pronouns, both researching and writing about the newer gender-neutral pronouns was incredibly rewarding and enjoyable.
Instructor: Professor Caitlin Larracey
In the fall 2016 semester, I had the opportunity to teach and learn with Stella and her Honors classmates in the themed English 110 course, You Are What You Speak: Language and Identity.? In this course, we discussed, debated, and delved into questions about language?s relationship to our identities as we learned and practiced writing in varying genres and contexts, while engaging in substantial peer review and revision. A major goal of the course was to reorient students? writing processes around a classroom community of writers, moving the focus away from solitary writing practices as the primary experience of composition.In her essay, Stella takes up not only an increasingly relevant and critical question for English speakers broadly, but also one rooted in personal experience: how have English language speakers and experts understood and sought to change the language?s reliance on a gender binary? Stella writes with confidence and expertise on this question, not only from her own observations and history in thinking on this question as a younger teenager and adult, but also as a student of language and a practiced writer. Her essay recognizes this very position in its argument; it is, in fact, not the linguistic experts that change language, but those communities engaging and challenging it. Stella poses exciting questions in her work, and it was a pleasure to work with her in E110 and now again through the Arak.
Works Cited
American Dialect Society. 2015 Word of the Year is Singular They,? 2016, http://www.americandialect.org/2015-word-of-the-year-is-singular-they.
Anagnori.?A Non-binary Person?s Guide to Invented Pronouns,? Tumblr, 2014, http://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/75752291700/a-non-binary-persons-guide-to-invented-pronouns.
Baron, Dennis E. The Epicene Pronoun: The Word that Failed.? American Speech, vol. 56, no. 2, 1981, pp. 83-97, http://www.jstor.org/stable/455007
Chak, Avinash. Beyond He? and She?: The Rise of Non-binary http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34901704.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center. Gender pronouns,? University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, 2016, https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
MacKay, Donald G. On the Goals, Principles, and Procedures for Prescriptive Grammar: Singular They.Language in Society, vol. 9, 1980, pp. 349-367, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.702.7938&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
McCulloch, Gretchen. A Linguist on the Story of Gendered Pronouns.? The Toast, 2 June 2014, http://the-toast.net/2014/06/02/a-linguist-gendered-pronouns/.
McCurdy, Christen. Are Gender-Neutral Pronouns Actually Doomed Pacific Standard, 8 Oct. 2013,https://psmag.com/social-justice/gender-neutral-pronouns-actually-doomed-67600.
pronouns-archive. Find Specific Pronouns!? 2016, http://pronouns-archive.tumblr.com/tags.
Thomas, Sue. Spivak.? The Barcelona Review, no. 35, 2003, http://barcelonareview.com/35/e_st.htm.
Paper Prompt
Contribution Essay
So far, you have responded to existing questions and explored a conversation?s
terrain; in this essay, you are adding your own voice to the conversation,
contributing and moving it in a different direction. What perspective do you bring
to this conversation? Here, you?re not agreeing/disagreeing with sources, or
answering a yes/no question, but adding your own argument to those existing,
asking your reader to think about a question in a new way. You also can choose
the conversation you?d like to participate in ? the only stipulation is that it
participates in the larger discourse on language and identity. Also feel free to
write about topics you?ve explored already this semester!
Assignment Goals:
? To develop your own project and set of aims
? To engage with a range of sources purposefully and ethically
? To offer feedback on and revise an extended writing piece
Contribution Essay Questions: 10/06
Before digging deep into research and writing, it?s important to talk with others about
the question you think you?ll pursue in your work. What interests you? Has prompted
you to ask more questions? In class, we?ll get a sense of the room?s interest and talk
about our questions and their frameworks. Have at least 2 questions in mind.
Essay Proposal (25 points) ? 10/11 by 2:00 pm
The proposal allows you to engage in some early research before committing to a
paper?s central topic and question, articulate the project of the work you wish to
undertake, and get an early round of feedback before significant reading and writing
has been done. In your proposal, state your question and topic, discuss at least three
of your potential sources (two must be academic), and articulate your overall aims
and interest.
The proposal will be submitted on Canvas in the discussion posts area. This will allow
everyone to view each other?s essay ideas and initial research, and will also allow
online feedback in assigned pairs.
Draft 1 (25 points): 10/18, 10/25
The first draft is a launching point ? think of it as a puzzle. It?s unlikely that you?ll get
all the pieces together from one side to the next in order and without trying to put
together pieces that don?t fit. For an essay of this length, you won?t even have all the
puzzle pieces you?ll need at the start. I will check in on your first draft at two points.
Each time I will score the drafts out of 25, and then average the two scores together.
10/18: To start, you may not yet have a completely written out draft. The first
sessions of peer review focus on argument and source engagement. To receive
productive feedback, you should have at least half of the paper drafted (approx. 1000
words) with several sections that showcase your argument and your sources. You
should also indicate at minimum in outline form the shape the rest of the paper will
take.
10/25: At this point, when peer review focuses on organization, you should have a
complete draft to best allow for productive feedback. This draft should be
approximately 2000 words with all sources discussed and cited, and formatted (it
includes page numbers, your name, a title).
We will spend more than one class day in peer feedback.
Draft 2 (50 points): 10/28
I offer feedback on the second draft in Canvas Speedgrader. And we?re still in the
process of developing and refining ideas. Your second draft is assessed in two ways:
? Revision of Draft 1 (25 points): Submit your second draft as a clean copy and as
a document combined with draft 1 (see Submission Guidelines sheet). I will
look at the changes you?ve made and assess your engagement in revision across
the draft, looking at both global and local changes (focusing on global).
? Revision Letter (25 points): I also want to hear from you about your revision
process. What changes did you make or are in the process of making? Talk
specifically about the most effective change you have made and the most
significant change you plan to make. Also feel free to reflect on peer review or
ask questions to focus my reading of your work.
Final (100 points): 11/10
? Argument (25 points): Is your work driven by a specific, debatable question
that opens up multiple lines of thought (not simply a yes or no answer)? Do you
articulate several relevant and important arguments contained within your
overall project? Do you offer persuasive responses to the questions you ask?
? Source Engagement (25 points): How have you outlined the conversation
you?re participating in? Do you incorporate a range of sources? 4-6 academic
sources? 2-3 primary sources? Do you both analyze the evidence and explain
how it supports the claims you make? Are the sources in conversation with each
other and not only you?
? Revision (20 points): Submit your second draft as a clean copy and as a
document combined with draft 2 (see Submission Guidelines sheet). I will look
at the changes you?ve made and assess your engagement in revision across the
draft, looking at both global and local changes (focusing on global).
? Structure (15 points): Does your organization allow you to build your argument
across paragraphs, transitioning between ideas and making logical connections
for your readers? Do you include an interesting introduction and compelling
conclusion?
? Care of Composition (15 points): Are your sources accurately cited? Is the
paper formatted clearly? Is there evidence of careful proofreading (largely
absent of typos)