Re: Gender-specific pronouns AND man-months (sort of long)

Subject: Re: Gender-specific pronouns AND man-months (sort of long)
From: Garrett Winn <v2cdigw -at- US -dot- IBM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:56:23 -0500

Spencer queried:
<<
My own company has been making every effort to be as
inclusive, gender-wise, as possible with our end-user
documentation. Until recently, when referring to an
unnamed person like the production manager, general
manager, etc, we have used the "he or she will . . . "
construction when using pronouns. Once it was decided
that this construction is a bit clunky, our guidelines
were arbitrarily changed to mandate use of "they /
their," even when referring to only one person.

This *really* bothers the linguistic purist in me, but
my real problem is that when I complained about it, I
could not come up with an acceptable counteroffer.
Does anyone have any suggestions for a
non-gender-specific pronoun set that *also* delineates
between plural and singular?
>>
My answer ties in with both threads, so I will bring them back together for
my own purposes.

This phenomenon has been around for awhile--the "clunkiness" of using "he
or she". Many companies and technical writers (sorry to generalize--this
is merely what I have found at the various places I have worked) have found
the construction to be intrusive and counter to clear and concise writing.

So, your question as to a suitable replacement that is clear, grammatically
correct, and brings focus on the desired actions (not the doer of the
action) is not new.

I do wonder why you say that the guidelines were "arbitrarily" changed?
Who made the decision? Another writer in the department? What was this
person's reasoning? I am (almost) sure that this person's choice of
they/their was not whimsical since it goes contrary to what so many of us
learned from our grammar teachers. Therefore, there surely must be some
kind of reasoning (even if you view it as faulty) that took place to bring
about the mandate.

Before I go into the body of my message, I would like to point out to
Spencer that there are many resources available which describe the various
work-arounds for the "he or she" construction. I am sure that many others
will make the following suggestions along with their merits and
disadvantages (so I will merely list them): use plural subjects, rewrite
to avoid naming people (use passive), switch off using "he" then "she", use
second person singular "you", use a new term (like the proposed singular
pronoun "hun"). As you can see, there are many choices.

Personally, I like the they/their choice the best. Let me explain.

I understand that the use of they/their in a singular sense bothers you.
However, it should not bother your "linguistic senses." The use of
they/their as singular pronouns goes back to the 1500's. I wrote a paper
in my Master's program ( Early Modern English Linguistics class) that dealt
with the use of "they" for singular pronouns. I found it quite intriguing,
and changed my stance on pronoun usage--allowing my students to use the
construction. I cannot go into the details of my paper here (since I, like
another list member, do not bring college papers with me to work), but I
will make some general observations which I can support if pressed or
questioned.

In the paper, I showed that the reasoning behind the use of "generic he"
was faulty and was neither generic, nor singular.

It is not generic because it leaves out women (despite any authorial
intentions).

It is not singular because it is being used to account for many people (and
hence should be plural).

Despite the above statements, the singular pronoun does have its uses and
should not be haphazardly replaced with every instance of "he" or "she".
There are rules for the usage, and they bear out with writings from the
Early Modern English period and beyond.

A good resource on the web (and where I got the impetus and some of the
information for my paper) is "Everybody Loves Their Jane Austin" at:
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html

HOWEVER, I do see (to tie this in with my job as a technical writer) some
problems that could occur with translation. I have not studied this in
detail, so I will leave out any guesses on my part.

Also, if the point is to make our writing clearer, and to help the
reader/user focus less on the words, then I think that anything that is
different from what the user expects will tend to make the user focus on
the words and not the action.

I believe that part of our job as technical writers is to write in such a
way that it doesn't look like we worked at it--to make it look effortless.
By doing this, the words themselves are not as important as the product
(the action to be performed). In other words, the words don't get in the
way. I kind of see my job as being like the job of a professional
basketball player (or a professional anybody) like Michael Jordan--for the
obvious example--who work so hard at what they (use of singular they
intentional) do that they make it look easy. When, of course, in reality,
I have trouble doing a lay-up--let alone a 3-point shot or a dunk.

So, what is the answer?

The best answer is to do what your users need to get their job done. And I
think that your "answer" will vary depending on your audience. Part of the
best answer is not to use our "language prejudices" and "language
conservatism" get in the way of what the user needs. If our users wanted
us to use singular "hun," I would do it, even if I didn't agree with it.

I hope I have been clear in my thoughts. This note has been the product of
several hours and of going back and forth between it and my other work.

I welcome any comments or thoughts on this, as long as we can relate it to
being technical writers and the purposes of this mailing list.

Thanks,

Garrett Winn

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the
difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain

Garrett Winn
Technical Writer
Dept. 533, 004-1/J102
Tie Line 553-6918
(507) 253-6918


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=



Previous by Author: CONTRACT JOB: Kansas City, MO--Technical Writer
Next by Author: Re: Grave questions
Previous by Thread: Re: Wizards..a simple survey
Next by Thread: job opening, San Antonio


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads