Definition and Examples of Singular They

Definition and Examples of Singular 'They' In  English grammar, singular they is the use of the pronoun they, them, or their to refer to a singular noun or to certain indefinite pronouns (such as anybody or everyone). Also called  epicene they and unisex they. Though strict prescriptive grammarians regard the singular they as a grammatical error, it has been in widespread use for several centuries. Singular they appears in the writings of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Woolf, and many other major English authors. In January 2016,  the American Dialect Society chose the gender-neutral singular they as its Word of the Year: They  was recognized by the society for its emerging use as a pronoun to refer to a known person, often as a conscious choice by a person rejecting the traditional gender binary of  he  and  she (American Dialect Society press release, January 8, 2016). Examples When a person talks too much, they learn little. (Duncan Hines, Lodging for a Night, 1938)If anybody wants their admission fee back, they can get it at the door. (Fiddlers Dram. Spooky South: Tales of Hauntings, Strange Happenings, and Other Local Lore, retold by S. E. Schlosser. Globe Pequot, 2004)She admired the fullness of the dirty net curtains, opened every drawer and cupboard, and, when she found the Gideons Bible, said, Somebodys left their book behind. (Sue Townsend, Adrian Mole and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Lily Broadway Productions, 2004)She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who falls into deep water in their clothes. (C.S. Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn-Treader, 1952)I know when I like a person directly I see them! (Virginia Woolf, The Voyage Out, 1915)A person cant help their birth, Rosalind replied with great liberality. (William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair, 1848) Singular They and Agreement Examples of semantically singular they are given in [52]: [52i] Nobody in their right mind would do a thing like that. [52ii] Everyone has told me they think I made the right decision. [53iii] We need a manager who is reasonably flexible in their approach. [52iv] In that case the husband or the wife will have to give up their seat on the board. Notice that this special interpretation of they doesnt affect verb agreement: we have they think (3rd plural) in [ii], not *they thinks (3rd singular). Nonetheless, they can be interpreted as if it were 3rd person singular, with human denotation and unspecified gender. (Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, A Students Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 2005) The Growing Acceptance of Singular They The general hesitancy of grammarians towards accepting singular they is not actually matched by many of their academic colleagues who have researched the usage and its distribution (e.g. Bodine 1075; Whitley 1978; Jochnowitz 1982; Abbot 1984; Wales 1984b). Nor indeed is it matched by the lay native speakers of standard English, who show an overwhelming preference for it in contemporary spoken English, non-formal written English and an ever-widening spread of non-formal written registers, from journalism to administration and academic writing. . . . Singular they, in fact, has been well established in informal usage for centuries; until prescriptive grammarians decreed it was grammatically incorrect, and so outlawed it, effectively, from (public) written discourse. The OED and Jespersen (1914) reveal, for example, that right from the time of the introduction of the indefinite pronouns into the language in their present form in the Late Middle English period, the option involving they has been in common use. (Katie Wales, Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge University Press, 1996) The Only Sensible Solution His or her is clumsy, especially upon repetition, and his is as inaccurate with respect to grammatical gender as they is to number. Invented alternatives never take hold. Singular they already exists; it has the advantage that most people already use it. If it is as old as Chaucer, whats new? The  Washington Post’s style editor, Bill Walsh, has called it the only sensible solution to the gap in English’s pronouns, changing his newspapers style book in 2015. But it was also the rise in the use of  they  as a pronoun for someone who does not want to use he or she. Facebook began already in 2014 allowing people to choose they as their preferred pronoun (Wish them a happy birthday!). Transgender stories, from The Danish Girl, a hit movie, to Caitlyn Jenner, an Olympic athlete who has become the world’s most famous trans woman, were big in 2015. But such people prefer their post-transition pronouns: he or she as desired. They is for a smaller minority who prefer neither. But the very idea of non-binary  language with regard to gender annoys and even angers many people. In other words, as transgender people gain acceptance, non-binary folks are the next frontier, like it or not. Who knew a thousand-year-old pronoun could be so controversial? (Prospero, Why 2015’s Word of the Year Is Rather Singular. The Economist, January 15, 2016) Origin of the Concept of the Gender-Neutral Masculine Pronoun [I]t was [Ann] Fisher [author of A New Grammar, 1745] who promoted the convention of using he, him and his as pronouns to cover both male and female in general statements such as Everyone has his quirks. To be precise, she says that The Masculine Person answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, Any person who knows what he says. This idea caught on. . . The convention was bolstered by an Act of Parliament in 1850: in order to simplify the language used in other Acts, it was decreed that the masculine pronoun be understood to include both males and females. The obvious objection to thisobvious now, even if it was not obvious thenis that it makes women politically invisible. (Henry Hitchings, The Language Wars: A History of Proper English. Macmillan, 2011)

Grand Bargain - Details and Explanation

Grand Bargain - Details and Explanation The term grand bargain is used to describe a potential agreement between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders in late 2012 on how to curb spending and reduce the national debt while avoiding steep automatic spending cuts known as sequestration or the fiscal cliff set to take place the following year to some of the most important programs in the United States. The idea of a grand bargain had been around since 2011 but the real potential emerged following the 2012 presidential election, in which voters returned many of the same leaders to Washington, including Obama and some of his fiercest critics in Congress. The looming fiscal crisis combined with a polarized House and Senate provided high drama in the final weeks of 2012 as lawmakers worked to avoid the sequestration cuts. Details of the Grand Bargain The term grand bargain was used because it would be a bipartisan agreement between the Democratic president and Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, who had been gridlocked on policy proposals during his first term in the White House. Among the programs that could be targeted for substantial cuts in a grand bargain are the so-called entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Democrats who resisted such cuts would agree to them if Republicans, in return, sign off on higher taxes on certain high-income wage-earners much like the Buffett Rule would have imposed. History of the Grand Bargain The grand bargain on debt reduction first emerged during Obamas first term in the White House. But negotiations over the details of such a plan unraveled in the summer of 2011 and never began in earnest until after the 2012 presidential election. The disagreements in the first round of negotiations reportedly were the insistence by Obama and the Democrats on a certain level of new tax revenue. Republicans, particularly more conservative members of Congress, were said to have vigorously opposed raising taxes beyond a certain amount, reportedly some $800 million worth of new revenue. But following Obamas re-election, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio appeared to signal a willingness to accept higher taxes in return for cuts to entitlement programs. In order to garner Republican support for new revenues, the President must be willing to reduce spending and shore up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt, Boehner told reporters following the election. We’re closer than anyone thinks to the critical mass needed legislatively to get tax reform done. Opposition to the Grand Bargain Many Democrats and liberals expressed skepticism over Boehners offer, and restated their opposition to cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They argued that Obamas decisive victory allowed him a certain mandate on maintaining the nations social programs and safety nets. They also claimed the cuts in combination with the expiration of both the Bush-era tax cuts and payroll-tax cuts in 2013 could send the country back into a recession. The liberal economic Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, argued that Obama should not easily accept the Republican offer of a new grand bargain: President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands? My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a grand bargain on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.