[Smt-talk] Last about Gender Terminology in Writings

[John Z McKay]

Dear Dimitar (and list),

Some replies have already noted other ways to recast your problematic
sentence, including simply putting the entire sentence in plural or
eliminating the offending pronoun by rewording the sentence (both of which
potentially improve the clarity of the sentence anyway).  It's somewhat
shocking to me that some are not in favor of making this minimal effort
toward gender-neutral language.

However, aside from the SMT guidelines for rewording sentences (which are
quite helpful), I would also note that your objection to "D. Poor student,
they do not know what to expect" flies in the face of your preceding appeal
to literary and historical language, along with its supposed clarity.  The
use of "singular they" dates back at least to the 14th century and has been
used by all manner of great writers over the centuries, particularly in
situations where the sex or number of the antecedent is ambiguous.  The
prohibition you cite about pronoun disagreement is one of the many "rules"
made up by 19th century grammarians, seeking to put the English language on
par with the "textbook version" of Latin grammar, where there are
(supposedly) never any grammatical anomalies.  For some background, I
suggest starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I am *not* suggesting that we all adopt "singular they" in our writing.
But if we are going to cite the concerns of "great writers of the past" as
a rationale for sentence structure, we should be careful to pay attention
to their actual usage, not what we assume must be true about it.  For those
who find themselves getting worked up into a froth over pronoun
disagreement or split infinitives or the like, a hearty dose of actual
literature from centuries past is often helpful in gaining perspective on
many supposed grammatical bugaboos.

Unfortunately, we often find ourselves held hostage not so much by
contemporary "political" constraints on our writing, but instead by what
some random grammarians in the 19th century made up.  I am therefore forced
to avoid usages in my own writing that have been perfectly acceptable for
many centuries among great writers because some forgotten usage textbook
from 100 years ago declared those usages to be "incorrect."  If I ignore
these arbitrary constraints and imitate the great writers, I will be
assumed to be illiterate, all because of some supposed "rule" in Strunk &
White or whatever.  Perhaps THAT is something lovers of language should be
offended by!

I suppose this could be a way of bringing this thread together with another
on the list now concerning "rules" and their exceptions.  Just as Dmitar is
right to suggest that we should not simply "edit out" language in
historical sources that offends modern guidelines on gender-neutral
language, so we should be careful not to "edit out" similar aspects of
these historical writings that offend arbitrary grammatical constraints
unknown to these "great writers."  Otherwise, we risk being like an edition
of Bach that refuses to believe he ever wrote parallel fifths and therefore
removes them, along with whatever expressive rationale he had for writing
them in particular cases.

All best,

John

--
John Z. McKay
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
University of South Carolina School of Music



On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Ninov, Dimitar N <dn16 at txstate.edu> wrote:

> Dear Jennifer,
>
> Thanks for the nice letter and clarifications. I personally apologize to
> you for having caused such an emotional turmoil in your mind.
>
> The few last things I want to add in relation to gender language, are:
>
> 1) My main point has never been about discrimination versus non
> discrimination; it has been about aesthetics in the construction of the
> literary sentence, and the necessary freedom to accommodate fluent language.
>
> 2) I find the word "sexist" ugly per se. When it is thrown at someone like
> condemnation, it already smells like the dark ages of the Spanish
> Inquisition and predetermines the destiny of the poor fellow - to burn at
> the stake. I would never use officially terms such as "sexist" or "non
> sexist", even if I were an editor who provides directions as of how to
> write correctly. For such purposes I would use "specific gender language"
> versus "general gender language".
>
> 3) I maintain that an author has to have freedom in dealing with literary
> language. For example, I would accept any of the four versions of the
> following sentence: A. Poor student, he does not know what to expect. B.
> Poor student, she does not know what to expect C. Poor student, he or she
> does not know what to expect. and D. Poor student, they do not know what to
> expect. For me, D is most objectionable, because it contains conspicuous
> disagreement between the noun and the pronoun. After that, C has a little
> glitch because the direction of motion is twisted for an instant by the
> superfluous repetition of the pronoun. Having said that, I think these
> considerations shall be left to the discretion of the writer.
>
> 4) I believe that, no matter what the official policy of a publisher is,
> quotations of original passages shall not be edited in terms of gender
> language, because this would be the end of professionalism and the
> beginning of self-embarrassment for those who cripple original works in
> this manner.
>
> Thank you for your understanding.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dimitar
>
>
> Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
> School of Music
> Texas State University
> 601 University Drive
> San Marcos, Texas 78666
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>



-- 
John Z. McKay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
University of South Carolina School of Music
813 Assembly Street
Columbia, SC  29208
jmckay at mozart.sc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140502/be6b4a73/attachment-0002.htm>