单数they

Garner's Modern American Usage (2003)推荐小心使用单数they，并且尽可能避免使用，因为这么用有点别扭。

• "如果名词–代词不一致性可以避免，尽量避免。如果不可以避免，尽可能小心使用，因为有人会怀疑你的文化水平 . . .".[72]

Garner认为单数they的使用在英国英语中的接受度更大一些：

• "美国英语使用者比英国英语使用者更不能接受这种变化，美国人觉得不确定的they已经是越来越不标准化。"[69]

并且美国英语使用者显然抵制这种变化:

• "它让许多有文化的美国人望而却步，这不幸地对问题的最终解决方案造成了障碍。"[69]

他将使用单数they和everyone，anyone和somebody等先行词的趋势视为不可避免的:

• "尽管这些发展对纯粹主义者来说可能令人不安，但它们是不可逆转的。 语法学家所说的一切都不会改变它们。"[73]

In the 14th edition (1993) of The Chicago Manual of Style, the University of Chicago Press explicitly recommended use of singular use of they and their, noting a "revival" of this usage and citing "its venerable use by such writers as Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare."[74] From the 15th edition, this was changed. In Chapter 5 of the 16th edition, now written by Bryan A. Garner, the recommendations are:

"The singular they. A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual context, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing."[75]

and

"Gender bias. . . . On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (he in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers (often different readers) either to resort to non-traditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using he/she of s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers."[68]

According to The American Heritage Book of English Usage, many Americans avoid use of they to refer to a singular antecedent out of respect for a "traditional" grammatical rule, despite use of singular they by modern writers of note and mainstream publications:

• "Most of the Usage Panel rejects the use of they with singular antecedents as ungrammatical, even in informal speech. Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable. . . . panel members seem to make a distinction between singular nouns, such as the typical student and a person, and pronouns that are grammatically singular but semantically plural, such as anyone, everyone and no one. Sixty-four percent of panel members accept the sentence No one is willing to work for those wages anymore, are they?"[76]

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association explicitly reject the use of singular they and gives the following example as "incorrect" usage:

• "Neither the highest scorer nor the lowest scorer in the group had any doubt about their competence."

while also specifically taking a stand that generic he is unacceptable. The APA recommends using he or she, recasting the sentence with a plural subject to allow correct use of they, or simply rewriting the sentence to avoid issues with gender or number.[77]

Strunk & White, the authors of The Elements of Style find use of they with a singular antecedent unacceptable:

"They. Not to be used when the antecedent is a distributive expression, such as each, each one. everybody, every one, many a man. Use the singular pronoun. [. . . ] A similar fault is the use of the plural pronoun with the antecedent anybody, anyone, somebody, someone [. . . ] The use of he as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. "

Their assessment, in 1979, was

"He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. [. . .] It has no pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect."[78]

Joseph M. Williams, who wrote a number of books on writing with "clarity and grace", discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various solutions when faced with the problem of referring to an antecedent such as someone, everyone, no one or a noun that does not indicate gender and suggests that this will continue to be a problem for some time. He "suspect[s] that eventually we will accept the plural they as a correct singular" but states that currently "formal usage requires a singular pronoun".[79]

According to The Little, Brown Handbook, most experts—and some teachers and employers—find use of singular they unacceptable:

"Although some experts accept they, them, and their with singular indefinite words, most do not, and many teachers and employers regard the plural as incorrect. To be safe, work for agreement between singular indefinite words and the pronouns that refer to them [. . . ]"

It recommends using he or she or avoiding the problem by rewriting the sentence to use a plural or omit the pronoun.[80]

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) maintains that singular they is incorrect:

"Remember: the words everybody, anybody, anyone, each, neither, nobody, someone, a person, etc. are singular and take singular pronouns."[81]

In the first edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (published in 1926) it is stated that singular they is disapproved of by grammarians and should be avoided in favour of the generic he. Examples of its use by eminent writers are given, but it is suggested that "few good modern writers would flout [grammarians] so conspicuously as Fielding and Thackeray", whose sentences are described as having an "old-fashioned sound".[21]

In the second edition of Fowler's, Fowler's Modern English Usage (edited by Sir Ernest Gowers and published in 1965), it is stated that singular they is disapproved of by grammarians and, while common in colloquial speech, should preferably be avoided in favour of the generic he in prose. Numerous examples of its use by eminent writers are given, but it is still suggested that "few good modern writers would flout [grammarians] so conspicuously as Fielding and Thackeray".[82]

According to the third edition of Fowler's (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, edited by Burchfield and published in 1996) singular they has not only been widely used by good writers for centuries, but is now generally accepted, except by some conservative grammarians, including the Fowler of 1926, who ignored the evidence:

"Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their, and them with anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun, and the practice has continued in the 20C. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone. Fowler (1926) disliked the practice [. . .] and gave a number of unattributed 'faulty' examples [. . . ] The evidence presented in the OED points in another direction altogether."[18]

The Complete Plain Words was originally written in 1948 by Sir Ernest Gowers, a civil servant, in an attempt by the British civil service to improve "official English". A second edition, edited by Sir Bruce Fraser, was published in 1973. It refers to they or them as the "equivalent of a singular pronoun of common sex" as "common in speech and not unknown in serious writing " but "stigmatized by grammarians as usage grammatically indefensible. The books advice for "official writers" (civil servants) is to avoid its use and not to be tempted by its "greater convenience", though "necessity may eventually force it into the category of accepted idiom".[83]

A new edition of Plain Words, revised and updated by Sir Ernest Gowers' great granddaughter, Rebecca Gowers, was published in 2014. It notes that singular they and them have become much more widespread since Gowers' original comments, but still finds it "safer" to treat a sentence like 'The reader may toss their book aside' as incorrect "in formal English", while rejecting even more strongly sentences like

• "There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as his keennness and ability will take him."[84]

The Times Style and Usage Guide (first published in 2003 by The Times of London) recommends avoiding sentences like

• "If someone loves animals, they should protect them."

by using a plural construction:

• "If people love animals, they should protect them."

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage" (2004) finds singular they "unremarkable":

"For those listening or reading, it has become unremarkable—an element of common usage.[85]

It expresses several preferences.

• "Generic/universal their provides a gender-free pronoun, avoiding the exclusive his and the clumsy his/her. It avoids gratuitous sexism and gives the statement broadest reference . . . They, them, their are now freely used in agreement with singular indefinite pronouns and determiners, those with universal implications such as any(one), every(one), no(one), as well as each and some(one), whose reference is often more individual . . ."[85]

The Economist Style Guide refers to the use of they in sentences like

• "We can't afford to squander anyone's talents, whatever colour their skin is."

as "scrambled syntax that people adopt because they cannot bring themselves to use a singular pronoun".[86]

The New Hart's Rules is aimed at those engaged in copy editing, and the emphasis is on the formal elements of presentation including punctuation and typeface, rather than on linguistic style but—like The Chicago Manual of Style—makes occasional forays into matters of usage. It advises against use of the purportedly gender-neutral he, and suggests cautious use of they where he or she presents problems.

". . . it is now regarded. . . as old-fashioned or sexist to use he in reference to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved. The alternative he or she is often preferred, and in formal contexts probably the best solution, but can become tiresome or long-winded when used frequently. Use of they in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter) is becoming generally accepted both in speech and in writing, especially where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone, but should not be imposed by an editor if an author has used he or she consistently."[87]

The 2011 edition of the New International Version Bible uses singular they instead of the traditional he when translating pronouns that apply to both genders in the original Greek or Hebrew. This decision was based on research by a commission that studied modern English usage and determined that singular they (them/their) was by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as whoever, anyone, somebody, a person, no one, and the like."[88]

The Australian Federation Press Style Guide for use in preparation of book manuscripts recommends "Gender-neutral language should be used", stating that use of they and their as singular pronouns is acceptable.[89]

According to A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985):

"The pronoun they is commonly used as a 3rd person singular pronoun that is neutral between masculine and feminine. . . . At one time restricted to informal usage. it is now increasingly accepted in formal usage, especially in [American English].[70]

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language discusses the prescriptivist argument that they is a plural pronoun and that the use of they with a singular "antecedent" therefore violates the rule of agreement between antecedent and pronoun, but takes the view that they, though primarily plural, can also be singular in a secondary extended sense, comparable to the purportedly extended sense of he to include female gender.[4]

Use of singular they is stated to be "particularly common", even "stylistically neutral" with antecedents such as everyone, someone, and no one, but more restricted when referring to common nouns as antecedents, as in

• "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."[3]
• "A friend of mine has asked me to go over and help them . . ."[4]

Use of the pronoun themself is described as being "rare" and "acceptable only to a minority of speakers", while use of the morphologically plural themselves is considered problematic when referring to someone rather that everyone (since only the latter implies a plural set).[4]

There are also issues of grammatical acceptability when reflexive pronouns refer to singular noun phrases joined by or, the following all being problematic:

• "Either the husband or the wife has perjured himself." [ungrammatical]
• "Either the husband or the wife has perjured themselves." [of questionable grammaticality]
• "Either the husband or the wife has perjured themself." [typically used by only some speakers of Standard English].[4]

On the motivation for using singular they, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar states

"this avoidance of he can't be dismissed just as a matter of political correctness. The real problem with using he is that it unquestionably colours the interpretation, sometimes inappropriately. . . he doesn't have a genuinely sex-neutral sense".[5]

The alternative he or she can be "far too cumbersome", as in

• "Everyone agreed that he or she would bring his or her lunch with him or her.

or even " flatly ungrammatical", as in

• "Everyone's here, isn't he or she?[5]

"Among younger speakers", use of singular they even with definite noun-phrase antecedents finds increasing acceptance, "sidestepping any presumption about the sex of the person referred to", as in

• "You should ask your partner what they think."
• "The person I was with said they hated the film." Example given by Huddleston et al.[5]

Distributive constructions apply a single idea to multiple members of a group. They are typically marked in English by words like each, every and any. The simplest examples are applied to groups of two, and use words like either and or—"Would you like tea or coffee?". Since distributive constructions apply an idea relevant to each individual in the group, rather than to the group as a whole, they are most often conceived of as singular, and a singular pronoun is used.

• "England expects that every man will do his duty."—Nelson (1806, referring to a fleet crewed by male sailors)
• "Every dog hath his day." —John Ray A Collection of English Proverbs (1670), originally from Plutarch, Moralia, c. 95 AD, regarding the death of Euripides.

However, many languages, including English, show ambivalence in this regard. Because distribution also requires a group with more than one member, plural forms are sometimes used.[lower-alpha 1]

According to the traditional analysis, English personal pronouns (e.g. his, her, their) are typically used to refer backward (or forward) within a sentence to a noun phrase (which may be a simple noun). This reference is called an anaphoric reference, and the referring pronoun is termed an anaphor.[lower-alpha 2][92]

The so-called singular they is morphologically plural, and is accompanied by a plural verb. However, it is often used in circumstances where an indeterminate antecedent is signified by an indefinite singular antecedent; for example,

• "The person you mentioned, are they coming?"

In some sentences, typically those including words like every or any, the morphologically singular antecedent does not refer to a single entity but is "anaphorically linked" to the associated pronoun to indicate a set of pairwise relationships, as in the sentence:[92]

• "Everyone returned to their seats." (where each person is associated with one seat)

One explanation given for the use of they to refer to a singular antecedent is notional agreement, when the antecedent is seen as semantically plural, as in the Shaw quotation

• "No man goes to battle to be killed." . . . "But they do get killed. [Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage][16]

In other words, in the Shaw quotation no man is syntactically singular, demonstrated by taking the singular form goes; however, it is semantically plural (all go [to kill] not to be killed), hence idiomatically requiring they.[93]

Linguists like Pinker and Huddleston explain sentences like this (and others) in terms of bound variables, a term borrowed from logic. Pinker prefers the terms quantifier and bound variable to antecedent and pronoun.[1]

The word reference is traditionally used in two different senses:

1. the relationship between an anaphor (e.g. a pronoun) and its antecedent;
2. the relationship between a noun phrase and the real-world entity (the referen).[92]

With a morphologically singular antecedent, there are a number of possibilities, including the following:[92]

• coreferential, with a definite antecedent (the antecedent and the anaphoric pronoun both refer to the same real-world entity):
  • "Your wife phoned but she didn't leave a message."
• coreferential with an indefinite antecedent:
  • "One of your girlfriends phoned, but she didn't leave a message."
  • "One of your boyfriends phoned, but he didn't leave a message.
  • "One of your friends phoned, but they didn't leave a message."
• reference to a hypothetical, indefinite entity
  • "If you had an unemployed daughter, what would you think if she wanted to accept work as a pole dancer?"
  • "If you had an unemployed child, what would you think if they wanted to accept work as a mercenary or a pole dancer?"
• a bound variable pronoun is anaphorically linked to a quantifier (no single real-world or hypothetical entity is referenced):
  • "Nobody knew where they were."
  • "Every woman present sat with their breasts in full view."