Singular ‘They”

The use of the singular ‘they’ has been a controversial topic in contemporary times. Some object to its use due to the ‘traditional’ use of ‘they’ as a plural pronoun or because of their uneasiness with the thought that gender is a spectrum. ‘They/Them’ pronouns have become what nonbinary individuals use to refer to themselves. People who use ‘they/them’ pronouns often feel invalidated when people invalidate the use of singular ‘they,’ but there are still some who protest its use. The Chicago Manual of Style still disapproves of the use of singular ‘they’ for formal writing ( Baron 3). An article published in The Atlantic in 2013 titled “The Singular ‘They’ Must Be Stopped” written by Jen Doll attacks the pronoun’s use vehemently. A transgender Florida school teacher in 2017 was removed from their classroom because they asked their students to refer to them by ‘they/them’ pronouns (Rozsa 1). The use of singular ‘they’ is not a new development, however. Researchers for the Oxford English Dictionary “traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf” (Baron 1). It was widely used in speech, as well, during the 14th century and began to be attacked only in the eighteenth century. Grammaticians from that era did not recognize the ever-changing nature of language, despite the past shifts in pronoun usage, such as the past transition of ‘you’ from a plural pronoun to a singular pronoun. (Baron 1-2) Recently dictionary makers, however, have been accepting its usage. In 2015, singular ‘they’ was the American Dialect Society’s word of the year  (Conover). The Oxford English Dictionary included singular ‘they’ in their 1998 New Oxford Dictionary of English (Baron 3), and the Merriam-Webster added it to the print version of their dictionary in 2019 (Knox 2). The dictionary must be updated to reflect usage and social progress, but as Emily Brewster, Senior Editor of the Merriam-Webster, put it, “you don’t actually need a dictionary to legitimize the words” (Knox 3). The dictionary does not give a word its meaning. A word gets its meaning from the people who use it. Dictionaries, however, must never become accomplices in invalidating people’s identities. Dictionaries must adapt continuously and cannot be expected to remain rigid.

Defining the “Police.” 

In 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement made national headlines as protests against police brutality erupted across the United States in response to the death of George Floyd on May 25th, 2o2o. The New York Times estimates that throughout June alone, “15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations” (Buchanan et al. 2) The meaning of the word ‘police,’  however,  has been debated. While some agree with the Oxford Languages definition of the police as “the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order,” others refer to the police as “pigs,” “oppressors,” or as the top Urban Dictionary definition states, “The biggest gang in the world.” The ‘true’ meaning of the word to critics of the police reflects the frustration and disappointment with the police they feel. These new meanings of the word ‘police’ can be related to Charles Pigott’s, an 18th-century English pamphleteer, A Political Dictionary: Explaining the True Meaning of Words. Pigott protested the tyranny and injustice he perceived by writing a dictionary that exposed the ‘true’ meaning of words. (Jang 1-2) For example, he defined an ‘aristocrat’ as “a fool, a scoundrel, generally both; a monster of rapacity, and an enemy to mankind” (Jang 1). Pigott challenged “not only lexicographic standards but also the existing political system” (Jang 4) by defining these words as he did.  The prescriptive lexicographers of the time, such as Samuel Johnson, argued that the role of dictionary makers was to “legislate rules of language” (Jang 3) and guard it against chaos. Lexicographers claiming this ‘authority,’ however, allows those in power to continue to benefit from certain ‘standard’ definitions. When the Black Lives Matter protestors coin definitions that differ from what is considered ‘standard,’ as Pigott did, they are challenging the “authority” of the dictionary and protesting against the definition of ‘police’ that benefits those who would object to reform. Sunghyun Jang of Korea University asserts that the achievement of Pigott’s ideas “rested largely on who had the authority to determine a word’s meaning” (4). A narrow definition of a word pinned down by a lexicographer excludes the opinions and perspectives on what the word ‘truly’ means to many. Strict adherence to dictionary definitions of words gives the authority to the dictionary-makers whose definitions often inhibit progress. The ‘authority’ of the dictionary must be challenged to allow for progress that recognizes oppression. The ‘authority’ must be given to the public.