Pronoun ambiguity—especially the use of the singular “they,” “them,” or “their” in broadcast news reports—continues to introduce what I consider unfortunate barriers to clear communication. I have written about pronouns before. (See Aug. 31, 2015, post.)

English writers and speakers need gender-neutral neopronouns. Those new words could solve lots of comprehension problems. I recognize that such word-use evolution is unlikely.

Nevertheless, a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun could enhance clear communication and avoid the confusion I experienced with an Aug. 15 NPR story on Morning Edition. That story included these sentences:

“Pagonis is intersex but was never told this by their parents. Growing up they felt like they didn’t belong.”

Because I (1) was doing something else as I listened to Morning Edition in the background and (2) have been drilled throughout my schooling and career to think that pronouns are supposed to agree with the first noun of the same number and gender before the pronoun, I at first understood the broadcast story to say that the parents had felt excluded when they were growing up. As I began to listen to the story more closely, I thought it would tell me how that viewpoint had affected the way the parents had dealt with their intersex child.

In a few more seconds, I realized I was wrong. Pidgeon Pagonis, the subject of the story, used plural pronouns for self-reference. Consequently, so did the reporter conducting the interview.

I don’t object to the use of preferred pronouns. I don’t advocate that we violate anyone’s self-identity. The latest edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association says in Section 4.18: “The use of the singular ‘they’ is inclusive of all people, helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender, and is part of APA style.” I know that the singular “they” has become more common in academic writing since my 2015 post.

My issue in this instance is miscommunication—especially in broadcast writing. I contend that the broadcast writer should have recognized the possibility of listener confusion in this story and worked intentionally to avoid it.

The clear connection between a pronoun and its antecedent is especially important in broadcast writing. Listeners and viewers can’t go back to check the reference. Consequently, the singular “they” in broadcast newswriting can hinder listening comprehension.

The Association Press Stylebook (56^th edition) makes a similar point about reading news stories. The stylebook notes on Pages 238 and 239: “They as a singular pronoun may be confusing to some readers and amount to a roadblock that stops them from reading further. At the same time, though, efforts to write without pronouns to avoid confusion may make people feel censored or invisible.”

The AP stylebook advises journalists to honor story subjects and readers by striving for clarity. Often, rewriting a sentence can achieve that goal.

I concur. That quest for clarity is even more important in broadcast writing. The message recipient has no easy way to review the text when something doesn’t make sense on the first hearing.

Another way to address pronoun ambiguity might be to adopt neopronouns. I, therefore, appreciated the Aug. 12 CNN story about these “new pronouns.” Words, such as xe/xyr or ey/em/eir, are gender-neutral. They could follow standard grammar rules and avoid the conceptual problem of referring to a singular entity as a plural.

Despite being called “new,” some of these pronouns were first used in English hundreds of years ago. However, most people have not encountered such words in their reading or listening.

Deciding which new third-person neopronoun to use would be a challenge. The CNN story lists at least four options. None of those options looks like any common English words. As a result, The Associated Press Stylebook says, “In general, do not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and unrecognizable as words to general audiences.”

Getting people to make one of those pronouns the standard would take a long time. The New York Times reported that “Ms.,” the inclusive alternative to “Miss” or Mrs.,” was first suggested in 1901. While the honorific has become more common since the 1960s, some people still refuse to use it.

“Latinx,” an inclusive alternative to “Latino” or “Latina,” reportedly first appeared in 2004. While “Latinx” is popular in some business and academic circles, a 2020 Pew Research survey found that only 3% of Americans with ethnic backgrounds from Latin America or Spain used the word to describe themselves.

People can tell intuitively what “Ms.” and “Latinx” are trying to communicate—even if those same individuals would not choose to use those words. Neopronouns don’t have that intuitive quality. Therefore, broad adoption—if it were ever to happen—would probably take even more time than “Ms.” or “Latinx” has needed so far to gain just some recognition.

While I know that the adoption of neopronouns is unlikely, I still think we need a better alternative for inclusive third-person pronouns than the singular “they.” As long as most writers and speakers are satisfied with the ambiguity of using a plural word to stand for a singular noun, we’ll have to live with persistent possible miscommunication. Or we’ll have to wait for all the old geezers like me—who think that using a plural word for a singular meaning is a problem—to die off.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon