Latest update: 24 August 2020
The world is waking up to the fact that language matters. We are revisiting and revising old words, expressions, and figures of speech that now seem inappropriate or outright hateful. The way we talk to and about one another has never been more important.
In this blog post, we will take a quick linguistic look at gender pronouns and how it is shaped by an English-centric approach. We will then compare it to Scandinavian languages and take a look at why we need to move away from an English-centric approach to gender pronouns in order to create a more nuanced debate and broader societal acceptance.
Why does English dominate the language around gender?
It's no secret that the US has long dominated the global entertainment industry. This becomes particularly evident when dealing with minority groups such as the LGBTQI+ community. Many individuals belonging to this group or sub-groups (such as non-binary individuals) might experience limited media representation in local media, nowhere to go to debate such issues -- or in some cases, they might even live in countries where it's forbidden. Instead, they seek refuge and inspiration from shows such as RuPaul's Drag Race and influencers online who mainly come from the West or communicate in English in order to appeal to a larger audience.
Another reason is that many theories surrounding critical feminism, gender studies, and social constructivism have been largely discussed and shaped within an American framework. This has led to an export of mainly Western identity politics to other countries that regards gender as binary (as opposed to fluid in some countries) -- an understanding that lacks adaptation to local circumstances.
As a consequence, many of the elements from English within queer language tend to affect other languages, including their approach to creating gender neutrality. An example of this is the switch to "they/theirs" (in Danish: de/deres) that we will dive further into in the next section.
She or He? The Limitations of English
In order to understand how the language around gender evolved in English, we need to look at the possibilities and limitations of gendering within the English language itself.
While Modern English lacks the usage of grammatical gender, it still uses the concept of natural gender (such and the third-person personal pronouns he or she). While Scandinavian languages also have gendered pronouns (han vs. hun/hon), there are major differences when it comes to their inflected forms.
Kim left her/his cellphone on the table.
Kim efterlod sin telefon på bordet.
My daughter puts on her own shoes.
Min datter tager selv sine sko på.
b) Min datter tager hendes/hans sko på.
My son puts on his own shoes.
Min søn tager selv sine sko på.
b) Min søn tager hans/hendes sko på.
My child talks to himself in his sleep.
Mit barn taler til sig selv i søvne.
My child talks to herself in her sleep.
Mit barn taler til sig selv i søvne.
When using either the reflexive form (himself/herself) or prenominal possessive (his/her), English will have to refer back to a specific gender. On the other hand, Scandinavian languages can refer back to the gender-neutral "sin/sit". If the gender-specific "hendes/hans" is used as in the examples marked with a B, it indicates that the daughter/son is trying on someone else's shoes and not their own.
Due to such linguistic properties, English needed to find an alternative within its own language that could indicate gender neutrality. For both English-speakers and speakers of any Scandinavian language, we might agree that the word "it" (det/den) does not sit well with us as it often refers back to objects.
(Note: Some native speakers of Danish tend to mix up the usage of "sin/sit" and "hans/hendes", especially as the sentences become more complex in structure. A misuse of such pronouns could lead to a similar pattern to what we see in English).
For English, some of the inherent forms could therefore be:
The generic one: One is a gender-neutral pronoun and it is considered to be indefinite and roughly translate as "a person". Therefore, it is most likely to be used in a context where you want to make a general statement such as "One needs to be able to make enough money to pay for rent". It is considered rather formal and often skipped in favor of the generic you.
The generic you: The generic 'you' work as a substitute for the generic one in colloquial speech. But considering that "you" is also referring to the second-person singular and the second-person plural, this would most likely just complicate matters further for English. In Scandinavian languages (as well as German), we tend you use the equivalent word "man" a lot more in daily speech and it is not regarded as particularly formal.
The singular they: The epicenity "they" works in English as it does not put emphasis on feminine neither masculine traits. Furthermore, the so-called singular 'they' is no new invention: it emerged in the 14th century and has been in use ever since. Although many still dispute that it is a mistake or a colloquialism, it will now appear naturally in all sorts of constructions such as "no mother should be told how to raise their child", "everyone needs to clean up their own mess", "someone left their cell phone on the table" etc. A study by Foertsch and Gernsbascher also concluded that "they" was an excellent substitute for gendered pronouns. This would especially be the case when dealing with references that didn't specify a person (non-referential antecedents), such as "somebody", "a firefighter", "a teacher" etc. This does in many ways resemble the Scandinavian use and meaning of "sin/sit".
The use of They/Their in Danish
In many languages, such as French (tu/vous), German (du/Sie), and Greek (εσύ/εσείς), they have retained the informal and formal "you". Typically, the formal "you" will be the 2nd or 3rd person plural, while a few languages even have specific forms. English has completely abandoned this feature and "you" would be used in both formal and informal situations. For Danish, however, there is a bit of a twist.
The word "du" (you) is in universal use in Denmark: it is actively used to address teachers, police officers, customers, and more, regardless of social rank and interpersonal relationships. But there is one exception - royalty. Although the polite "De" (They) have fallen almost completely out of use, it is still employed when addressing e.g. Her Majesty Queen Margarethe II of Denmark, as she kindly reminded a journalist who slipped up back in 2015. But even she faced backlash for insisting on its usage.
To sum it up, "De/Deres" is by many associated with a certain classicism, elitism, or, in the best scenario, an extreme form of politeness of a forgotten past. Since Denmark is traditionally a nation that values social equality, we do not particularly like linguistic or social structures relating to hierarchy. This is also seen in ten cultural rules pinned down by Sandemose in "The Law of Jante".
It's an important factor that might discourage people from using the gender-neutral "De/Deres" in Danish while the "they/their" was more easily accepted in the English-speaking world. It can, in general, be difficult for many to adopt new pronouns, but compared to other constructions (such as the pan-Scandinavian "hen"), "De/Deres" comes with social complications that will deepen the divide rather than being a bridge of understanding.
So what do we do from here?
This blog post is merely just touching the surface of a very complex topic in the crossfield of linguistics, culture, and sexuality. And for now only through the lens of an English-Danish comparison. However, there are already some main findings:
Language is a powerful tool to create and respect representation - and representation matters. These debates would not be so heated if people did not feel passionate about their pronouns - for both those who prefer more traditional pronouns as for those who prefer alternative gender-neutral variations. It's increasingly important in a world where we experience a more fluid understanding of gender and sexuality.
We need to adapt the language to our own cultural context. If blindly adapting the English terms, we might create unintended obstacles to a quicker adaption in the general public. This can sometimes be overlooked by languages, such as Danish, who are generally quick to adopt English expressions and might not consider the long-term obstacles to application and public acceptance. A good alternative could be to promote the construction "hen" which I will write more about in another post.
Some languages just can't relate. The comparison between English and Danish helps to illustrate how there might be hidden problems in adopting queer language into mainstream usage, even between languages that are fairly similar in sentence structure, grammar, vocab, and level of gender neutrality. However, other languages will face completely different issues. They might have a harder time adapting gender-neutral language if their languages rely heavily on grammatical gender or they might even lack the concept of gendered pronouns in the first place. This could indicate, that we need to widen the scope and include more languages in the general gender debate.
So what do they say?
With that said -- and whatever the linguistic implications may be -- these terms of self-identification should not be dictated by one group onto another, but rather be developed or accepted from within the group in question. Proper research would need to be done and subgroups would always need to be consulted on such issues.
Do always remember to respect your fellow human beings whatever pronoun they might prefer. And if you are not sure which pronouns an individual prefers, ask.
Comments