...but the kriek is so tasty.
Anyway, I was recently snarked at on IRC for uttering the following sentence:
Thinking further about the original sentence, it occurred to me that "it grades it" also plays merry hell with my sense of syntax -- in this case, anaphora resolution.
Terminology time! An anaphor, plural anaphora, is a pronoun which refers to something. (Why, yes, there can be pronouns which don't refer to anything -- the "weather 'it'" of "It's raining" is one example.) A referent is the noun to which an anaphor refers. Anaphora resolution is the process of matching up anaphora and their references in a sentence.
So. In our example sentence, we have three possible referents: you, the person being addressed; the professor, a third person animate entity of currently-unknown gender; and the functional spec, a third person inanimate entity, thus of no (or, neutral) gender (well, at least in English).
We also have a semantic structure which we need to encode: grades(the professor, the functional spec). (I've placed this in predicate logic format. Since both referents are finite, as opposed to "some professor" or "all the functional specs", we don't need to use any of predicate logic's nifty symbols. We also know that both anaphora will be singular, because both our referents are singular.)
I encoded this semantic structure with the phrase "he grades it", which is a complete sentence being used as a phrase. Syntactically, I would encode it as [IP [NPHe ] [I' [I [-Pst] ] [VP [Vgrades ] [NPit ] ] ] ]. (Sorry, not really sure how to do trees on LJ.)
So, let's look at the possible ways to resolve "he grades it", given our current scope, or "what referents do we have available?" Both 'he' and 'it' are third person pronouns, so that rules out you. The professor could be 'it', but that means that the functional spec would have to be 'he', which isn't possible, because as we already said, the functional spec is inanimate, and 'he' applies to animate referents. Thus, the functional spec resolves to 'it', and as we already ruled out you, the professor must be 'he'. There is only one syntactically legal resolution for all the anaphora in the sentence.
But some people object to calling the professor 'he' when we don't know whether the professor is male or female, because they argue that the speaker is assuming that only men are smart enough to be professors. WTFever, I'm a chick and you're listening to me school you, so you already know that I know better than that; STFU and keep reading. I'm going to explain why 'he' is a more reasonable anaphor for that position than any alternative that was put forward.
As you'll recall, two options were discussed: 'it' and 'they'. We'll take 'it' first, because it's the general case.
All we really know, when the phrasing is "it grades it", is that whatever 'it' is, it is not grading itself -- otherwise 'itself' would be the second anaphor. We also know that you can't be the referent either, so we have two possible assignments: grades(the professor, the functional spec) or grades(the functional spec, the professor). Since 'it' can be either animate or inanimate ("Who put the dog in the trash compactor?" "I put it there."), it grades is an acceptable phrasing (grades needs an animate ACTOR), so this syntactic coding is acceptable. Thus, the syntax parts of the brain pass a validated parse tree to the semantics parts of the brain to perform anaphora resolution. It is more likely that a professor will grade a functional spec than vice versa; in fact, the latter idea is kind of silly, so that reading is "marked". (In optimality theory terms, we might say that it falls hors du combat.) Having to determine which reading is more likely is an extra step that the 'he' case does not require.
Now to consider 'they'. Remember, we had three possible referents, all singular. 'They' is a plural pronoun. Syntactically speaking, 'they' does not fit anywhere in the tree, because there is no plural referent for it to refer to. I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what happens next, because I know very little about how the brain processes language, but my best guess is that 'they' gets downgraded to 'it' (number being the most common difference between 'they' and the possible referents) and and the same process as before occurs. (Of course, now that 'they' is becoming more common as an anaphor for 'singular gendered animate of currently unknown gender', people may be rewriting their own syntax rules.)
Anyway, in the end, this gets me thinking about computational linguistics and how to write language generators that generate correct and non-confusing syntax. In the 'he grades it' case, we created an encoding using anaphora which had only one valid reading upon decoding. In the 'it grades it' case, the encoding has two possible readings and must be further decoded by a different piece of the language mechanism. In the 'they grade it' case, there's actually no strictly valid reading at first (due to number disagreement), and other encodings have to be tried. It is thus important for a language generator to consider what the most computationally inexpensive-to-decode encoding will be, before it transmits a sentence to a listener.
Either that, or English needs a pronoun which signifies 'singular gendered animate of currently-unknown gender', and I'll let getting that into the language be your problem. Until then, the OED and I will say 'he grades it' until you tell me that your professor is a woman.
ETA: ... and of course this is interesting to me as a computer scientist, because it hints at a potentially NP-complete problem embedded in our neurological language framework: "most effective assignment of anaphora". Of course, n is not particularly large in most cases, but we are talking about encodings that have to be decoded in realtime, and as the number of referents and anaphora in a sentence increase, the number of possible encodings rises as a permutation, which gets very large very fast...
Anyway, I was recently snarked at on IRC for uttering the following sentence:
I.e., you start with the functional spec, you hand it in to the professor, he grades it, then you do whatever the next bit of the process is?The snarker in question took issue with my use of the word 'he' as the anaphor, or "pronoun that refers to a previously introduced noun", for "professor". I remarked that in my dialect, 'he' is the commonly accepted third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun. "Oh, complete with gender-neutral penis?" snarked the snarker. I offered to use 'it', and remarked that while 'they' has become more common when the referent of a pronoun is known to be gendered but that gender is unknown, using a plural pronoun plays hell with my sense of number.
Thinking further about the original sentence, it occurred to me that "it grades it" also plays merry hell with my sense of syntax -- in this case, anaphora resolution.
Terminology time! An anaphor, plural anaphora, is a pronoun which refers to something. (Why, yes, there can be pronouns which don't refer to anything -- the "weather 'it'" of "It's raining" is one example.) A referent is the noun to which an anaphor refers. Anaphora resolution is the process of matching up anaphora and their references in a sentence.
So. In our example sentence, we have three possible referents: you, the person being addressed; the professor, a third person animate entity of currently-unknown gender; and the functional spec, a third person inanimate entity, thus of no (or, neutral) gender (well, at least in English).
We also have a semantic structure which we need to encode: grades(the professor, the functional spec). (I've placed this in predicate logic format. Since both referents are finite, as opposed to "some professor" or "all the functional specs", we don't need to use any of predicate logic's nifty symbols. We also know that both anaphora will be singular, because both our referents are singular.)
I encoded this semantic structure with the phrase "he grades it", which is a complete sentence being used as a phrase. Syntactically, I would encode it as [IP [NPHe ] [I' [I [-Pst] ] [VP [Vgrades ] [NPit ] ] ] ]. (Sorry, not really sure how to do trees on LJ.)
So, let's look at the possible ways to resolve "he grades it", given our current scope, or "what referents do we have available?" Both 'he' and 'it' are third person pronouns, so that rules out you. The professor could be 'it', but that means that the functional spec would have to be 'he', which isn't possible, because as we already said, the functional spec is inanimate, and 'he' applies to animate referents. Thus, the functional spec resolves to 'it', and as we already ruled out you, the professor must be 'he'. There is only one syntactically legal resolution for all the anaphora in the sentence.
But some people object to calling the professor 'he' when we don't know whether the professor is male or female, because they argue that the speaker is assuming that only men are smart enough to be professors. WTFever, I'm a chick and you're listening to me school you, so you already know that I know better than that; STFU and keep reading. I'm going to explain why 'he' is a more reasonable anaphor for that position than any alternative that was put forward.
As you'll recall, two options were discussed: 'it' and 'they'. We'll take 'it' first, because it's the general case.
All we really know, when the phrasing is "it grades it", is that whatever 'it' is, it is not grading itself -- otherwise 'itself' would be the second anaphor. We also know that you can't be the referent either, so we have two possible assignments: grades(the professor, the functional spec) or grades(the functional spec, the professor). Since 'it' can be either animate or inanimate ("Who put the dog in the trash compactor?" "I put it there."), it grades is an acceptable phrasing (grades needs an animate ACTOR), so this syntactic coding is acceptable. Thus, the syntax parts of the brain pass a validated parse tree to the semantics parts of the brain to perform anaphora resolution. It is more likely that a professor will grade a functional spec than vice versa; in fact, the latter idea is kind of silly, so that reading is "marked". (In optimality theory terms, we might say that it falls hors du combat.) Having to determine which reading is more likely is an extra step that the 'he' case does not require.
Now to consider 'they'. Remember, we had three possible referents, all singular. 'They' is a plural pronoun. Syntactically speaking, 'they' does not fit anywhere in the tree, because there is no plural referent for it to refer to. I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what happens next, because I know very little about how the brain processes language, but my best guess is that 'they' gets downgraded to 'it' (number being the most common difference between 'they' and the possible referents) and and the same process as before occurs. (Of course, now that 'they' is becoming more common as an anaphor for 'singular gendered animate of currently unknown gender', people may be rewriting their own syntax rules.)
Anyway, in the end, this gets me thinking about computational linguistics and how to write language generators that generate correct and non-confusing syntax. In the 'he grades it' case, we created an encoding using anaphora which had only one valid reading upon decoding. In the 'it grades it' case, the encoding has two possible readings and must be further decoded by a different piece of the language mechanism. In the 'they grade it' case, there's actually no strictly valid reading at first (due to number disagreement), and other encodings have to be tried. It is thus important for a language generator to consider what the most computationally inexpensive-to-decode encoding will be, before it transmits a sentence to a listener.
Either that, or English needs a pronoun which signifies 'singular gendered animate of currently-unknown gender', and I'll let getting that into the language be your problem. Until then, the OED and I will say 'he grades it' until you tell me that your professor is a woman.
ETA: ... and of course this is interesting to me as a computer scientist, because it hints at a potentially NP-complete problem embedded in our neurological language framework: "most effective assignment of anaphora". Of course, n is not particularly large in most cases, but we are talking about encodings that have to be decoded in realtime, and as the number of referents and anaphora in a sentence increase, the number of possible encodings rises as a permutation, which gets very large very fast...


Comments
I.e., you start with the functional spec, you hand it in to the professor, who grades it, and then you do whatever the next bit of the process is?
I guess I try to do that when possible because the other options are all unappealing to me.
And thanks for introducing me to the word "anaphor".
(I wonder whether relative clauses are somehow more complicated to process? I've noticed that more simplified versions of English, e.g. children's books or the Simple English Wikipedia, don't tend to use them as much. Any ESL folks reading this and care to chime in?)
For examples see Singular "their" in Jane Austen and Elsewhere, especially the OED link from that page. ISTR that Shakespeare used it too, and maybe Chaucer as well.
It would be interesting to do a frequency count over the last several hundreds of years of written English to see how frequently "they" is used in the singular. (Even then, it might not reflect spoken usage, because written language is typically in a more formal register than spoken language; I'll argue that in the last 15 years, spoken and written usage have begun to converge much more quickly, on average, thanks to advances in mass communication.) Unfortunately, I don't know whether our tools are up to the challenge, and I rather suspect they aren't.
Of course, Fowler was a bit of a fuddy-duddy (and so were his sucessors), and Garner a bit of a young turk, but there you go.
I have, personally, used the singular they. I far prefer it to hideous ironmongery such as "he or she" or the contrived abuse of the indefinite "she".
As far as the NP-complete issue...well, people start tripping up if there's any ambiguity at all, and in some cases, even if there isn't - just too long a sentence/paragraph with too many pronouns. All of a sudden an "it" comes along and you have no clue whatsoever what they mean.
"s/he" is a little cleaner, but doesn't have a good analogue for his/her and so forth. I of course still use male singular for unknown gender, and I can't imagine a new ungendered word gaining favor.
The snarking would have been much more valid if the job in question had been something like, say, flight attendant, and you had used "she" to refer to this unknown flight attendant. "So you hit the attention light, and the flight attendant comes over, and after she turns it off, she asks you what you want?"
Yeah, I am amused by the notion of a computational mechanism which has problems for n > 3. :)
"s/he" is a little cleaner, but doesn't have a good analogue for his/her and so forth.
I'm also not sure how to pronounce it. /s?i/, perhaps? (where /?/ == glottal stop -- might be written s'e for those who read lots of fantasy books with elves in them)
I think that this is what "sie" (sometimes "zie") is for. (Which I personally consider awkward and insufficiently integrated into English, but there are people that use it. Possibly even more than can actually speak in conversational Esperanto. ;) )
The Wikipedia article below is a fascinating collection of incredibly screwy neologisms (including some historical ones) that have been created to address this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neu
In this case, my suggestion would be to eliminate the pronoun.
"...you start with the functional spec, you hand it in to the professor, the professor grades it, then you do whatever the next bit of the process is?"
Although in my own writing I would use "they".
Of course, both "he" and "they" are commonly used to refer to, as you say, "singular gendered animate of currently-unknown gender," so most people will likely find "professor" as the referent for both "he" or "they".
That's conceivable, but in many dialects of English (mine being one of them), "he" is an acceptable anaphor for "animate entity of indeterminate gender". So if I'm talking to someone whose dialect doesn't accept that assignment as legal, then yes, "he" assumes a male referent and is therefore confusing. I question how many people actually don't accept that encoding on a parsing level, as opposed to parsing it just fine but then object to it as "sexist" after the parse is complete.
Edited at 2008-01-29 10:51 pm (UTC)
If I correctly understand the proper usage, the first time that you refer to an individual, you essentially point to a (notional) location that doesn't correspond to any of the people actually involved in the conversation (to avoid ambiguity), and then thereafter when you need to refer to them, you just point to that spot again.
(I mean, how cool is it that a natural language has pointers? ;) )
It's not exactly standard usage...but I've been known to assign a variable name to an unspecified individual for similar purposes, thus:
"i.e., you start with the functional spec, you hand it in to the professor (X), X grades it, and then you do whatever the next bit of the process is?"
I'd bet that "Most effective assignment of anaphora" would be a pain in the ass of an NP-complete (well, NP-hard) problem, mostly because "most effective" is a real pain in the ass to define precisely, I expect.
In this case I'm taking it to mean "assignment of anaphora which results in ideally exactly one legitimate reading, and otherwise, the fewest possible legitimate readings where len(readings) > 1, on the receiver's end." (I also used "optimal" with the same meaning in a comment above; the entire thing plays out much like phonological Optimality Theory in my head.) I'm making some assumptions here, of course, most prominently the assumption that the sender and the receiver (speaker/hearer) have identical rules for anaphora resolution!
The ASL metasyntactic variables are awesome! IIRC, Lojban has something similar, and I think there are other human languages which employ a rough equivalent (though not as systematically as Lojban). I note that one of ASL's obvious advantages here is a visual means of indicating placement; I wonder if languages which are morphologically richer wrt place, e.g. Finnish, might have an advantage as well.
There is a little bit of ugly renumbering to do when you quote someone, but that's just grunt work. It's really the only practical approach :)
On a sidenote - the Charlie Stross book I told you to keep an eye out for, HALTING STATE, is going into its second printing. You still need to read it.