They Vs. It: The Pronouns We Use For Animals
The use of “they” to refer to a singular person has a long history in the English language. Often, “they” is used when the gender of the person is unknown or unspecified. More recently, singular “they” has become more popular as a pronoun for people who prefer gender-neutral or non-binary terms to be used when referring to them.
Of note, “they” can also be used to speak about individual non-human animals, although the author of this article notes that using “it” is still common practice. This latter use of “they” is the subject of this paper, which looks for patterns in the use of “they” versus “it” for referring to individual animals, especially when their sex is unknown.
According to the author, the use of singular “they” has met opposition for centuries from some English grammarians. These grammarians have argued that “he” can be used as a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. Some prefer the phrase “he or she” over the singular “they.” Despite this stigma, the singular “they” has endured, especially in spoken (as opposed to written) English.
In fact, singular “they” follows a long trend of English words that started out as exclusively plural but colloquially became used as singular. For example, the words “thee,” “thy,” and “thou” have been replaced with “you,” which is now the most common second-person singular pronoun despite its origins as a second-person plural pronoun (it’s still used alongside the plural verb “are” rather than the singular verb “is”). The use of singular “they” also mirrors other progressive language reforms, such as the rise in non-gendered language for referring to occupations in the 1970s (e.g., “police officer” instead of “policeman”).
Although pronouns mark social gender categories, they can also denote an ability to feel, move, and a general sense of “aliveness.” The author calls this quality “animacy.” The English-speaking world tends to refer to individual animals with the inanimate pronoun “it,” even when the sex of the animal is known. By contrast, many North American indigenous languages use animate pronouns for not only humans, plants, and animals, but also non-biologically alive things like mountains, fire, and stories. The author expresses concern that using the inanimate “it” for animals continues to propagate human supremacy and the objectification of other species.
To find out more about when and how often the singular “they” is used in written English to refer to individual, sex-unspecified animals, the author examined a set of 60 articles (30 about companion animals, 30 about wild animals) published by the Humane Society of the United States. The author used computer software to identify 239 uses of singular “they” compared to 3 uses of “it” in the articles referring to companion animals, compared to 38 uses of singular “they” compared to 11 uses of “it” in the articles referring to wild animals.
While the statistical significance of this difference was not assessed, the author observed that “they” was much more likely to be used over “it” when referring to companion animals compared to wild animals. In fact, upon closer analysis, “pet” animals in this set of articles were always referred to as “they” rather than “it.” By contrast, individual snakes were referred to as “it” eight times and never referred to as “they” — the author argues this is possibly because humans might feel emotionally more connected to mammals than reptiles, or because snakes are viewed as dangerous and scary. Furthermore, there were no individual references made to birds or fishes in the entire set of articles, possibly because these animals are generally more likely to be talked about as a group rather than as individuals.
The author argues that our emotional connection to a given animal may mediate whether an animate pronoun (“he,” “she,” or “they”) is used versus an inanimate pronoun (“it”). In the other direction, they wonder whether using animate pronouns may encourage greater empathy towards animals, though of course changing pronouns alone would not overhaul cultural attitudes or practices which treat animals as objects of exploitation. Furthermore, recognizing humans and animals as animate agents may reinforce the idea that humans are part of, rather than separate from or superior to, the natural world.
The author notes a few limitations of their study, including that they only looked at a small subset of articles published by one animal welfare organization, which may not reflect wider society’s norms for animal pronoun choice. The author was also unable to determine the causes behind the observed pronoun choices. Although not mentioned as a limitation, it’s important to bear in mind that the author only looked at companion and wild animals; given that farmed animals are arguably the most objectified animal category in society, it would be interesting to see which pronouns are chosen for them.
Animal advocates can use this study to improve their own knowledge about the history and use of English pronouns, particularly the singular “they.” While campaigns pushing the public to use animate pronouns for animals may prompt backlash, those who are committed to a future where each animal’s agency is respected can consider changing their own pronoun choices to reflect their ideals, especially when it comes to non-companion animals. Of course, language is just one of the parts of culture where we see animals’ lives devalued and objectified. Language reform must come in tandem with reforms in the physical practices that exploit animals for food, entertainment, fashion, and more.
http://ecolinguistics-association.org/journal