by Paula Gail Benson
Recently, I explored
the REVIEW function on Microsoft Word. I clicked on REVIEW and selected
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR, which takes you to EDITOR. The EDITOR provides several
different levels of information that can be modified depending upon what the
writer wants or, if the writer does not choose, what he or she uses.
You have basic CORRECTIONS for Spelling and Grammar. Then, a grouping called REFINEMENTS, which includes Clarity, Conciseness, Inclusiveness, Punctuation Conventions, and Vocabulary. INSIGHTS lets you check Document Stats, where you can learn about word counts and readability (my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for these two paragraphs is 11.2, but I have 20% passive voice).
I decided to click on specific functions to better understand the information they provide. For what I’ve written so far on this post, I have an Editor Score of 95% with an indication of 1 suggestion for Inclusiveness. What is that suggestion? That I change “he or she uses” at the end of the first paragraph to “they use.”
This is understandable. Rather than reflecting gender, it recommends a generic term, now being used for persons who identify as binary or non-binary.
In addition, it has historical precedent. Jennifer Gunner, in her article “Why the Singular ‘They’ Has Always Made Sense in Context,” mentions that the Oxford English Dictionary traces use of “they” as a singular rather than a plural pronoun to a 1375 romance poem, William and the Werewolf. She continues, “No one even claimed they and them were solely plural pronouns until four hundred years later—and even then, grammarians demanded that you was also only a plural pronoun (thou was the singular form).”
A writer may have to make careful choices considering historical terminology. For a short story I’m writing that takes place in the 1880s, Microsoft Word’s Editor has provided some interesting suggestions. In my story, about a young woman trying to determine what she should do in life, I mention my protagonist asking for an opinion from the headmistress of her finishing school. The headmistress tells her to consider becoming a nanny for a former classmate who is now married and expecting a child.
At this point in writing the post, my Editor Score has dipped to 91% and I have 3 suggestions under Inclusiveness. The first for “he or she.” The second and third are words I used in my short story: for “headmistress” the Editor would use “principal” and for “nanny” it offered “babysitter,” “live-in babysitter,” or “childcare worker.”
These suggestions offer gender neutral alternatives, but they are not words I would expect my 1880s protagonist to use instead of “headmistress” or “nanny.”
Until her retirement, my aunt operated a one-person United States Post Office branch. If someone called her a “Postmistress,” she would gently correct to “Postmaster.”
Am I potentially offending someone by using the terms “headmistress” and “nanny” or am I using them properly to reveal historical context? What do you recommend?
How should I ask this question if I click on the option to “Give feedback to Microsoft”?
I think for your historical setting, those words are fine. I'd probably be more thrown if you used something else, to be honest.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems like what words you use and don't use can be very tricky these days. My hat is off to writers who navigate those waters well.
Given the person in 1880 was not a principal, but a headmistress, why would you use anything else? (Says he who would not change the words chosen by long-dead authors because they are no longer inclusive or appear insensitive.)
ReplyDeleteAs to nanny -- if it's a live-in, child-caring position with no educational responsiblities, than that is the term I'd use. If I wanted to have the person suggest a more asperational position, I'd use governess.
And I used they when faced with a situation of unknown gender decades ago. That chose did not receive much support and gathered many red-line edits. However, with the usage being coopted by those choosing to be addressed as an individual inclusive of both male and female gender, I would shy away from its use to replace a singular unknown-gendered person, because now the intention is unclear. (Whereas in my original usage, the meaning was clear -- and people figured I was a math guy who had flunked grammar.)
Tearing my hair out with the new "spell check" function for WORD. I would use historically accurate terms, unless, as Jim pointed out, the nanny also provided educational instruction. There were also nursery maids who supplemented the nanny in charge.
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out many aspects of the "review" function. I wasn't familiar with many of them.
ReplyDeleteI remember, years ago, seeing a cartoon (Doonesbury?) suggesting a rephrasing of Shelley's classic poem "To the Moon:" "Oh, wow. Look at the moon."
"They" has been used as a singular for a person of unknown gender (which itself used to be expressed as "sex," not "gender," which was a grammatical term) in English writing for centuries.
Language changes and evolves. We take what is useful, and can allow ourselves to be amused by the rest.
And we can turn off some Word functions.
Writing these days isn't easy and is sometimes fraught with the possibility of offending someone--no matter how careful a writer tries to be.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. Microsoft Editor presents a number of options. If nothing else, it’s food for thought about word choices. As for your question, it’s a tough one. I would be jarred to find modern terminology in historic works. It would be the written equivalent of zippers in clothing before the 1920s!
ReplyDeleteI think modern terms would look/sound out of place in a historical story.
ReplyDeleteMark, I agree!
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm keeping a copy of your explanation. You're absolutely correct.
Margaret, great point about nursery maids. Thanks!
Kathleen, sometimes it's best not to go beyond spell check.
Grace, this is very true.
Kait, great example!
Vera, absolutely!
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
I WAS a nanny during the 60s. I've never called that job, for myself, anything else. I've never been a headmistress, so can't absolutely speak to that, but I think you should use that word.
ReplyDelete