The currently-slang term “yo” has many uses in slang English. It is used by itself as an attention-getter: “Yo!” It is used as part of a greeting, as a sort of undefined pet name: “Sup, yo?” It is used as a shortened form of the word “your,” such as: “Yo mama!” I’ve even heard it in “fro-yo,” slang for “frozen yogurt.”
I recently learned about a discovery made almost two years ago by Dr. Elaine Stotko, who works in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University, and her student, Margaret Troyer (main article here). In a master’s class taught by Stotko, they discovered that many Baltimore area middle- and high-school English teachers had noticed students using “yo” as a gender neutral singular pronoun (GNSP). They verified that the students were using “yo” as a subject (“Yo wearin’ a new coat”) and object pronoun (“I saw yo at school”). Stotko and Troyer also reported that students were using the word “yo” as a GNSP even when they knew, for example, that the person mentioned was a boy. The article by Grammar Girl is quite interesting and I encourage you to read it.
Now, while “yo” sounds like a slang word, I still really like it as a potential GNSP. I’ve heard of other GNSPs before, such as “ze,” “zim,” “hir,” “hym,” and “mer,” and more can be found here. But when I look at those pronouns I just listed, I can’t help but think that they don’t look and/or sound like the usual words we use in English. Some of them work in written word, but get confusing when spoken. Could you hear the difference between “hir” from “her”? If I said “ze,” might you think I said “she” and simply didn’t enunciate properly?
Differing from the norm isn’t a disqualifying trait by any means. But with language, isn’t it easier to learn a new word if it looks similar to one you already know? “Yo” is just one letter away from “you.” I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have a pronoun that looks like other pronouns commonly used. “Yo” has a completely distinct sound from all other common personal pronouns, yet wouldn’t stick out in a list or chart. This led me to muse, what would the possessive form be? “Yo’s”? I’d pronounce it “yOHs,” to rhyme with “rose.” It’s a little awkward, but I think with practice, it’d become just as natural as “hers” or “theirs.” (I think “theirs” is a little hard to say, anyway) And as strange as it sounds (both in theory and when I’ve used “yo” in speech), I like the idea of having the same word for the subject and object pronoun forms. It’s simpler, and since we aren’t too familiar (in English speaking culture) with using a personal GNSP, introducing one new word should be easier than introducing two.
I think we’re ready for a personal GNSP. I’m tired of hearing “one,” “they,” or “he” used improperly. I’m tired of implying gender when gender isn’t known or even relevant to a statement. Can we remain personal while being gender neutral? I hope we can. So, what about “yo”? Do you like it? Do you like something else better? Do you use other GNSPs in common speech?





Pingback: Tweets that mention Can I get a gender neutral singular pronoun? | Eden Cafe -- Topsy.com
Toygirl
This is really interesting. As a linguist who studies the development of languages over time, I agree that it would be nice to have a gender neutral 3sg pronoun. What that pronoun ends up being is, unfortunately, not up to you and me. It all depends on what kids acquiring English right now are positing as 3sg pronouns. And they seem to be going with “they”: that is, neutralizing the singular/plural distinction in the 3rd person. To the limited extent that I can make predictions, I’d say “they” will end up as the 3sg gender neutral pronoun. It’s actually much more common cross-linguistically to have a gender- and number- neutral pronoun than to have 2nd and 3rd person pronouns that sound as similar as “you” and “yo”.
.-= Toygirl´s last blog ..Pleasurists #54 =-.
Sammi
Interesting article!
.-= Sammi´s last blog ..Spread Some Holiday Vibrations and Cuteness With Santa Duckie! =-.
Sexorcism
Yeah, it’s kind of difficult to find a GNSP that seems natural and inoffensive. I do like “yo” a lot. It’s informal and I’m so old that it seems to connote “the hood” or what was once called “the ghetto”. It’s redolent with bacon grease, fried chicken, hoodies, graffiti and Afro combs. It slouches along in huge pants turned backward, unlaced hi tops and a tshirt. I love it. I’m just not quite sure that it describes me in particular.
.-= Sexorcism´s last blog ..Santa Duckie =-.
Lorelei
Interesting! I volunteer at a queer resource center and I remember on our training day we had to go around and say what pronoun we wanted to be refereed to as. It was something I’d never seen done before but made so much sense.
.-= Lorelei´s last blog ..enjoying your sexuality =-.
Andrew
I would highly doubt that ‘yo’ would catch on for a few reasons. First, English already has a singular gender neutral pronoun–they/them/their/theirs/themself. Sure, there’s a prescriptive rule against it, but that applies much more to writing than to speech. (And most people who say that we shouldn’t use gender neutral they probably use it in speech anyway.) Consequently, there is no reason to add a gender neutral pronoun to the language if it already has one.
Secondly, the similarity between “yo” and “you” is a huge problem. High frequency words (and pronouns are some of the highest frequency words) tend to reduce–that’s why we say things like “I saw ‘er’” I met ‘im” etc.) The words “you” and “yo” both have high back vowels to begin with. Moreover, the vowel in “you” frequently reduces to a schwa (“What are ya doin’?”) Similar things happen with the vowels of other pronouns (especially in object position.) This would make distinguishing between “you” and “yo” very difficult.
Rockin' With a Cock in
That’s quite an analysis!
I’m not sure how subject-verb agreement applies more to writing than to speech, perhaps because speech can’t be edited and rewritten?
I’m also not sure how “yo” reducing would be a problem. If you’re using the word “you” or some form of it, you’re talking to someone directly, and hopefully that person is aware of that. If you’re using “yo,” referring to someone else, I’d hope nonverbals (gestures, perhaps) or some other situational context would let the person with whom you’re talking know that you’re referring to someone else. Plus, provided subject-verb agreement decided to stick around, we’d use “are/were” with “you” (as we do now) and “is/was” with “yo,” which would help with discerning between the two, if indeed the context of the statement was ambiguous and you/yo had been reduced in speech.
Thanks for reading and for your thoughts on the matter.
.-= Rockin’ With a Cock in´s last blog ..On animal instincts and sexuality =-.
Andrew
I hadn’t thought about the issue of subject verb agreement with respect to ‘yo’ but I think it’s very limited in how much disambiguation it can do. In fact, it wouldn’t help in either of the examples that you give in your post. Subject-verb agreement is very limited in modern English (and inflectional morphology in general.) There’s no subject-verb agreement in the past tense or when a modal is used (e.g. will, can, could, should, would, must, and a few others. We say “Mary will go to school tomorrow” not “Mary will goes to school tomorrow.”) Moreover, subject-verb agreement wouldn’t help in disambiguating when the word is the object of a verb or the object of a pronoun. (My suspicion is that reduced forms are even more common in these positions.)
I think that some degree of disambiguation could be provided by pointing and whatnot, but most of the time there is no pointing involved in figuring out who some pronoun is referring to. There are probably also plenty of times when what someone says could plausibly be referring the listener, but could also be referring to some person recently talked about. My suspicion is that ‘yo’ won’t catch on. I’ll just stick to gender neutral they. As it turns out, Shakespeare and the King James Bible both used singular they, so it’s been used in English for quite some time.