ABOUT-WORDS-L Archives

Archiver > ABOUT-WORDS > 2002-08 > 1030596914


From: hens <>
Subject: Biased language
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:55:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b9933e7e3cd5@[205.240.180.165]>


Actually, I was told just the other day by a friend, who used to be a
recruiter, that I can write much more exalting prose about myself in
the third person rather than the first, without it coming across as
self-aggrandizing. Which struck me as kind of funny, since I was under
the impression that nothing displays your megalomania as much as
referring to yourself in the third person (aside from using the first
person plural, of course ^_^)

I'm still not sure what I prefer in this matter. Modesty is a virtue, I
know, but a resume is about selling yourself, isn't it?


As for gender-biased language, I myself am particularly offended by the
use of that awful contraption "s/he", when a simple "he or she" ("she
or he"? now I'm getting confused :/ ) would have sufficed. Besides, in
such cases, isn't it even more elegant to use the gender-neutral "they"
instead?




On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 12:26 AM, cristobal wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 01:42 PM, cristobal wrote:
>>
>>> One of the cardinal rules of communication largely ignored (or lost?)
>>> to
>>> modern style is avoidance of the first person pronouns. When
>>> sentences
>>> are
>>> recast to affect a higher tone, many other faults seem to correct
>>> themselves in due course.
>>
>> Uhh... What do you mean by that?
>>
>
> Wasn't everyone taught not to use first person in speech and writing
> (for
> the reason of its being crass and entirely repulsive, of course).
>
> Yet using "I" (and "you") takes the natural or common form, like
> impromptu
> speech, which has its own cadence and the charm and strength of
> spontaneity. However, to be fit for "official" communication (say, in
> diplomacy, print or corporate com), the colorful common language of
> ideas
> and intentions must be recast, using smoother, more formal and much
> more
> highly nuanced language. Such a style has its own rhythms and cadences
> (in
> covering all the asses, er, bases, often committing to nothing while
> offering reassurance at all levels, saying more through omission than
> commission, and so on).
>
> Writing in the latter form actually almost "precludes" many linguistic
> klinkers and klunkers (and doubtless creates opportunities for many
> others). But come to think of it, one would probably never even arrive
> at
> the point of wondering how to apply rules of hypenation to the case of
> a
> hastily made-up word when for the price of a mere syllable it would
> have
> made sense to have said, "sent it again" and moved on (with apologies
> to
> whomever it was who worried about this issue in the first place ; )
>
> I find it kind of interesting to discover that certain issues don't
> even
> come up, depending on which mode we're operating in.
>
> Guess this was entirely tangential to the point of the original
> subject.
>
> This discussion does shed some light on a recent corporate
> communications
> boondoggle I became aware of wherein all the template letters
> pertaining to
> hundreds of different types of transactions are being rewritten to
> expunge
> gender biased language. The group have spent an inordinate amount of
> effort
> in turning such gemlike phrases as "funds he or she desposits may not
> be
> credited to their account until . . ." when just a teensy bit of
> intelligence and style would have dictated "funds deposited will not be
> credited until. . . " This is a true fact. Sad, but true.
>
> Oh where oh where has my blue pencil gone
> I feel certain this would not be happening in Canada.

This thread: