Singular they

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Singular" they is a popular, non-technical expression for uses of the pronoun they (and its inflected forms) when plurality is not required by the context – for example, in the sentence "Anyone who thinks they have been affected should contact their doctor", where they and their refer to the singular anyone. The Chicago Manual of Style notes:

"On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (he in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using he/she or s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers."[1]

"Singular" they does, in fact, remain morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs). However, it is often semantically indeterminate in number. More technically, these uses can be described as generic or epicene they.


[edit] Summary

Generic they has indeterminate number:

(Their can be understood equally well as referring to each man considered one at a time, or to all of them collectively.)

Epicene they has indeterminate gender:

  • "It can't be true what the girls at the Rectory said, that her mother was an opera-dancer—"
    "A person can’t help their birth," Rosalind replied. — Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848)
(The relevant person here is Becky Sharp. Thackeray has Rosalind using their as a polite circumlocution, perhaps avoiding the directness of her, and generic his in a context involving only women.)

In neither case is "singular" they unambiguously a semantic or morpho-syntactic singular. What it actually agrees with is the plurality implicit in the indeterminacy of generic antecedents.

This is explained by David Lewis' analysis of an aspect of the logic of the semantics of natural language,[2] now called quantificational variability effect (QVE).[3] Broader research in the area is still active, under the name donkey pronouns.[4]

In this kind of analysis, "singular" they in English is typically an example of a semantically bound variable,[5] rather than a simple referential pronoun.[6] It is most clearly evident in the special case of distributive constructions,[7] where the preference many languages show for singular pronouns probably gives rise to the singular in "singular" they.[8]

Steven Pinker proposes the word they be considered to be a pair of "homonyms" — two different words with the same spelling and sound.[9]

This would be analogous to a language like Basque, which uses the word nork both as an indeterminate pronoun meaning "who" and also as a marker in distributive constructions.

Basque has two ways of expressing universal distributive quantifications: (i) lexically, through the quantifier bakoitz 'each'; (ii) configurationally, through the construction exemplified in (1).

(1) Nork/zeinek bere ama ikusi du
who-erg/which-erg his/her mother seen has
'Everyone saw his/her mother'

In (1), an indeterminate pronoun takes on a universal distributive value. Such a value is not a lexical property of the relevant indeterminate pronouns.[10]

Basque is far from the only example of this. Kuroda considers it typical of East Asian languages, Japanese and Korean in particular.[11] Yet other languages have even more particular ways of expressing distribution and quantification. Sumerian, structurally similar to Basque, uses a nominal suffix, dedli, to indicate "each individual".[12]

[edit] Technical terms

[edit] Distribution

Distributive constructions are those which apply a single idea to all entities of a group, hence involving both singular and plural ideas. They are typically marked in English by words like each and every. The simplest examples are applied to groups of two, and use words like either and or. Thorough analysis of distribution requires treatment of negation.[13] Hence, the Shakespeare quote above is semantically distributive, because there's not a man is logically equivalent to every man does not. Since distributive constructions apply an idea relevant to each individual in the group, rather than to the group as a whole, they are most often conceived of as singular, and singular pronouns are used.

John Ray, A Collection of English Proverbs, 1670
originally from Plutarch, Moralia, c. 95 AD, regarding the death of Euripides

However, English is typical of many languages that show ambivalence in this regard. Because distribution also requires a group with more than one member, plural forms are sometimes used. The Shakespeare quote is probably an example of such a usage. The alternative would be that he intended epicene they in agreement with generic man, including women.

Many clear examples of the plural being used in other languages, and coming into English by translation, are found in the King James Version of the Bible, which attempted very literal translation. The fact that singular forms are, nonetheless, more natural in distributive constructions is inadvertently demonstrated by a website that, not having researched the original languages, unadvisedly assumed a singular interpretation of they in translations of plurals in the original.[14]

English is typical of many languages because it forms distributives with pronouns and marks for singular and plural. These languages demonstrate a preference for singular pronouns but attest plurals in a substantial minority of cases. Both forms being comprehensible to native speakers, usage depends on context, clarity, style and logic (for logic, see below).

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style notes both uses.

A common inaccuracy is the use of the plural pronoun when the antecedent is a distributive expression such as each, each one, everybody, every one, many a man, which, though implying more than one person, requires the pronoun to be in the singular. Similar to this, but with even less justification, is the use of the plural pronoun with the antecedent anybody, any one, somebody, some one, the intention being either to avoid the awkward he or she, or to avoid committing oneself to either. Some bashful speakers even say, A friend of mine told me that they ..."[15]

This is a semantic assessment (note the words "inaccuracy", "implying", "requires", "justification" and "intention"),[15] rather than a syntactic linguistic prescription (as some have, rather loosely, claimed).[14] Prescriptions of taste are not true or false, so they can't be proved right or wrong;[16] however, claims regarding accuracy can be demonstrated to be true or false.[17] Strunk and White have been proven wrong on this point by logical analysis of quantification in natural language (like Pinker following Lewis and others above) — distributive expressions are neither exclusively singular or plural, they are indeterminate in number.[9]

[edit] Quantification

The simplest examples of quantification are existential and universal statements, which are marked in English by phrases like there is or words like all. However, there are different types of quantification marked by other words like many, more and most. Quantification is also apparent in language referring to time, marked by words like always, often, sometimes, once or never. Apart from the quantifiers which refer to a unique singularity, like there is and once, they necessarily imply a distributive concept. Even in the case of there is and once, logical analysis views many of these as distributive statements equivalent to, out of all cases there is at least one. Hence literature seeking to explain quantification in natural language often refers to distributive constructions, and vice versa.

[edit] Variables

The term variable arises due to the interest mathematicians, logicians, philosophers of language, theoretical linguists and computer language designers have in formal language representations of natural language.[18] In their metalanguage, quantifiers are applied over the "domain" (or "restriction") of a variable. Where natural language speakers use words or clitics to signal generalizations, language analysts define what they call variables that range over any element of the set of members of a group — the domain. Consider the examples of

The symbol, b, is used to represent a variable that can refer to any boy (the elements of the set of all boys, B). The upside-down A is a standard symbol for the universal quantifier — for all, for each or for every in natural language. In predicate logic, the truth-value of the proposition expressed above in a formal language does not depend on the particular value of the variable, b. This matches our natural language understanding. Whether or not every good boy deserves fruit doesn't depend on any particular boy. Because the truth-value of the proposition doesn't depend on the value of the variable, the variable is called bound. If, however, there is no quantifier, the variable is called free, and the truth value of the proposition depends on the value of the variable. This also matches natural language. Whether Adam is bad or deserves fruit depends on Adam.

To be is to be the value of a bound variable.

Quine, 'On What There Is', 1948[19]

The concept of free and bound variables arose in logic well before Quine discussed its relevance to the English language. Although the distinction may seem technical to native speakers of many languages, it is quite the reverse among the 250 or so autochthonous Australian languages. RMW Dixon describes how, historically, Australian languages show evidence of nouns inflecting on ergative, and bound pronouns on accusative patterns.[20] Only later did free pronouns enter common usage, and then only sparingly, for emphasis. Gradually, the free pronouns shifted from accusative inflection to ergative, since they have come to be perceived by speakers as a special kind of proper name. Dixon offers the Warlpiri language as a representative example.[21]

Pinker argues that usage of "singular" they in English cannot be condemned on grammatical grounds, because it is probably better understood as a linguistic marker of a bound variable rather than as a pronoun with a referent. "On logical grounds, then, variables are not the same thing as the more familiar 'referential' pronouns that trigger number agreement."[9] He gives the following example.

Everyone returned to their seats means 'For all X, X returned to X's seat.' The 'X' does not refer to any particular person or group of people. ... The their there ... refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all.

Everyone and they are not an 'antecedent' and a 'pronoun' .... They are a 'quantifier' and a 'bound variable,' a different logical relationship.[9]

Pinker's example demonstrates the acceptability of plural forms in distributive constructions:

  • plural theyEveryone returned to their seats.

However, additional issues are raised by the attested usage of the logically equivalent alternative constructions of this distributive expression, using:

  • generic theyEveryone returned to their seat, or
  • generic heEveryone returned to his seat.

[edit] Usage

[edit] Generic he

Until the late twentieth century, generic use of the pronoun he was preferred (but not required) in such constructions, as described in contemporary grammar books. For example, a grammar contemporary with the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary notes:

410. ... when the antecedent includes both masculine and feminine, or is a distributive word, taking in each of many persons,—the preferred method is to put the pronoun following in the masculine singular; if the antecedent is neuter, preceded by a distributive, the pronoun will be neuter singular.[22]

[edit] Examples of generic he

  • Every person who turns this page has his own little diary. — Thackeray
  • Suppose the life and fortune of every one of us would depend on his winning or losing a game of chess. — Thomas Huxley, 'A Liberal Education' (1868)
  • If any one did not know it, it was his own fault. — George Washington Cable, Old Creole Days (1879)
  • Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. — Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
  • It wouldn’t be as if the lone astronaut would be completely by himself. — Nancy Atkinson, 'A One Way One Person Mission to Mars' (4 March 2008)

Generic he is still current English usage, though the gender neutral language movement discourages this use.

[edit] Generic they

Generic he has been a preference in usage, not a binding grammatical "rule", as Thackeray's use of both forms demonstrates. "The alternative to the masculine generic with the longest and most distinguished history in English is the third-person plural pronoun. Recognized writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each since the 1300s."[23]

[edit] Examples of generic they

  • Eche of theym sholde ... make theymselfe redy. — Caxton, Sonnes of Aymon (c. 1489)[24]
  • Arise; one knocks. / ... / Hark, how they knock! — Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
  • 'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet
  • I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly. — Austen, Mansfield Park (1814)
  • That's always your way, Maim—always sailing in to help somebody before they're hurt. — Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)
  • Caesar: "No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed." / Cleopatra: "But they do get killed". — Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)

Of the example from Shaw, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (1989) states: "It would be a violation of English idiom to use a singular pronoun in [that] sentence (But he does get killed) on the assumption that because no man is singular in form and governs a singular verb, it must take a singular pronoun in reference. Notional agreement is in control, and its dictates must be followed."[25] In other words, no man is syntactically singular, demonstrated by taking the singular form goes; however, it is semantically plural (~all go [to kill] not to be killed), hence idiomatically requiring generic or plural (not singular) they.

A majority of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language usage panel "of some 200 distinguished educators, writers, and public speakers"[26] "reject the use of they with singular antecedents" inasmuch as 82 percent of the panelists found the sentence "The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work" to be unacceptable.[27]

Study has also shown that reading time of they increases significantly when used with a gender-determinate antecedent, suggesting that such use can confuse.[28]

Both generic he and generic they have long histories of use, and both are still used. However, both are also systematically avoided by particular groups. Style guides that avoid expressing a preference for either approach recommend recasting generic expressions as plurals to avoid the criticisms of either party.

Irrespective of the debate, when used, "singular" they can be seen to have an implication of indefinite reference (indefinite number or indefinite gender). It is most commonly used with indefinite referents of a distributive nature such as someone, anyone, everyone, and no one. Such references are not to one particular person but to a large group taken one at a time, causing influence from the implied plural.

[edit] Grammatical analysis

According to the traditional analysis,[29] English personal pronouns are typically used to refer back, or forward within a sentence, to a noun phrase (which may be a simple noun).

Inflected forms
Nominative (subject) Accusative (object) Prenominal possessive Predicative possessive Reflexive
He He laughs. I hug him. His hair grows. I use his. He feeds himself.
She She laughs. I hug her. Her hair grows. I use hers. She feeds herself.
Prototypical they When my kids watch "The Simpsons", they laugh. Whether they win or lose, I hug them. As long as people live, their hair grows. Most of my friends have cell phones, so I use theirs. The children feed themselves.
"Singular" they When I tell someone a joke they laugh. When I greet a friend I hug them. When someone does not get a haircut, their hair grows long. If my cell phone dies, a friend I am with lets me borrow theirs. Each child feeds themself.
Generic he When I tell someone a joke he laughs. When I greet a friend I hug him. When someone does not get a haircut, his hair grows long. If my cell phone dies, a friend I am with lets me borrow his. Each child feeds himself.


  • All good students do their homework.

Generic (indeterminate number)

  • A good student is known for doing his homework OR
  • A good student is known for doing their homework (widely prescribed in gender-neutral style guides)


  • Mary is known for doing her homework

In the middle two of these example sentences, traditional grammars speak of the pronoun referring to a good student. However, following analysis by Quine,[5] writers like Lewis (above) understand structures involving generic antecedents to be a logically distinct class. Pinker notes the pronouns are not in fact referring to anything in particular. Geoffrey Pullum uses the logical, rather than grammatical, term bound variable to describe such expressions.

Irrespective of how such cases are explained grammatically, however, both are well-formed English sentences. Both are attested in English literature prior to the 20th century, and both are still attested in 21st century English.[30][31]

"Singular" they, although morphologically a plural pronoun, is often used in those circumstances when an indefinite number is signified by an indefinite singular antecedent; for example,

  • The person you mentioned, are they coming?, not *… is they coming?

This is analogous to the pronoun you, which originally was only plural, but by about 1700 replaced thou for singular referents,[32] while retaining the plural verb form. Some uses of "singular" they follow a grammatical rule whereby singular indefinite antecedents (such as everyone, anyone, no one, and all) are followed by a coordinate or independent clause containing the plural pronoun 'they'. The plural reflexive form themselves is used as well; with some speakers using the singular form themself, in particular with semantically singular they.

Even when the gender is known, they is sometimes found with a generic referent. For example: "A teenage boy rarely thinks about their future."[33] A teenage boy rarely thinks about his future is more likely in formal writing.

Many other modern uses follow the prescription of gender-neutral English in the style manuals of various organizations. As the syntactically singular third-person pronouns of English are all either gender-specific (he and she) or inappropriate for reference to people (it), "singular" they is also often used where the sex of the referent is either unknown or irrelevant:

  • A child becomes an adult when they turn 18.
  • Someone called for you, but they did not leave a message.

[edit] Gender-neutral language movement

In the late 20th century, the feminist movement expressed concern regarding the use of generic he in the English language. The feminist claim was that such usage contributes to an assumption that maleness is "standard," and that femaleness is "different". They also claimed that such use is misogynistic. One response to this was an increase in the use of generic she in academic journal articles from around this time. However, the more common response has been prescriptive, with many institutions publishing gender neutral style guides, notably in government, academia and publishing.[34] For example, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) expresses several preferences. "Generic/universal their provides a gender-free pronoun, avoiding the exclusive his and the clumsy his/her."

It avoids gratuitous sexism and gives the statement broadest reference. … They, them, their are now freely used in agreement with singular indefinite pronouns and determiners, those with universal implications such as any(one), every(one), no(one), as well as each and some(one), whose reference is often more individual. … For those listening or reading, it has become unremarkable - an element of common usage.[35]

The use of masculine generic nouns and pronouns in written and spoken language has decreased since the 1960s.[36] In a corpus of spontaneous speech collected in Australia in the 1990s, "singular" they had become the most frequently used generic pronoun.[37] The increased usage of "singular" they may be at least partly due to an increasing desire for gender-neutral language; while writers a hundred years ago might have had no qualm using he with a referent of indeterminate gender, writers today often feel uncomfortable with this. One solution in formal writing has often been to write he or she, or something similar, but this is considered awkward when used excessively, overly politically correct,[38] or both.

In certain contexts, singular they may sound less obtrusive and more natural than generic he, or he or she. One guide offered the following example:

Nobody in their right mind would do a thing like that.[39]

Some grammar and usage guides have accepted singular uses of they, in cases limited to references to an indeterminate person.[40] For example, A person might find themself in a fix is considered standard English, but not *Dr. Brown might find themself in a fix. For the latter, the most usual circumlocutions are: recasting the sentence in the plural (Doctors might find themselves …), second person (If you're a doctor, you might find yourself …), or sometimes reflexive (One might find oneself …). Singular they is occasionally used to refer to an indeterminate person whose gender is known, as in No mother should be forced to testify against their child.

Some grammarians (e.g., Fowler 1992, pp. 300–301) continue to view singular they as grammatically inconsistent, and recommend either recasting in the plural or avoiding the pronoun altogether. Others say that there is no sufficient reason not to extend singular they to include specific people of unknown gender, as well as to transgender, bigender, intersexual and androgyne people, and those who do not identify exclusively with either gender.[41]

Some manuals of style remain neutral on the subject. The Chicago Manual of Style states: "On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun ('he' in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using 'he/she' or 's/he.' for example) or to use 'they' as a kind of singular pronoun." (233) Those objecting to the generic masculine pronoun are described as "reasonable readers" while those objecting to the singular they remain unmodified by any such adjective. However, 'he/she' and "singular" they are described as nontraditional gimmicks. This stops short of an endorsement of any particular course of action.

Other style manuals explicitly reject the use of the singular they in grammar. According to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Society, a pronoun must agree in both gender and number with the noun it replaces. The APA manual offers the following example as incorrect usage:

Neither the highest scorer nor the lowest scorer in the group had any doubt about their competence.[42]

The APA recommends using "he or she," using "they" with a plural subject, or simply rewriting the sentence to avoid issues with gender or number.

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) also maintains that pronouns must agree in number, and that the singular they is incorrect usage.[43]

Current debate relates to not only grammar but also to wider questions of political correctness and equal rights, and in particular, the extent to which language influences thought.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Chicago Manual of Style, p. 233.
  2. ^ Lewis notes that adverbs of quantification operate beyond moments to periods, cases and variables generally, sometimes unrestricted, other times restricted by conditionals; and he demonstrates how, often, both adverbs and conditionals may not be explicitly present in natural language, but may be reconstituted in "canonical form", with isomorphic truth-functionality, hence (logically) identical interpretation. David Lewis, 'Adverbs of Quantification', in EL Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 3-15. Reprinted as chapter 7 in Paul Portner and Barbara H. Partee (eds), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, (Blackwell, 2002).
  3. ^ Berman is usually cited, see the following.
    • The Semantics of Open Sentences. PhD thesis. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1991.
    • 'An Analysis of Quantifier Variability in Indirect Questions'. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. Edited by Phil Branigan and others. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989. Pages 1–16.
    • 'Situation-Based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification'. In J. Blevins and Anne Vainikka (eds). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12. Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1987.
  4. ^ These are special because they are "bound" in semantics but not syntax. The name is taken from examples in Peter Thomas Geach, Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962).
  5. ^ a b Willard Van Orman Quine, 'Variables Explained Away', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104 (1960): 343-347.
  6. ^ Or "pronoun of laziness". Geach, work cited.
  7. ^ Since these make the quantification explicit.
  8. ^ For, specifically, donkey anaphora analogues in languages other than English, see publications by Adrian Brasoveanu.
  9. ^ a b c d Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct, 1994. Quoted online.
  10. ^ Ricardo Etxepare, 'Indeterminate pronouns and universal quantification in Basque', (University of California, Los Angeles, Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 15, unpublished paper, 2005).
  11. ^ S.-Y. Kuroda, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969).
  12. ^ Dietz Otto Edzard, Hand buch der Orientalistik, (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
  13. ^ MA Just and PA Carpenter, 'Comprehension of Negation with Quantification', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10 (1971): 244–253.
  14. ^ a b "Singular they": God said it, I believe it, that settles it, Language Log 13 September, 2006.
  15. ^ a b Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, revised 1959, reprinted 1999.
  16. ^ "They may or may not conform to standards of usage or taste. But they are not true or false." Howard K. Wettstein, The Magic Prism: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
  17. ^ For accuracy implying true or false, see Accuracy and precision for a common example of usage.
  18. ^ Notably Bertrand Arthur William Russell and Richard Merett Montague.
  19. ^ Willard Van Orman Quine, 'On What There Is', Review of Metaphysics 2 (1948): 21–28.
  20. ^ RMW Dixson, The Rise and Fall of Languages, (Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 57.
  21. ^ See RMW Dixon (1994): 96–97.
  22. ^ W. M. Baskervill and J. W. Sewell, An English Grammar, 1896.
  23. ^ 'They with Singular Antecedent', American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, 1996.
  24. ^ Caxton, William (1884), Richardson, Octavia, ed., The right plesaunt and goodly historie of the foure sonnes of Aymon, Early English Text Society, pp. 38f, 
  25. ^ The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (1989), p. 903.
  26. ^ Usage Panel
  27. ^ 'They' The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).
  28. ^ J. Foertsch and MA Gernsbacher, 'In Search of Gender Neutrality: Is Singular They a Cognitively Efficient Substitute for Generic He?', Psychological Science 8 (1997): 106–111.
  29. ^ One that still has many adherents among linguists; for example Huddleston and Pullum, Student's Introduction. (2005)
  30. ^ Huddleston and Pullum, Student's Introduction, p.105.
  31. ^ "For those listening or reading, it has become unremarkable - an element of common usage." (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 538)
  32. ^ Guide to English Usage (2004) p.539
  33. ^ Michael Newman (1997) Epicene pronouns: The linguistics of a prescriptive problem; Newman (1997) "What can pronouns tell us? A case study of English epicenes", Studies in language 22:2, 353-389.
  34. ^ Some examples: Federation Press Style Guide for use in preparation of book manuscripts (PDF file); Australian Guide to Legal Citation
  35. ^ Cambr. Guide to Eng. Usage (2004), p. 538
  36. ^ Pauwels 2003, p. 563.
  37. ^ Pauwels, p. 564)
  38. ^ Lou Ann Matossian, Burglars, Babysitters, and Persons: A Sociolinguistic Study of Generic Pronoun Usage in Philadelphia and Minneapolis (University of Pennsylvania, 1997), accessed 10 June 2006.
  39. ^ Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; ISBN 0-521-84837-7), pp. 103–105.
  40. ^ American Heritage Dictionary, (1992); and Chicago Manual of Style, (1993); cited in Laura Madson and Robert Hessling, "Readers' Perceptions of Four Alternatives to Masculine Generic Pronouns", Journal of Social Psychology 141.1 (February 2001): 156–158. See also Baranowski 2002.
  41. ^ Amy Warenda, "They", Writing across the Curriculum 4 (April 1993): 89–97 (PDF file; URL accessed September 17, 2006); Juliane Schwarz, "Non-sexist language at the beginning of the 21st century: A feminist topic in a post-feminist era", research colloquium handout, 2003 (PDF file; URL accessed June 10, 2005); see also Baranowski 2002.
  42. ^ Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th Ed.). (2001). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. p. 47.
  43. ^ The OWL at Purdue Retrieved September 17, 2008.

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

Personal tools