C. Address Forms & Pronoun Choice

C.1 Introduction: Why are pronouns such a big deal these days?

In 2016, a big controversy erupted at the University of Michigan. In order to foster an environment of inclusiveness, administrators at the university gave all the students the right to choose a personal pronoun of their choice and have it reflected in the class roster. All University members would need to address students using their chosen pronouns (Fitzgerald, 2016).

While many students and faculty rejoiced at the progressive step this policy would take which was in sync with their principles of gender social justice, several others felt that this was both absurd as well as a form of repression on their freedom of speech. The controversy started when one student, Grant Strobl, listed his pronouns as “His Majesty” on the university portal and asked all teachers and students to refer to him with it in order to call out what he believed to be the absurdity of this policy.

Since then, numerous such conflicts have emerged on campuses across North America with both pro and against sides making charged arguments in favor of or against people designating their own pronouns.

C.2 Pronouns and address forms

A pronoun is a specific type of word that represents and replaces a noun or noun phrase, and there are a limited number of them. If we didn’t have pronouns, we’d have to repeat names and nouns every time we spoke and wrote. Instead of having to say something like:

Vaccines? That woman is a doctor so that man should ask that woman about vaccines

we can say

Vaccines? She is a doctor and so he can ask her about them.

There are different types of pronouns: personal pronouns like ‘you’ and ‘us’, demonstrative pronouns like ‘this’ and ‘that’, and reflexive pronouns like ‘myself’ and ‘themselves’. Pronouns can be marked for number (singular or plural), person (first, second, third), case (subject or object), and gender (male, female, neuter, neutral), but not all pronouns are marked for the same features.

First person (1P) personal pronouns like ‘I, me, mine, we, us, ours’ refer to the speaker(s) or writer(s), while the second person (2P) pronouns ‘you, yours’ refer to the addressee – that is, who the speaker or writer is addressing. Third person (3P) pronouns, ‘it, its, she, her, hers, he, him, his, they, them, theirs’, are used to refer to a thing, concept, or person that has been previously mentioned but that is not being addressed directly. Personal pronouns include the possessive pronouns ‘mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs‘, but technically the words ‘my, your, his, her, its, our, their‘ are determiners, not pronouns, because they modify/precede a noun and cannot stand alone.

Address forms are names or titles we use when we address or refer to other people – they are similar to nicknames, but they can be used universally and are socially recognized. In English we traditionally use address forms like ‘mister, sir, madam, ma’am, miss’ as honorifics or respect forms to show respect towards, or the independence of, the addressee or referent – honorifics can usually be used by themselves, e.g. ‘Sir’, or they can precede a name, e.g. ‘Mister Jones’. Address forms can also be neutral, as in the use of given (first) names in the US, and they can also show disrespect, as in name-calling, slurs, and abusive profanity. They can also be intimate, like ‘bro’, ‘honey’, or ‘dear’. Intimate forms are used to show solidarity and make an appeal towards friendship, involvement or rapport. By the way, if you are US American, you should know that it sounds odd in many cultures to use ‘pumpkin’ as an intimate form of address. Maybe pumpkins are considered endearing in the US because of Hallowe’en.

Because pronouns are used to refer to other people, when we use them we imply a relationship between us (the speaker or writer) and whomever is being addressed or referred to. Historically, English had two 2P forms: ‘thou’ and ‘you’. ‘Thou’ was used as the familiar pronoun for one person, while ‘you’ was the formal pronoun for one or more people, but between the 1600s and 1800s, people stopped using ‘thou’, and ‘you’ took over. Interestingly, in standard English we still say ‘you are’ and not ‘you is’, even though we use it to refer to a single person. In Spanish the familiar form of ‘you’ is ‘tu’ and the respect form is ‘Usted’; many other languages have two 2P pronouns that are distinguished according to their social use.

Like address forms, pronouns not only imply relationships, but also identities. If I use ‘he’ to refer to someone, it means I ascribe their identity as male. In other languages, even the use of 1P and 2P pronouns can imply the speaker or listener’s gender identity, for example, in Japanese, there are different pronouns for ‘I’, one traditionally used to assert a male identity (‘boku’) and another used to assert a female identity (‘atashi’).

C.3 How has the use of pronouns changed over time, and why?

The use of address forms has changed over time; most agree that accepted usage has become less socially rigid over time, and more formal forms are being dropped by younger generations. While address forms shift generation by generation, it is more difficult to change the use of pronouns over time, however, because pronouns are a closed class. We can’t easily add new words to closed classes since they serve grammatical purposes, standing in for full noun phrases and providing discourse coherence by connecting referents. Still, the meanings and uses of existing pronouns in English have shifted over time, sometimes through conscious effort.

For example, in the 1650’s during the English Civil War the Quakers were considered radical because they wanted to create an egalitarian society that challenged the hierarchies and formalities established by English royalty and aristocracy. At that time, English society was rigidly divided into classes and elaborate systems of address forms maintained these hierarchical divisions. While we now use “you” as a common 2P pronoun for everyone, irrespective of the person’s social status, in those times “you” was reserved exclusively to address people of high social status, while “thou” and “thee” were used to address an equal or someone with lower social status (“ye” was plural). If a poor man spoke to a wealthy man, he was supposed to use the formal 2P pronoun “you” to address him, while the rich man would use the familiar 2P pronoun “thou” to address the poor man.

The Quakers wanted to change this system because it violated their beliefs (Bejan, 2019). George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, said that God “forbade me to put off my hat to any, high or low; and I was required to thee and thou all men and women, without any respect to rich or poor, great or small” (Bejan, 2019). According to their beliefs, no human was between an individual and God – not the Pope and not the King of England. As captured in the King James Bible, it was considered normal to refer to God with the familiar ‘thou’ rather than the respectul ‘you’, because ‘you’ implied that God was distant, not familiar, as the Quakers believed. Thus, as a form of political protest and religious expression, the Quakers used ‘thou’ even to the aristocracy! Facing a lot of ridicule and persecution for using language in different ways, some sought refuge in the American Colonies, especially Pennsylvania, which was founded by Quaker William Penn.

Another example of how pronoun use changes over time is the gradual loss of the ‘royal we’ or ‘majestic pronouns’. If you’ve seen movies about the English royalty, you might be familiar with how people of royal descent refer to themselves using plural pronouns like “we”. For example, in 1902, Edward VII of England proclaimed in a treaty: “Now, We, Edward, by the grace of God, […] have arrived at the following decisions upon the questions in dispute” (source: Wikipedia). The ‘royal we’ is no longer used in everyday situations, except perhaps by celebrities and aspiring socialites who want to be considered majestic.

C.4 Generic & specific ‘you’

The merging of familiar ‘thou’ and formal ‘you’ into just ‘you’ has given the pronoun broad powers. It can be used to address a person respectfully, e.g. “Mr. President, did you sign the bill?”, it can be used to address a person intimately, e.g. “I love you”, and it can be used to address more than one person together (although some varieties of English use ‘y’all’, ‘you guys’, or ‘youse’ for plural you). Many other languages have two or more different forms for those three purposes, for example Spanish has ‘tu’, ‘Usted’, and ‘Ustedes’. Another powerful use of ‘you’ in English is called the ‘generic you’, the use of ‘you’ to address anyone listening or reading without being specific, meaning ‘one’, ‘everyone’, or ‘anyone’. Contrasting with the specific you, its interpretation is context dependent. For example, in:

• You should bring a raincoat if you visit Seattle in the spring.
• When you turn 40 you should get life insurance.

the advice can apply to anyone, and so the ‘you’ is generic. But in:

• When you turn 40 you should get life insurance, Bob.
• You should bring a raincoat when you visit Seattle this summer. 

the ‘you’ is referring to a specific person. To tell if a use of ‘you’ is generic, replace the ‘you’ with ‘one’, and if it makes sense, it is a generic use. So,

• One should bring a raincoat if one visits Seattle in the spring. 
• When one turns 40 one should get life insurance.

make sense, so the you is generic. However, with:

• You are an excellent singer. 
• Did you finish your homework?

it sounds a bit odd to say:

• One is an excellent singer.
• Did one finish one’s homework?

so ‘you’ in these examples is specific, not generic.

Generic you is powerful because it can be heard as general advice or a proclamation of truth that applies to anyone, so a listener feels as if they are being addressed, as part of an in-group. For this reason it can be found in advertising, for example:

• Red Bull gives you wings.
• Visa. Everywhere you want to be.
• M & Ms melt in your mouth, not in your hands.

Dr. Ariana Orvell and colleagues, psychologists at the University of Michigan (2020), analyzed Kindle data from 1,900 users reading 56 different books and found that readers highlighted passages containing generic you more often than would be statistically probable, as if the readers felt they were being addressed. They argue that this is evidence that generic you can resonate with readers and listeners and help them feel a personal connection with the author and the content, even when they know rationally that they aren’t being addressed specifically.

Finally, imperatives (commands) in English that addressed to a single person or a group do not use the word ‘you’, but they imply it. Commands can therefore be either obviously generic or specific, or ambiguous, which gives them a unique kind of persuasive power.

• Finish your homework and you can play video games. (clearly specific)
• Brush your teeth every night before bed. (clearly generic)
• Just do it. (ambiguous)
• Think different. (ambiguous)
• Make America Great Again (ambiguous)

Activity C.4 You oughta know when you’re being addressed

a. Canadian songwriter Alanis Morissette is well-known for her hit 1995 album, “Jagged Little Pill”. Search for the album online and listen to the lyrics of the songs on the album that include the pronoun ‘you’ in their titles.

Which “Jagged Little Pill” song or songs use the generic you, and which use the specific you? What is the effect of these uses on listeners? How do you think the songs ‘resonate’ differently?

b. The well-known Uncle Sam WWII army recruitment and 1940s Smokey Bear posters were designed with the clear goal of influencing behavior. They clearly used the specific you.

What feelings or emotions do you think a viewer would have seeing these? In what context do you think they were most effective? 

c. Looking at advertisements or political discourse, find three examples of the use of ‘you’ and note who is the author or speaker and in what context it is used. Find one use that is clearly generic, one that is clearly specific, and one where it is ambiguous. Remember that commands count, too.

C.5 Inclusive vs. Exclusive We

‘You’ is not the only pronoun that can be used strategically because it has ambiguous referents. The 1P plural pronoun ‘we’ and its variations ‘us’ and ‘ours’ in English can also be used strategically because ‘we’ can have an inclusive meaning of ‘I the speaker/writer and you the listener/reader’, or it can have an exclusive meaning of ‘I the speaker and someone else but not you the listener’. Using the inclusive we is an appeal towards involvement, for example, if you’re talking to someone and you refer to something you did together. However, if someone uses ‘we’ to refer to something they did with others and you were not part of that group, it is clear it is a use of the exclusive we (although its use does not necessarily mean the listener was purposefully excluded). Exclusive we is used often in ‘us vs. them‘ rhetoric (see C.6 below). The phrase ‘let us’, contracted as ‘let’s’ is used as the 1P imperative form, and it automatically sounds inclusive. However, someone can use it to give directives and make suggestions to others even if they do not mean to follow the directive themselves; for example, when a professor says ‘Let’s take the test now’, they know very well they aren’t taking the test. But it makes them sound like they are involved.

Because of this ambiguity, the use of ‘we’ or ‘us’ is potentially quite powerful. Because humans naturally want to belong to a group, English users may interpret ‘we’ as inclusive, unless they know explicitly that they are not part of the group being referred to. If you are listening to a politician giving a speech to a group you actively do not identify with or are not a part of, when the politician uses ‘we’ you may judge it as exclusive and not meant to include you. However, when any politician uses ‘we’ to refer to a vaguely defined group that might include you, it is difficult to hear ‘we’ as exclusive of you.

Inclusive ‘we’ is used by leaders on all parts of the ideological spectrum to appeal to a sense of community, solidarity, and belonging. The Finnish linguist Tyrkkö (2016) found that the use of inclusive we pronouns in political speeches around the world has increased in the past 100 years; this could be due to the rise of democracy and the use of propaganda techniques like plain folks appeals, where politicians attempt to appear from an average, middle or working class background, even though they may come from an upper class background.

A leader can unite and inspire followers by strategically using the inclusive we, and since 1900, US American politicians have increasingly used forms of inclusive we more frequently than 1P ‘I’ pronouns (Tyrkkö, 2016). For example, watch the will.i.am video “Yes We Can”, based on a campaign speech Obama gave in 2008.

C.6 Us vs. Them

Taking advantage of the in-/ex-clusive ambiguity of ‘we’, politicians and others can strategically juxtapose them with uses of the third-person plural ‘they’ pronouns in an ‘us versus them‘ technique, drawing sharp black-and-white contrasts between the two groups so that they are perceived as 100% oppositional. Because the people ‘they’ represent are not present during such discourse, they cannot argue otherwise. Offering only two polarized choices and forcing people to choose between the two – implying that “you are either with us or against us” – presents a false dichotomy, a propaganda technique that has been used for ages. Because it is simpler to quickly choose between black and white rather than to consider shades of gray or other colors, this ‘us vs. them’ strategy works to unite people by not only what they think they are (us), but what they do not want to be (them).

Political scientists Matos and Miller argue in their research (2021) that Donald Trump strategically used pronouns in this way to promote bonding among his core followers during his campaigns, more so than his opponents did. Using the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ dichotomy, Trump encouraged  “outgroup hostility” or hostility against those his followers believed to be “outsiders” in their minds. According to Matos and Miller’s study, Trump created an identity story whereby he “framed ingroup attitudes among white Americans by answering three main questions: ‘who are they,’ and thus, ‘who are we,’ and ‘what’s at stake (what do we have to lose)’ (pg. 2)”. The answer to these questions involved defining “the ingroup (we, us) as “good” and superior in comparison to framing the outgroup (them) as “bad,” as criminals and terrorists, as foreigners, and importantly, as people who wanted to take what rightfully belonged to the ingroup. Trump used immigration and the refugee crisis to define the outgroup (pg. 2). Continuously using pronouns in this way creates a powerful cognitive frame which may promote “groupthink” and prevent individuals from rationally weighing evidence, considering complexity, and making up their own minds. Such skillful rhetoric may make listeners more amenable to what politicians say, as it implicitly appeals to their need to feel part of a ingroup, especially when that ingroup’s identity also aligns with culturally-conditioned prejudices.

C.7 Gender-neutral third person pronouns

While English has ‘it’ to refer to non-humans, according to traditional grammarians, users must choose ‘he’ or ‘she’ when referring to humans. The sentence ‘Everyone must bring their own lunch’ is incorrect according to traditionalists because ‘everyone’ is singular, and so ‘their’ should be a singular ‘his’ or ‘her’ so that the referent agrees with its antecedent.  However, this supposedly traditional rule was actually invented in the 1800s, and before that, English users made use of singular they just as they do now.

Other gender-neutral pronouns have been proposed for trans, non-binary, or genderqueer people in English, but since pronouns are a closed class and the matter has been politicized in the USA, widespread adoption and acceptance has been difficult. However, other languages with more centralized control and fewer speakers have successfully done so, for example, the Swedish government and academics have adopted ‘hen’ instead of ‘han’ (he) and ‘hon’ (she) as a gender-neutral 3P pronoun for humans, in an attempt to create gender equality.

Module authors: Jonathon Reinhardt and Anuj Gupta

Last updated: 6 December 2023

This module is part of Critical Language Awareness: Language Power Techniques and English Grammar, an open educational resource offered by the Clarify Initiative, a privately funded project with the goal of raising critical language awareness and media literacy among students of language and throughout society.