Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My boss has asked me not to refer to her as she because she says it's disrespectful. After I refer to her by her proper name or by her title, isn't it appropriate to refer to her as she?

share|improve this question
7  
What is the context? Are you talking to her, with her and others, about her to others? –  thursdaysgeek Aug 23 '11 at 2:37
2  
Is your boss English/British by chance? This "etiquette" is very unique to Britain, and even as an Englishman, one I do not at all understand! –  Noldorin Aug 23 '11 at 3:40
2  
Of course getting snitty and telling someone they are being rude, can be impolite as well. Some people get the details of etiquette, but not the big picture. –  T.E.D. Aug 23 '11 at 13:40
    
@Noldorin: I don't think it is unique to Britain: it exists in Holland as well. –  Cerberus Aug 23 '11 at 17:21
    
@Cerberus: Interesting. All I know is that in English-speaking countries, it is predominant in Britain, although probably not unheard of in Australia/USA... –  Noldorin Aug 23 '11 at 17:48

7 Answers 7

I believe proper etiquette demands that you should never refer by "he" or "she" to someone who is or is presumed to be taking part in the same conversation. You should use either "you" or a proper name or title ("Cleopatra", "His Majesty", "Mr Archimedes", "my superior").

However, I'm not sure this is the exact situation you encountered. And perhaps this bit of etiquette isn't as common as I think.

In any case, I can't see how "she" should ever be improper in writing.

share|improve this answer
2  
You're right (unfortunately). This is one of those ridiculous conventions of etiquette, that is predominant in England I believe. Even many of us English do not quite understand the arbitrariness of how this is polite, when I have discussed the matter with friends. (I mean, pronouns exist for a reason damnit! :-) Also, this etiquette convention even exists to people who are in your presence but not part of the conversation... –  Noldorin Aug 23 '11 at 3:41
2  
@Noldorin I'm not in England, but the way I understood it was that using "she" is equivalent to pointing at someone –  simchona Aug 23 '11 at 3:50
3  
@simchona: Well, it's probably considered rude (if it is) because it's not properly acknowledging someone. To me though, it is utterly illogical and irrational. Referring to someone the first time in a conversation, it makes sense to use their name, but from then on, pronouns are most appropriate. Most Americans I know do not consider this "bad etiquette" and to be fair, they're right! –  Noldorin Aug 23 '11 at 4:54
7  
I think the idea is that referring to a present person with a pronoun is acting as if the person were not actually there. –  Karl Knechtel Aug 23 '11 at 8:06
1  
@Karl: That's probably the idea, yeah. It doesn't mean it's a good idea. Over-sensitivity creates many problems in this world. –  Noldorin Aug 23 '11 at 17:47

This book on Personal pronouns in present-day English notes:

Pronouns are commonly used to refer familiarly to people present; however, it can be a sign of animosity to refer to someone you know well by a pronoun rather than their name; in the so-called 'Squidgy' tape from late December 1989 Princess Diana consistently refers to Prince Charles as he. This is comparable to the (mock?) dismissiveness in Arthur Daley's use of Her Indoors to refer to his wife in the television series Minder.

This site on etiquette refers to the use of pronouns when the subject is present as being rude:

The overuse of pronouns has crept unfortunately into our language. The media are the worst at promoting the misuse of forms of address when it comes to elected officials. I was brought up learning the expression " 'she's' the cat's mother". This taught us to refrain from referring to people, especially present, as a pronoun. I therefore agree with you on this one. It may seem awkward at times, and social situations should not be awkward. Remember, too, that conversational and written word flow are different.

It sounds as if your boss has heard this piece of etiquette, and believes in it. You may refer to her as "she" in writing, but when you are in her presence you should use her name or title.

share|improve this answer
    
In Norfolk, and I have reason to believe across much of eastern England the retort is 'Who's 'she'? The cat's aunt?' –  WS2 Aug 28 at 7:03

I'm curious about this topic because it seems so obvious, and yet going by everyone's response it isn't. I am English, but I moved to USA when I was 7 years old, and I've been exposed to a mix of language styles. I don't go by grammatical rules so much as how language "hits my ear." Referring to someone as "he" or "she" while they are present is jarring to me, but the example of using someone's name over and over again is not necessary.

Let's say I (Tracey) am in a meeting and one person says to another, "You and Tracey can do that project together. Perhaps, you can do the planning and she can do the logistics." That sounds fine to me because the speaker began the statement by using my name. Personally, I would prefer my name used twice because that sounds more natural to me, but I doubt that I would have noticed the "she" in this instance. If conversation went on however, and I was referred to as "she" again without qualifying my presence by my name (notice the word "qualifying" here), then I would flinch.

I am not concerned with formality; in fact, I wish I took better control over how much I swear, but we each develop a sense of a speakers regard or intent based on what sounds natural. Referring to me as "she" while in my presence, just doesn't sound natural to me. I try not to take it personally, but I want to raise my hand and say, "Hello! Right here."

share|improve this answer

The usage of the pronoun while speaking about the present company is considered rude not only in English. I straddle 3 very different cultures and can attest that in Russian, for example, this form of speech sounds even more offensive than in English.

share|improve this answer

A number of women I know of English origin use the saying "Who's 'she'? the cat's mother?" as a specific rebuke when you refer to someone as "she" who is in the room. Oddly I've never heard it used if a man is referred to as "he".

Now that you know your boss feels this way, the chances are slim-to-none that you can stop by her office and prove to her that she is wrong. Try to avoid this phrasing during in person meetings. For example, if you turn to someone else in the room and say "you know she told you it was due Friday", instead put the name of your boss in the sentence. You will probably not be able to get eliminate the pronoun entirely without a few decades of practice with people who rebuke you every time you do it, but you can make an effort to reduce it, and I hope your boss appreciates that you do.

share|improve this answer

It is not offensive to use pronouns once the subject has either been qualified or is clear.

share|improve this answer

As a British person, I don't mind being referred to as 'he' or 'him' by others present, if I've already been mentioned by name. However, in almost every conversation with two or more people these days I get called 'he' or 'him' immediately. Sometimes a possessive adjective might be used instead. Quite recently I was in a group discussing people's varying knowledge of a foreign language, and the person next to me — who was facing the others — remarked offhandedly, 'His [i.e. mine] is all right' (I hadn't been mentioned before). And I even get 'pronouned' in other languages.

However trivial this sounds, I'm late-middle-aged and am finding it increasingly insufferable — it wasn't so bad when it only happened now and then. It's also a very poor form of communication to talk over people instead of to them. One may be made to feel like a child, or psychologically isolated: when A speaks to B using a pronoun instead of C's name, it can imply (I only say can) a certain bond between A and B in which C does not share. And A might be speaking to a number of people, not just one. So if someone wants to comment on me in a group, by all means let them comment to me.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to get this wretched matter (partly) off my chest.

share|improve this answer
1  
Though detailed, The situation is still not totally clear as you describe it. What was it that sounded so troublesome to you? What would you have preferred be said? –  Mitch Jun 8 '12 at 15:29
    
What I find troublesome is that (to quote my answer) 'in almost every conversation with two or more people these days I get called "he" or "him" immediately'. I am generally not referred to by name first. This kind of thing was less annoying when it only happened now and again. Also, 'if someone wants to comment on me in a group, by all means let them comment to me'. I hope this is clear. –  user22972 Jun 29 '12 at 12:33

protected by RegDwigнt Jun 29 '12 at 12:57

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.