Language desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13

Why do most American news sources not use honorifics, while most British news sources do?

There are exceptions of course (The New York Times does use honorifics, while The Guardian doesn't), but in general, this is the case. But why? Why is it common in British English (as well as varieties of English descended from it) to have honorifics (i.e. Mr/Mrs/Ms, etc.) in news sources, but it is far less common in American news media? I've read the relevant articles on Honorifics and English honorifics, but they don't go into detail about this case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some statistical evidence supporting your personal observation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a statistical observation but more of something I noticed. It came into my mind when I was reading up on both Brexit and US politics, and noticed how sources like BBC News and The Daily Telegraph used honorifics, while USA Today and FiveThirtyEight don't, among examples that come to mind. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, while Bugs has a formally correct point, I agree with your observation. I don't have a ref to give for an answer. I always thought it was just a generally higher desire for formality in British culture, contrasted with an American preference for efficiency and lack of pretension. Do tabloid papers aimed at the British working class use honorifics? --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few style guides, which are remarkably consistent in detail: Telegraph, BBC, Guardian, ABC (Australia). From the US I found an article from the NY Times, and one from the WSJ, which both recommend using honorifics in a similar way, but I think both acknowledge some sources can sometimes exclude them. According to the NYT, the lack of honorifics in the US is either because they're considered 'old-fashioned and stodgy', or because the editors are confused. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds! I was particularly struck by this notion removing courtesy titles from those convicted of crimes. I find that kind of reprehensible, but nevertheless interesting.

In passing, I'd like to mention that academic papers almost always cite those on whose work the paper builds by bare surname (unless another name is needed for disambiguation), even though these would usually be entitled to Dr or Prof. Maybe not "even though" so much as "because"? There's a certain sense of we're-all-laboring-in-the-vineyards-of-human-knowledge-together, and it saves time figuring out what the exact title would be. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Americans: when using the honorific "Sir", the person's first name is always used. Thus Sir Thomas Hardcastle is referred to as Sir Thomas, not Sir Hardcastle. Akld guy (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just like to be polite. Bazza (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just because the concept doesn't really exist in American culture? --Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I've been doing a lot of reading of old newspapers, and it used to be fairly standard in the US to say "Mr." and "Mrs." and so on. Writers seem to have gotten away from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the term "honorifics"when referring to "Mr." and "Mrs." Wouldn't an honorific be something like "Sir" or "Baron" or something like that? --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so much anymore, but historically Mr. and Mrs. were clearly honorifics. Mister comes from "master" and "magister" meaning "great one", cognate with words like the Italian "maestro". They also were not universally given to people; instead they were titles of address reserved for people of a certain social class. Even up until the middle 20th century, in the Jim Crow South in the U.S., black people were not addressed by whites with such terms, as they were deemed unworthy of such an honorific. It's only in the modern egalitarian world that "Mister" and "Misses" was considered a suitable title for all people. There's a few places where the distinction still exists; in the modern U.S. Navy, for example, only officers are addressed as "Mister". --Jayron 32 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've often noticed that when Americans talk about film stars, particularly female ones, they use "Miss" or "Ms" (rarely "Mrs"), but when it comes to almost anybody else (including presidents), it's just <given name surname>. Are film stars considered worthy of special respect? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I'd say that that usage is showing less respect for the ladies in question. It reeks of a school principal referring to "young ladies". In a similar fashion, I notice that it is quite common in AmEng to refer to males by surname (Cruise for Tom Cruise, Trump for Donald Trump) but use personal names for females (Angelina for Angelina Jolie, Hillary for Hillary Clinton). --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you're reading. Gossip magazines, especially, tend to call them by first names as if the public knew them personally. As for Hillary, in part that helps to distinguish from Bill. But calling only men by just their last names is another old-fashioned thing, as it was once considered kind of gauche to call women by just their last names. That custom has eroded considerably. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one of James Corden's carpool karaoke things, he was riding with Adele, and the subject was addressed somewhat. They were talking about getting a table at a restaurant. James opined that she could call and say, "Please reserve a table for Adele... THE Adele"; whereas if Corden called and said, "Please reserve a table for James.. THE James", it wouldn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really have anything to do with her being female and him being male. That is due to the fact that "Adele" is a much rarer name than "James". It is highly unlikely that another woman with that name will come to prominence while the singer is still in the public eye (or even for some time thereafter). However, there can be and are many prominent men named "James". --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This businesses of calling actresses "Miss", especially older established actresses, is kind of out of fashion, but it's discussed in Miss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: Because the UK is a much more classist society, still having royalty/nobility, and a titled gentry system. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what the word gauche means (the link isn't much help apart to highlight the connection with left-handedness), but in British schools girls were referred to by Christian name throughout their schooling while boys were referred to by surname from entering secondary school. I doubt that has changed. 2A00:23C5:318D:5200:5813:75AF:A7A3:BCF (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonbinary people and grammatical gender across languages

There was resistance to the singular they, but it’s become standard for nonbinary people in American English at least. How are other languages changing? How are nonbinary people called in languages with more than two genders? Temerarius (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender and the category Category:Gender-neutral language which may be useful to you. --Jayron 32 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius -- English has more than two genders (in the singular pronouns, at least). A few languages (such as Zande) have a four-gender system: masculine, feminine, neuter, and the so-called "animal" gender (which is actually used for cases when male/female status is unknown or considered unimportant, but what is being referred to is not an inanimate object -- including animals, but also babies and supernatural beings etc.). I would guess that if "third gender" concepts exist among speakers of those languages, then "third gender" individuals would probably be referred to with "animal" gender grammatical forms... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. English's third gender pronoun, "it", is often considered highly offensive when used to refer to humans (allowing for individual variation; I'm sure given the billions of humans on earth, you could find one who doesn't fine it so). As such, simply saying that a language with 4 grammatical genders could swap out one of its other pronouns or gender forms with no problem is not necessarily true, as such a situation does not exist in English. Implying that a human is less-than-human through linguistics is considered rude. --Jayron 32 13:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name "animal" gender is actually something of a misnomer (as I tried to explain above), and I would guess that applying that gender to adult humans would be less incongruous than applying "it" to adult humans in English... Anyway, in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan universe, genetically-engineered hermaphrodites are officially referred to as "it"AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's still a work of fiction. If I am talking about a real person, and referring to that person as "it", that's an entirely different think. Fictional cultures follow whatever rules and conventions the author wants them to. Here in the real world, referring to a person as "it" is rude and offensive. --Jayron 32 19:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent: I recently came across a writing of C. S. Lewis where he used "it" in reference to an unspecified child (not in the filler sense of "is it a boy or a girl?", which arguably doesn't refer to the child at all, but genuinely talking about the child's actions). This sounds very odd to my ear, but perhaps was not at the time. I think you can still use "it" to refer to an unspecified baby, or perhaps even to a particular baby of unknown sex, but not above the age of four or so. I'd be curious to know when this changed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question actually asking about gender-neutral pronouns? There's a big list of alternatives there for English. I know French speakers, at least, have also tried to create some (fr:Non-binaire#Utilisation_d'abréviations_et_de_pronoms_non_genrés). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In languages with a more robust grammatical gender system than English, there are problems that one wouldn't even consider in English. For example, French (since you brought it up) has grammatical gender for adjectives, and there is no neutral gender So, for example, "She is old" in French is "elle est vieille". "He is old" in French is "il est vieux". To add a third, neutral pronoun is not sufficient in French, because you also have the problem that the adjective marks the subject as either masculine or feminine; you're essentially having to rewrite the entire language, not just drop in some new pronouns. In English, which lacks meaningful grammatical gender, "old" does not mark the subject as a particular gender. "vieille/vieux" does. This can create a whole mess when trying to communicate, as you're having to invent thousands of new words. It's not that simple. --Jayron 32 19:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, see Gender neutral version of French sparks backlash. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash from conservative, who are easily-offended snowflakes in any language. Maybe it's not as simple as in English, but people are creative, as that article shows! That reminds me, there is also a French Wikipedia article about fr:Écriture inclusive. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re "[Singular they has] become standard for nonbinary people in American English at least" – except that it's actually better-accepted in British English than American. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]