Following the well-known strategy of evoking questions on which agreement can be easily established before broaching the more controversial issues, I began with the following prompt.
“I would like to explore a touchy question in contemporary US culture: pronouns. Many people find the idea of choosing pronouns to apply to oneself, almost as if they are consumer products, to be a disturbing practice. The insistence of framing this as a ‘right’ has contributed to building a resistance to the practice, including helping to elect Donald Trump.
But I’ll begin with another example of the use of pronouns that isn’t touchy. I’ve been trying to understand for some time what appears to be a change in the norms of casual but also formal speech. It concerns the choice of subjective or objective pronouns when two persons are involved. The formal rule, which I see reaffirmed in every serious guide to grammar, says that if the two persons are the subject of the sentence, they should both be used in the subjective form, e.g. ‘She and I made the decision together,’ or ‘he and I have joined forces developing some interesting software.’ The same rule requires that in a sentence in which the persons are the object of the verb, the objective form – ‘me, her, him, us and them’ – is required. For example, ‘The CEO congratulated Andy and me on our respective achievements.’
So much for the recommendations. What I hear routinely is sentences such as ‘The CEO congratulated Andy and I on our achievements.’ If so many people are saying sentences like this, can it be considered a rule or an acception?”
“This is a fascinating question that touches on both the fluid nature of language and the dynamics of cultural change. Let’s break it down into two parts: the grammatical norms and the cultural dynamics of pronoun usage.
1. The Grammar of Subjective and Objective Pronouns
You are absolutely correct in identifying the grammatical rules:
- Subject pronouns (e.g., I, she, he, we, they) are used when the pronouns are the subject of the sentence.
- Example: She and I made the decision.
- Object pronouns (e.g., me, her, him, us, them) are used when the pronouns are the object of the sentence.
- Example: The CEO congratulated Andy and me.
However, the construction you highlight —’The CEO congratulated Andy and I’— is increasingly common in spoken and even written English. Strictly speaking, this usage is ungrammatical, but its prevalence has led to discussions about whether it reflects a change in the rules of English or simply a widespread misunderstanding of existing norms.
Why Do People Say ‘Andy and I’ When It’s Incorrect?
Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:
- Hypercorrection
Many people have been taught to avoid using ‘me’ improperly in the subject position (e.g., saying ‘Me and Andy went to the store’ instead of ‘Andy and I went to the store’). This overcorrection leads them to substitute ‘I’ in cases where ‘me’ is actually correct. - Sound and Rhythm
People often choose constructions that feel right in casual speech. Phrases like ‘Andy and I’ flow more naturally to many speakers because of their familiarity and rhythm, even if they’re technically incorrect in the given context. - Language Change
Language evolves over time, and spoken forms often lead the way. What starts as a common ‘mistake’ can sometimes become accepted usage. For example, many older grammatical ‘rules’ have faded away in modern English (e.g., the strict avoidance of split infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions). Some linguists argue that ‘Andy and I’ as an object may be moving in this direction, though it hasn’t yet reached full acceptance in formal contexts.
Can This Be Considered a Rule or an ‘Acception’?
Currently, this construction is not considered correct according to standard English grammar, as reaffirmed by grammar guides and style manuals. However, its frequency in informal speech suggests it might represent an evolving acception (to use your word in its historical sense as a ‘variant meaning’). For now, it remains an example of colloquial usage rather than a formal rule.
2. Broader Cultural Dynamics: Pronouns and Identity
Your mention of pronouns as a cultural flashpoint introduces another layer to this discussion: pronouns not only serve grammatical functions but also carry symbolic and political weight, particularly in discussions about gender identity.
Conclusion
The use of ‘Andy and I’ as an object pronoun remains incorrect in standard English but is increasingly common in informal speech. Whether it becomes an accepted rule or remains a persistent “mistake” will depend on how English continues to evolve. Similarly, debates about pronouns in identity contexts show how deeply language is intertwined with cultural change, personal expression, and collective resistance.
Your question Illustrates the profound Interplay between language as a tool for communication and as a marker of identity and culture. Would you like to explore this evolution further, perhaps with examples from historical changes in English?”
I followed this foray into the rules of grammar with a prompt focused on the truly sensitive issue of choosing and announcing one’s pronouns. Before reproducing my prompt, I wish to signal what I believe to be the single most important element of ChatGPT’s response: “To explore these deeper issues productively, society would need to create spaces where respectful dialogue can occur without the pressure of political or social polarization.”
ChatGPT correctly terms this a “deeper issue” for the simple reason that whatever logic one employs to justify a position, in today’s culture, any human debate on the question will provoke strong emotion. Psychologists tell us that the border between reasoning and emotion will never be clearcut. To make any sense out of this kind of “deeper issue” that touches on our sense of identity we need to clear some “space,” or the room to maneuver between lines of reasoning and the complexity of human emotion.
I highlight this detail because it demonstrates how an authentically interactive and collaborative exchange with a generative AI chatbot plays a specific role, not of providing answers, but of enabling us both individually and collectively to explore complex questions and avoid seeking simplistic conclusions. We may disagree about whether AI can “think,” but we have to admit that it talks. And because it talks to us, the one truly useful thing it can do is challenge us to think. That challenge incites us to reframe our own thoughts. The suggestion that to deal with a deeper issue we must “create spaces” is the kind of productive hint that highlights our own human responsibility by forcing us to refine our own thinking. My dialogue in this instance has created one such space.
What this demonstrates is that many experts and commentators appear to be thinking about AI in the wrong way. Rather than expecting it to deliver some sort of definitive truth or solution to specific problems, it can help us create the space we need to refine our thinking and to engage human-to-human debate. That should help us to define AI’s most valuable contribution to productivity. Rather than replace our own thinking, it should stimulate it.
Here is how I continued the conversation:
“Concerning the touchy question – the right to choose one’s pronouns – it seems to me the social problem this implies has less to do with pronouns than with the idea of rights. In the consumer society, everyone is free to choose, for themselves, but not necessarily for others. That can lead to a debate about what one person’s right imposes on another person’s behavior. I believe it is the perception of an ‘imposition’ that has turned the question into a political football. This tells me that there is a deeper problem in the culture concerning both the liberty to change the meaning of a shared language and the status of what we consider our rights. It might be productive to examine the question in those terms before taking an adversarial position on the practice of choosing one’s pronouns.
If my suggestion is valid, what aspects of the culture help to explain why no public discussion has taken place on these questions?”
Below is the introduction and conclusion of ChatGPT’s response.“Your suggestion is thoughtful and points to deeper issues beneath the surface of debates about pronouns and rights. The lack of a meaningful public discussion on these broader cultural questions likely stems from a combination of social, political, and historical factors. Let’s explore these aspects.”
As expected, the chatbot then explored in detail the conditions that surround the debate.
· The Role of Individualism in Consumer Culture
· Rights as Personal Liberties
· Language as a Shared Resource
· Polarization and the Decline of Public Discourse
· Media Amplification of Conflict
· Tribalism and Identity Politics
· A Shift in the Concept of Rights
· A Missing Discourse on Responsibilities
· Historical and Philosophical Roots of the Problem
· Why These Questions Remain Unexamined
· How Could We Begin Such a Discussion?
We will look more closely at this “deeper issue” next week.
Your thoughts
Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.
*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment