They or It when referring to an organisation

Question

I have noticed more and more senior British politicians (eg Brown and Cameron) refer to they or who when I expected to hear it.

I will list a simple example, which is a quote from Brown:

"I have listened to the POA (Prison Officers Association), who say the prisoners were released 14 days early."
Hansard wrote that as replacing who with they.
Cameron:
"I have listened to the Army and they express urgency over the need for more protective materials."
In fact, this kind of language is very common in the Commons, and often changed when recorded in Hansard.
What is also interesting, is that Brown, Cameron and others often complain poor English among Britons, citing the need for more schooling; many politicians have top degrees from Cambridge or Oxford in the Arts.
I am not an Arts graduate, so I thought I would ask this question here.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I have noticed more and more senior British politicians (eg Brown and Cameron) refer to they or who when I ... or Oxford in the Arts. I am not an Arts graduate, so I thought I would ask this question here.[/nq]
The English use the plural and consider the likes of "the company" as being a plural noun; the Americans use the singular neuter and think of an organization as a single entity.

** DAVE HATUNEN (Email Removed) ** * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I have noticed more and more senior British politicians (eg ... graduate, so I thought I would ask this question here.[/nq]
[nq:1]The English use the plural and consider the likes of "the company" as being a plural noun; the Americans use ... * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -[/nq]
I understand that the politicians refer to the actual people of the entity, eg the POA officers, the army generals, but there is an English error. The usage implies that "The POA" is plural or more exactly the POA actually means the POA officers. This looks like a language error to me. For example, "The Government has strong views, they think that many youths are yobs," is not correct English, but used by journalists and others holding language degrees.

So are they just bad in using English?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]The English use the plural and consider the likes of ... *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -[/nq]
[nq:1]I understand that the politicians refer to the actual people of the entity, eg the POA officers, the army generals, ... is plural or more exactly the POA actually means the POA officers. This looks like a language error to me.[/nq]
But it's not: it's a difference in perception and judgement as to whether the collective is plural (a number of people) or singular (a corporate body).
As Dave says, US practice is to treat organisations the POA, a sports team, the government as singular corporate bodies, and to apply a singular verb.
UK usage often (even usually) treats those same organisations as a collection of members, and applies a plural verb.
So it's not "a language error": it's a different perspective as to whether corporate entities are always single bodies, or if they can be a collection of people. The verbs are applied accordingly.
[nq:1]For example, "The Government has strong views, they think that many youths are yobs," is not correct English, but used by journalists and others holding language degrees.[/nq]
I haven't seen that mix very often: what I see and what looked illiterate to me when I moved to the UK is "The Government are divided as to whether they think many youths are yobs".

"England are through to the Rugby World Cup semi-finals" is widely seen in North America as illiterate where do you place it?

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]For example, "The Government has strong views, they think that many youths are yobs," is not correct English, but used by journalists and others holding language degrees. So are they just bad in using English?[/nq]
No. They are using perfectly acceptable and idiomatic English as seen and heard millions of times in the British Isles. The problem here is that YOUR English is not everyone else's English.

johnF
"Naturally this idea has not been accepted by all is there any idea in language research that is?"
Talk Talk Talk , Jay Ingram

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]For example, "The Government has strong views, they think that ... language degrees. So are they just bad in using English?[/nq]
[nq:1]No. They are using perfectly acceptable and idiomatic English as seen and heard millions of times in the British Isles. The problem here is that YOUR English is not everyone else's English.[/nq]
Yes.
To Logician:
English evolves with use. This is one reason for there being different varieties of English in different countries, and in different parts of countries. Different styles of English are used for different purposes and in different situations.
Your comment that:
"The Government has strong views, they think that many youths are yobs," is not correct English,
might be have some basis if you are objecting to the mismatch between "has" and "they". This, however, has become idiomatic and acceptable except in the most formal English.
An organisation can be treated as a single object, in which case it is referred to in the singular, or it can be treated as a group of individuals, in which case it is referred to as plural.

An example I gave sometime ago in a different newsgroup was something like:
The government has not made a decision because they are still discussing the matter.
The making and issuing of a decision is an action of the government as a single entity, hence the singular "has not". Discussing the matter can only be done only by two or more people, hence the plural "they are".

You are perfectly entitled to find this development in English painful and difficult to come to terms with, but it has happened. Only time will tell what further changes occur.

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]it's a difference in perception and judgement as to whether the collective is plural (a number of people) or singular (a corporate body).[/nq]
As a BrE speaker, I'd say that that's almost exactly right. I think another side of that is that we sometimes use the collective (singular) noun as a shorthand for a phrase that refers to the individual members of the collective.
So, if I were to say "the government are all idiots" I would be using that as shorthand for "the members of the government are all idiots".
[nq:1]UK usage often (even usually) treats those same organisations as a collection of members, and applies a plural verb.[/nq]
It's a choice. I wouldn't say "the BBC are a television company" because it that context I'd be talking about the BBC as an entity. On the other hand I might say "the Post Office are on strike again" because it is not the Post Office (or whatever it calls itself this week) that is on strike, but some or all of its employees.

I think, on balance, you are right that BrE speakers do lean towards the plural form in cases where there is no great difference in meaning, but it is by no means universal.
[nq:2]For example, "The Government has strong views, they think that ... English, but used by journalists and others holding language degrees.[/nq]
[nq:1]I haven't seen that mix very often: what I see and what looked illiterate to me when I moved to the UK is "The Government are divided as to whether they think many youths are yobs".[/nq]
I think that's a case of the phenomenon I described above: using "the government" as a shorthand for "the members of the government".

Incidentally, I'd say "the government is divided as to whether they think ...". That is, I'd see the government (as an entity) being divided because its members (individually) held different opinions.
Cheers,
Daniel.

Usenet · Answer

(in article (Email Removed)):
[nq:1]As Dave says, US practice is to treat organisations the POA, a sports team, the government as singular corporate bodies, and to apply a singular verb.[/nq]
The Redskins has a winning record?
The Redskins have a winning record. The team is improving.

John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]As Dave says, US practice is to treat organisations ... as singular corporate bodies, and to apply a singular verb.[/nq]
[nq:1]The Redskins has a winning record? The Redskins have a winning record. The team is improving.[/nq]
Which neatly illustrates my point about the treatment of "team":

US: "the team is improving"; UK: "the team are improving".

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Which neatly illustrates my point about the treatment of "team": US: "the team is improving"; UK: "the team are improving".[/nq]
I agree that I would only ever expect to see the singular form from the US, but I think I'd also expect to see the singular form of that particular example quite often from the UK.
What's improving? Is it the team as a whole or the players? I suspect that it's actually the team that is being discussed, so many if not most BrE speakers would say "is".
It is true, though, that the plural form would be unsurprising in the UK.
Cheers,
Daniel.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Which neatly illustrates my point about the treatment of "team": US: "the team is improving"; UK: "the team are improving".f[/nq]
[nq:1]I agree that I would only ever expect to see the singular form from the US, but I think I'd also expect to see the singular form of that particular example quite often from the UK.[/nq]
That was really my point up-thread: whereas "the team are" is a possible not mandatory, but possible usage in the UK, it's not part of standard NAmer usage.

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

They or It when referring to an organisation

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions