Who and That to refer to people––How editors view the conundrum (which isn’t a conundrum in the first place)

On a warm afternoon, as I edited a chapter on African nationalism, I was baffled by a conundrum—people that? (the use of relative pronoun “that” to refer to people). I vaguely remembered a grammar nerd (or whatever you could call that person) prescribing the British preferred the relative pronoun “who” rather than “that” to refer to people. (I was editing to British style preferences.) But it rather sounded unconvincing, and I searched for a source to confirm this notion. Some style guides that I had worked with specifically ask to change “that” to “who” when referring to people and it had become a sort of my pet peeve. I want to make sure this “rule” existed before making the change. But I discovered that I am wrong to assume “that” cannot be used to refer to people.

To understand how who versus that operated as a relative pronoun to refer to people, my first pit stop was the Chicago Manual of Style, which clearly stated who and that can be used to refer to people. In a discussion on relative pronouns, CMoS 5.56 clearly states: “Who normally refers to a human being, but it can be used in the first, second, or third person.?… That?refers to a human, animal, or thing, and it can be used in the first, second, or third person.” Fowler’s and Hart’s Rules weren’t supporting my notion. Garner didn’t come to my rescue either (having made himself clear in CMoS).

So, I tossed the question on the Editors’ Association of Earth Facebook page. Here is that discussion .

The responses were revealing. Most editors (who responded) think using “that” to refer to people is dehumanizing. These were just opinions of editors who harbored strong notions on why not to use it. I inferred that it could be based on the belief that what is used to refer to animal or thing cannot be used to refer to humans.

Daphne Sams from Sweden intriguingly brought into question editors’ manners when she said, “Grammatically ‘that’ is fine, but it’s not good manners.”

Aidan Christian preferred to view it as an ethical concern and had a personal reason for using “who” for people: “Considering the power of language to dehumanize people—and to strip the humanity from entire groups—I would say that the rule should be simply ‘who’ if you want the reader to think of the person as human and ‘that’ if you want the reader to think of them as non-human. Being referred to with ‘that’ can be painful in a way that is hard to articulate and which buries itself inside you … If an author insists on ‘that’—and the context isn't dialogue in a novel set in continental Europe in the early 1940s—I would personally think long and hard about what the author's goal is in doing so and whether my ethics would allow me to continue.”

Paul Knox started with a historical spin: “In the 11th century (1001–1100 CE), literacy was limited to monks, feudal rulers and their servant clerks, and a tiny class of scholars … Universal human rights were codified less than a century ago; billions of people have yet to claim them and billions more are forced to defend them against rollbacks by the powerful.” But he cautioned that despite all the historical precedents of brutalism, “I’m not taking style notes about the personal in relative pronouns from these centuries of mass murder and cultural annihilation.” He said, “The choice between *who and *that* is a matter of usage. Unlike grammar, which is concerned with relationships between elements, usage affords considerable scope for individual preference.” He opined: “Tricky who/that choices present themselves when humans are grouped into collective formations: people, family, committee, posse, population, nation, etc. In general, the more abstract these are, the greater the preference for *that.” He went on to say, “However, here is where the Atlantic Ocean may divide us. I suspect the British tend to use *who* with councils and committees, whereas North Americans prefer *that. (Someone has probably compiled a list of suggested usage with collective nouns.) Where individual human referents are concerned, I’ve yet to hear a convincing defence of the use of *that instead of *who*”.

Despite the circumlocution, personal views and exalted opinion, Paul still batted for “who” against “that” for people.

Beverly Michaels took the discussion on a different plane when she wondered: “Now that I’m thinking about this, I wonder whether ‘that’ is sometimes used to avoid choosing between who and whom, e.g., ‘the man that we used to see at the cafe.’”

Timothy George Rowe harkened back to the golden rule of editing—don’t change unless the style guide asks you to, still holding fort about “that” not being a strong contender for people: “It’s a preference, yes, but not a strong one—‘that’ is perfectly usual, so, unless a style guide is in play that says otherwise, I wouldn't impose my voice on the author by changing it.”

Annie Slizak dipped a bit of Canadian legalese into it: “This is kind of a niche case, but in Canadian legislature, ‘person’ can be defined as a corporation. Therefore, we see a lot of ‘person that...’ instead of ‘person who...’ If the ‘person’ is unequivocally a human being, we use ‘who.’”

Soon it came to light that there was no basis for editors assuming “that” cannot be used to refer to people as none of the standard style guides or grammar experts ever said against using “that” to refer to people. Instead, convincing arguments were made about how “that” has been used to refer to people for ages (even as early as the 11th century).

“Who” for people and sometimes animals

Karen Lofstrom and Merwie Garzon preferred to use “who” for cats and dogs and horses, respectively.

The preferences of Karen and Merwie found a resonance in Sharon Stewart who quoted the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Usage (“who chiefly [refers] to persons and sometimes animals”): “In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.”

Even humor wouldn’t change it as it is a zombie rule

Michael Brady opined: “Daltrey and Townshend agree, as do Capaldi and Tennant. I also agree. Who is for people, that is for things”—injecting a sense of humor and bringing about a rare point of agreement between two characters that always disagree.

Susan Z. Swan alerted everyone that it’s a zombie rule: “But that is a zombie rule. ‘That’ has been used to refer to people for at least a millennium.” Janice Gelb and Carol Anne Peschke didn’t consent to Susan’s zombie that existed for a millennium. So what, they asked, and still showed a preference for using “who” to refer to people.

Susan found a savior in Cheryl Nicchitta who was quite clear: “Agree with Susan Swan. It’s a zombie rule, or maybe just an entrenched superstition, at least in US English—and I believe in other Englishes as well. It isn’t supported by Chicago Manual of Style, Merriam-Webster’s or American Heritage dictionaries, Bryan Garner’s usage guides, Fowler’s, etc. AP likes to make the distinction, but that makes it a style preference.”

“That” has been used for people for ages

Cheryl directed us to Bryan Garner who wrote about it . Garner quotes various grammar resources to show how “that” has been in use to refer to people for many many years.

John Mcintyre, the revered copyeditor and journalist who packs a punch in his language columns in The Baltimore Sun, pointed a link to his article that dismissed the debate conclusively: “‘Who’ for people AND ‘that’ for people, call the whole thing off ”. He wrote the piece on seeing a Twitter poll on usage. And one comment made it quite clear: “Look, every reputable grammarian, including Bryan Garner and all four editions of Fowler, makes it plain that ‘that’ can be used for human beings, and always has been in English. Insisting otherwise is misinformed, and insisting otherwise in the face of evidence is stupid.”

Bartosz Micha?owski quoted Lexico’s definition of “that” . Lexico’s usage notes nailed it (which Bartosz had quoted): “It [that] has been used for human and non-human references since at least the 11th century, and is invaluable where both a person and a thing is being referred to, as in a person or thing that is believed to bring bad luck.” (The rider of “bad luck” [beliefs in the 11th century maybe] is too distant now to comprehend.)

Cheryl further quoted literature in yet another comment to prove a point—“that” is not alien for people!

“No disrespect in these:

The man that got away (Harold Arlen, 1954)

The man that was used up (Edgar Allan Poe, 1850)

All the man that I need (Whitney Houston, 1990)

Blessed is the man that walketh not with the ungodly (Psalm 1, KJV)

The people that time forgot (Edgar Rice Burroughs, 1918; film, 1977)

The folks that live on that hill (Kingsley Amis, 1990).”

Timothy (who earlier recommended going by the style guide) added: “I checked Fowler on this (2nd edition), which says ‘who’ is better for restrictive clauses and ‘that’ for non-restrictive but there’s a reluctance to apply that because of a sense of politeness, and that ‘that’ holds its own better when referring to generic rather than identified individuals.” It’s as tricky as it gets here.

Point of debate

The exchange between Lucia Stern and Cheryl produced some interesting observations. Lucia gave a piece of her thinking: “I don’t agree that it’s a zombie rule. In medical writing (and advertising) there’s so much objectifying language—who is a reminder of ‘subjecthood’ which is not the same as subjectivity, which is iften [sic] frowned upon in medical-speak. Same with writing about animals—‘who’ implies sentience.”

Cheryl clarified what zombie meant: “zombie = descriptive linguistic term” and suggested it is not prescriptive. Even as Lucia thanked him for not being prescriptive, Cheryl changed tack to say, “‘zombie rule’ is a term coined by the linguist Arnold Zwicky and refers to a prescriptive rule that takes on a life of its own and refuses to die. (He also uses it for style distinctions I happen to like, including the which/that distinction.)”

Paul Knox now sauntered in, viewing it not as prescriptive but anachronistic descriptivism. He deplored the whole nexus between lexicographers and digital humanities specialists (who are they by the way?) not before saying how he cannot accept “that” (to refer to people) as it is dehumanizing usage: “It’s one thing to be asked to accept dehumanizing usage today. It’s quite another to be told such usage is justified by its presence in documents dating from times when intellectuals and religious figures debated whether Indigenous North Americans were human or not, the better to decide whether to kill them or forcibly convert them.

I suspect this trend is the product of an unholy alliance between lexicographers and digital humanities specialists.” It’s intriguing how people can give their own spin to anything.

This exchange went on further and Cheryl finally included screen shots from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which went a fair bit into the historical trajectory of usage of “that.”

What to make of it finally

It’s one thing to have an opinion on usage and even you might be successful in enforcing it on your author without a firm basis. For example, you could say “that” to refer to people is dehumanizing. As far as I can see, there is no evidence for this claim. Organically, “that” is being used to refer to people and it has been a trend over long years. At what point the dehumanizing debate entered into its usage is not clear.

Changing that to who when referring to people would only be your pet peeve. But grammarians and linguists would slam their door on your face. No usage dictionary or expert resource would come to your rescue. You’ll be left to your own devices if the author were to ask, “Which source says so?” If you are ready to give the dehumanizing spin to your author, change that to who for people, and maybe resolve the dispute later over a drink or email if the author still disagrees.