Instead of saying “my girlfriend wouldn’t like that”, they say “Emma wouldn’t like that”.
Instead of saying “I had to watch my son for two hours”, they say “I had to watch Jake for two hours”.
The norm reflects the attitude that someone's name represents them as a person rather than some role of theirs. It is therefore seen as more respectful to use this form of reference wherever possible rather than "reducing them to their role".
Pretty much all norms like this are culturally determined with just-as-strong-arguments being available for doing it some other way, but if you want to play basketball, you have to learn the rules of basketball, and if you want to exist within some particular society...
Within this norm, one introduces the name ("my girlfriend Emma") and expects the other to either remember Emma is their girlfriend or to be able to fake remembering that Emma is their girlfriend (the latter is a major part of the norm).
It's also the case that not using the person's name signals keeping your interlocutor at a distance, equivalent to "I wouldn't want to introduce you to this person", which in informal workplaces is seen as rude. For you as the person who does not have a direct relationship with Emma, it's not inherently disrespectful to the girlfriend to fall back into the anonymous mode of reference ("you said your girlfriend was on a vacation?") but showing that you remember the name is a social signal that you care about your coworker.
There are much more complicated regional/socioeconomic/cultural variants and subtle shades on all this, of course. Among my father's family, given names aren't common in reference, but all references to shared relatives -- even among adults -- are given not relative to the speaker, but to the audience ("your cousin" instead of "my sister", "your father" instead of "my uncle"). This is much harder to do than you'd think if you didn't grow up doing it!
I think it's about building friendship and closeness - they are sharing their life as they see it through their own eyes and dropping the impersonal role-only description of important people in their life. It is also reflective of a more-casual culture than many (especially at the office). Many Americans like to actually be friends with their coworkers.
It's similar to narration in a written story - important characters are introduced by their role and name, but role gets dropped once they're familiar.
If these people are colleagues, is the the first time you are speaking to them or do you have an existing relationship?
I, an American, only drop the name if it's going to be useful later, e.g. you're going to meet my girlfriend or son soon, or I'm about to launch into a tale in which it would be inconvenient to refer to people only by title. Or if we're on a level of friendship that socially dictates you can or should be made aware of my family members' names.
I can say (for me) it gets "weird" if you just keep referring to "my wife" for too long in a friendship. Sooner or later you'd have to give a name, or it sounds like you're trying to keep things impersonal--mixed signals. "The guy seems like he's my pal, but he keeps referring to his wife as 'my wife' and won't give a name." It feels like I'm not even worthy of knowing the names of people in your family. And maybe I'm not--maybe I'm just your coworker and that's where things end. But if we're hanging out, going on hikes and stuff, it'd be time to put a name to that title.
So though I don't do this (that I'm aware of?), I can imagine Americans putting the name out there early to encourage closeness, that you might think, "Oh, this person really wants to be friends since they already told me their son's name."
I know Americans have the related reputation of being hyper talkative and friendly with people they've never met and are unlikely to meet again. And that's just part of the culture, especially in smaller towns. We consider it to be welcoming, while foreigners might consider it intrusive and rude. I always tone it way down when I'm talking to non-Americans. But if I'm buying groceries, at the very minimum, the clerk and I are going to have a conversation about how our days are going, and probably what our later plans are.
And it would be a little weird to drop a family member's name at that point. But it would actually be acceptable to do so.
Come to think of it, I know the marital status and if most of my coworkers have children, but I do not know the name of a single one of those family members. They are always referred to as son/daughter/kid/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband.
I know the names of the spouses and kids of coworkers from my previous company, but I have met them in person.
I’ve always found it odd when people use names but I don’t know that person or their relation to the one I’m talking with.
I’m from the US, so I really think it just depends on the person.
Beware of looking for deep reasons for shallow phenomena.
However, this ends up being a bit cumbersome, it would probably more efficient to introduce names a first time and just use names after, and let people ask "Who's Emma already?" if they don't remember or if you forgot to introduce the name. This feels off to me however, so I don't do this unless it becomes to cumbersome in a conversations.
The customary response is to furnish the information that someone is related to you in Y way.
The polite thing is then to let them go on with the exchange.
It is not polite to try to drill out the entire family tree. (Unless there has been such a multitude of name drops, in which case it is okay to ask for clarification for each in turn, and an optional "who are they to each other may be warranted just to keep the relationships straight).
In the U.S. this had been totally normal. As it is generally considered that one one is speaking to is the holder of a shared of a shared context. Back in the day, there wasn't a massive infrastructure or mass reproducible mechanism for background verification, and it was up to you to determine and measure whether or not someone else was eorth sharing such details with. It was also polite to decline to furnish such information as irrelevant.
I've noticed with social media, people get in the habit of assuming everyone already does.
Thus killing one of the opportunities for enjoyable small talk. The ritual of the unrolling of family connections. This was aldo a form of shibboleth before facebook and the like, as anyone who knew you through a relative would generally get a higher degree of trust.
This is completely bunk now, or at least far less useful than it once was in the presence of Docial media and OSIntel.
If I had to even try to pin it down, I'd maybe say it could be a younger person or west coast thing?
On the east coast, I've never worked with anyone who called their relatives by name. I haven't worked with many younger people on the east coast though, to be fair.
However, a lot of them, and I think this one included, can be put down to the ethos with which Americans interact with each other. In other Western countries (perhaps with the exception of Mediterranean Europe) it is considered polite to not expect things of your interlocutor unless you know them well, and even then, not so much. In the US it seems to me that it is much more acceptable to be somewhat demanding of strangers, for their time and attention, and it is expected that you will do the same back. When an American uses first names for their family, they are, if we were to exaggerate greatly, be saying "How stranger! This is my family, I demand you WILL know them, and I will follow your demands that I know yours, as is custom in these parts, now let us break bread."... I know it's ridiculous, but I find looking at things this way helped me a lot.
Part of the reason is that it's like passively introducing the person, or reminding the listener of the person's name, without the listener needing to ask.
I have a horrible time remembering names, esp. co-workers' spouce/kids names. I appreciate it when they do this.
EDIT: Western Canadian, and Shauna does this too :)
lol this seems so wildly tone deaf. Good luck OP!
This informal and intimate language construct might be an example of trendy oversimplification in American English.
It’s just different.
In a group setting, I think people skew towards using the name if anyone in the group has been introduced. So if you're on some Zoom call and you're the new person in the room, I wouldn't expect people to switch from names to pronouns for your benefit. Everyone else knows the mapping already and you just have to pick up these names from context.
I suspect they think they have already mentioned them before, but forgot they didn’t? Or are you saying it is weird even if you know their names to refer to them by name?
Anywho, the reasoning is simple. If you know who my tribe members are without me ever having to bother to tell you, you must be cool. Otherwise you are just not part of my tribe, an Other.
But don't worry, we invented social media (just like we invented everything else, from radio to the Renaissance) so if you want to be part of my tribe, you can do your research, depending on how private and exclusive I feel like being today.
*Don't believe those Canadians or anyone else who lives on either of the two continents in the new world, only US-ians get to claim American as a word!!
PS: this is all a rather bombastic attempt at a joke (potentially satire?). The real reason (I'd guess) is we aren't all uniformly well trained in polite etiquette like not being so self absorbed that we assume everyone knows who our family are.
I’m not sure it’s a general trend, really gotta be weary of the “couple people in my life do x” -> “why do {general class} do x?” movement
I wonder if it's regional (I've only lived in the Northeast and Deep South)