Article published In:
Journal of Language and PoliticsVol. 3:1 (2004) ► pp.27–52
On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities
The purpose of this paper is to show the existing relationships between the concept of community and the linguistic forms used to convey or even to manipulate it. First of all, the limits and restrictions of any form of community will be defined. Second, one specific form of community will be selected for analysis. The community chosen will be the Parliamentary community, and the linguistic form singled out for study will be the first person plural pronoun “we”. We will try to discover any type of relationship between (a) the scope of reference of this personal pronoun and (b) the intentions of the person who uttered it. In this way, we can see whether there is any connection between personal identity (in terms of inclusion/exclusion from a group) and pronominal choice. This could also lead us to the discovery of any possible strategic use of this personal pronoun.
References
Batson, C.D., Ahmad, N. and Tsang, J.A.
2002 Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues 58(3), 429–445. 
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. and Tipton, S.M.
1985 Habits of Heart. New York: Harper and Row.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finnegan, E
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Biffen, J
1996 Inside Westminster. London: André Deutsch Limited.
Bloomfield, L
1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Brown, G. and Yule, G
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: C.U.P..
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C.
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A
1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 253–276.
Connor-Linton, J
1988 Author’s style and world-view in nuclear discourse: A quantitative analysis. Multilingua 7(1/2), 95–132.
Duranti, A
1985 Sociocultural dimensions of discourse. In: T.A. Van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 193–230.
Fairclough, N
1989 Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fortanet, I
2004 The Use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 231, 45–66.
Gumperz, J.J.
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP.
Gumperz, J.J. and Cook-Gumperz, J
1982 Language and the communication of social identity. In: J.J. Gumperz (ed.). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: CUP, 1–21.
Gumperz, J.J.
1971 Language in Social Groups. Stanford: SUP.
Hansard Parliamentary Debates
House of Commons Official Report. London: HMSO.
Hymes, D
1972 Models for the interaction of language and social life. In: J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, 35–71.
Juviler, P. and Stroschein, S
1999 Missing boundaries of comparison: The political community. Political Science Quarterly 114(3), 435–453.
Kamio, A
1994 The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 211, 67–100.
1995 Territory of information in English and Japanese and psyhological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics241, 235–264.
2001 English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics331, 1111–1124.
Lakoff, R.T.
1990 Talking Power. The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.
Maier, R
1995 Argument and community. Communication and Cognition 28(4), 367–386.
1996 Forms of identity and argumentation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 26(1), 35–50.
Maitland, K. and Wilson, J
1987 Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics 111, 495–512.
Mason, A
2000 Community, Solidarity and Belonging: Levels of Community and their Normative Significance. Cambridge: CUP.
Pennycook, A
1994 The politics of pronouns. ELTJ 48(2), 173–178.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rees, A
1983 Pronouns of Person and Power: A Study of Personal Pronouns in Public Discourse. The University of Sheffield, Department of Linguistics. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R.W
(eds) 1983 Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Roiz, M
1994 Técnicas Modernas de Persuasión. Madrid: Eudema.
Sánchez Macarro, A
2002 Windows on the World: Media Discourse in English. Valencia: Universitat de València.
Searle, J.R.
1969 Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Seidel, G.
1975 Ambiguity in political discourse. In: M. Bloch (ed.). Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London: Academic Press, 205–228.
Tonnies, F.
1974 Community and Association. London: Routledge.
Villegas, J.F.
1989 Decisiones sobre las personas: Un análisis psicosocial de los procesos clasificatorios. Revista de Psicología Social 4(1), 25–34.
Wardhaugh, R.
1992 An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwells.
Warren, R.
1978 The Community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wenger, E.
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: CUP.
Wilson, J.
1990 Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwells.
Zupnik, Y.
1994 A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 211, 339–383.
Cited by
Cited by 61 other publications
Amaro, Raquel, Susana Correia, Matilde Gonçalves, Chiara Barbero & Miguel Magalhães
2022. Inclusive Host Language Teaching. In Handbook of Research on Policies and Practices for Assessing Inclusive Teaching and Learning [Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership, ], ► pp. 183 ff. 
Beldarrain-Durandegui, Angel
2012. We and them rhetoric in a left-wing secessionist newspaper: a comparative analysis of Basque and Spanish language editorials. Critical Discourse Studies 9:1 ► pp. 59 ff.
Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer
2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies 26:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Carta, Caterina
2014. Use of metaphors and international discourse: The EU as an Idiot power, a deceptive Pangloss and a Don Juan in his infancy. Cooperation and Conflict 49:3 ► pp. 334 ff.
Carta, Caterina
Cheng, Maria
2006. Constructing a new political spectacle: tactics of Chen Shui-bian’s 2000 and 2004 Inaugural Speeches. Discourse & Society 17:5 ► pp. 583 ff.
Chinn, Sedona, Dan Hiaeshutter-Rice & Kaiping Chen
2023. How Science Influencers Polarize Supportive and Skeptical Communities Around Politicized Science: A Cross-Platform and Over-Time Comparison. Political Communication ► pp. 1 ff.
Coesemans, Roel & Barbara De Cock
2017. Self-reference by politicians on Twitter: Strategies to adapt to 140 characters. Journal of Pragmatics 116 ► pp. 37 ff.
DeCoursey, C. A. & Ewa B. Krawczyk
2020. The Marshallese look: Clothing, culture and identity in a disappearing world.
Clothing Cultures
6:3 ► pp. 293 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2014. WeandI, andyouandthem: People, power and solidarity. In The Expression of Inequality in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 248], ► pp. 213 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2014. “Judgeuson whatwedo”: The strategic use of collectivewein British
political discourse. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 331 ff.
Formato, Federica
2019. Women in the Public Sphere: Gendered Language. In Gender, Discourse and Ideology in Italian, ► pp. 135 ff.
Gelabert-Desnoyer, Jaime J.
2022. Not so impersonal. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 407 ff.
Green, Seth, Megan Stiles, Katherine Harton, Samantha Garofalo & Donald E. Brown
2017. 2017 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), ► pp. 359 ff.
Halmari, Helena
2008. On the language of the Clinton-Dole presidential campaign debates. Journal of Language and Politics 7:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Hernández-Campoy, J.M. & J.A. Cutillas-Espinosa
2010. Speaker design practices in political discourse: A case study. Language & Communication 30:4 ► pp. 297 ff.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel
2010. Dialect Contact and Accommodation in a Standard Context. Sociolinguistic Studies 4:1 ► pp. 201 ff.
Ho, Victor
2022. Strategic use of nouns and pronouns in public discourse. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 51 ff.
KAVALSKI, EMILIAN & MAGDALENA ZOLKOS
2007. The Hoax of War: The Foreign Policy Discourses of Poland and Bulgaria on Iraq, 2003–2005. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 15:3 ► pp. 377 ff.
Lentz, Paula, Kristen Getchell, James Dubinsky & Mary Katherine Kerr
2021. Pronouns, Positioning, and Persuasion in Top Nonprofits’ Donor Appeals. International Journal of Business Communication ► pp. 232948842110621 ff.
Liu, Jyi-Shane, Ching-Ying Lee & Hua-Yuan Hsueh
2017. Linguistic Features as Evidence for Historical Context Interpretation. In Text, Speech, and Dialogue [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10415], ► pp. 299 ff.
Maalej, Zouheir A.
2022. Framing and manipulation of person deixis in Hosni Mubarak’s last three speeches. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 633 ff.
Mang‐Benza, Carelle & Carol Hunsberger
2020. Wandering identities in energy transition discourses: Political leaders’ use of the “we” pronoun in Ontario, 2009–2019. Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes 64:3 ► pp. 516 ff.
Maslauskienė, Greta
2023. Speaker stance and engagement across disciplines in Lithuanian university lectures: the case of mes ‘we’ in medicine and business administration. Taikomoji kalbotyra :19 ► pp. 14 ff.
Masroor, Farzana & Ummul Khair Ahmad
2017. Directives in English language newspaper editorials across cultures. Discourse, Context & Media 20 ► pp. 83 ff.
Mitchell, Philip & James Stewart
2017. Who are We?. Journalism Practice 11:4 ► pp. 417 ff.
Nikula, Tarja, Taina Saarinen, Sari Pöyhönen & Teija Kangasvieri
2012. Linguistic Diversity as a Problem and a Resource — Multilingualism in European and Finnish Policy Documents. In Dangerous Multilingualism, ► pp. 41 ff.
Packard, Grant & Jonah Berger
2020. Thinking of You: How Second-Person Pronouns Shape Cultural Success. Psychological Science 31:4 ► pp. 397 ff.
Packard, Grant, Sarah G. Moore & Brent McFerran
2018. (I'm) Happy to Help (You): The Impact of Personal Pronoun Use in Customer–Firm Interactions. Journal of Marketing Research 55:4 ► pp. 541 ff.
Pan, Feng, Yi Fu & Tao Li
2023. Institutional translators’ mediation of CPC Work Reports diachronically through personal pronouns: a corpus-based discourse analysis approach. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
2014. Constructing collectivity with ‘we’: An introduction. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 1 ff.
Petersoo, Pille
Riboni, Georgia
2015. Enhancing citizen engagement. In Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 256], ► pp. 259 ff.
Robinson, Justyna A., Rhys J. Sandow & Roberta Piazza
2023. Introducing the keyconcept approach to the analysis of language: the case of regulation in COVID-19 diaries. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 6
Räikkönen, Jenni
2023. Chapter 5. Leaving the EU out of the ingroup. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 142 ff.
Saarinen, Taina
2008. Whose quality? Social actors in the interface of transnational and national higher education policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 29:2 ► pp. 179 ff.
Saarinen, Taina
2008. Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies in Higher Education 33:6 ► pp. 719 ff.
Saft, Scott
2017. Documenting an Endangered Language: The Inclusive First‐Person Plural Pronoun Kākou as a Resource for Claiming Ownership in Hawaiian. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 27:1 ► pp. 92 ff.
Salamurović, Aleksandra
2020. Metonymy and the conceptualisation of nation in political discourse. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 8:1 ► pp. 181 ff.
Screti, Francesco
2013. Defending Joyagainst thePopular Revolution: legitimation and delegitimation through songs. Critical Discourse Studies 10:2 ► pp. 205 ff.
Smith, Karen
2008. ‘Who do you think you’re talking to?’—the discourse of learning and teaching strategies. Higher Education 56:4 ► pp. 395 ff.
Suzuki, Takafumi
2009. Extracting speaker‐specific functional expressions from political speeches using random forests in order to investigate speakers' political styles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:8 ► pp. 1596 ff.
Dr Tanweer Ali, Kotwal, Ashok & Kate Power
2015. Eating words: a discourse historical analysis of the public debate over India’s 2013 National Food Security Act. On the Horizon 23:3 ► pp. 174 ff.
UȚĂ BĂRBULESCU, OANA & MELANIA ROIBU
2023. Câteva observații despre... noi. Clusivitatea în limba română. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 2023:2 ► pp. 306 ff.
Van Herck, Rebecca, Babette Dobbenie & Sofie Decock
2021. Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns. Intercultural Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 203 ff.
Vaughan, Elaine & Brian Clancy
2013. Small Corpora and Pragmatics. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013 [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 1], ► pp. 53 ff.
Vertommen, Bram
2022. The strategic value of pronominal choice. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 361 ff.
Vladimirou, Dimitra
2014. Author positioning and audience addressivity by means of ‘we’ in Greek academic discourse. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 265 ff.
Wang, Xi
2021. Construing Community with a Shared Future in President Xi Jinping’s Diplomatic Discourse (2013–2018): The Role of Personal Pronouns we and they. Critical Arts 35:3 ► pp. 35 ff.
Wang, Xi
2023. Images of China Construed in President Xi Jinping’s Overseas Signed Articles (2014–2021): The Role of Agency. SAGE Open 13:2
Watson, Cate & Aileen Ireland
2021. Boards in action: processes and practices of ‘strategising’ in the Boardroom. Journal of Management and Governance 25:3 ► pp. 933 ff.
Wilson, Nick
2019. Chapter 2. When we means you. In The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 304], ► pp. 35 ff.
Woodhams, Jay M.
2014. ‘We’re the nurses’: Metaphor in the discourse of workplace socialisation. Language & Communication 34 ► pp. 56 ff.
Woodhams, Jay M.
2019. The Political Priest: Multiple Stances, Multiple Selves. In Political Identity in Discourse, ► pp. 187 ff.
Woodhams, Jay M.
2019. ‘I’m a Greenie’: Stances of Political Self and Other. In Political Identity in Discourse, ► pp. 141 ff.
Yang, Zheng
2023. How do Chinese scientists maintain their discourse authority? Critical discourse analysis of discourse “boundary work” in genetically modified organisms discussion on a Chinese knowledge-sharing network. Chinese Journal of Communication 16:1 ► pp. 90 ff.
Yeo, Jiin-Yih & Su-Hie Ting
2014. Personal pronouns for student engagement in arts and science lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 34 ► pp. 26 ff.
Zhang, Haisu & Weizhi Chen
2019. Backer Motivation in Crowdfunding New Product Ideas: Is It about You or Is It about Me?. Journal of Product Innovation Management 36:2 ► pp. 241 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.