Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Collectivity: 'We' across languages and contexts
Edited by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 239] 2014
► pp. 83–104

Grammar, interaction, and context

Unmarked and marked uses of the first person 
plural in Italian

 | The University of Turin, Italy
The referential flexibility of the first person plural allows for a range of references, starting from the ‘canonical’ use (which usually includes speaker and addressee) to other, various uses, strictly depending on context and cotext. This multiple, potential reference produces indeterminacy, which on the one hand may cause interpretation problems, but on the other performs a range of functions, such as those related to the construction of a relevant collectivity or to the expression of emotions and/or ideology. In Italian, a partially pro-drop language (where the subject pronoun may be omitted, and word order is more or less free), pragmatic functions may also be triggered by explicit pronouns, dislocations, alternant uses of explicit and implicit pronouns, and repetitions.These functions will be exemplified in different contexts, mainly in If This is a Man by Primo Levi, and discussed from a pragmatic perspective, thus highlighting the different ways in which languages shape the close intertwining of grammar, interaction, and context.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.08baz
References (46)
References
Akman, Varol and Bazzanella, Carla. 2003. “The complexity of context.” In On Context , Carla Bazzanella and Varol Akman(eds), Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue35(3): 321–329.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona(ed.). 2006. “Translation and context.” Journal of Pragmatics , Special Issue38(3): 317–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla(ed.). 1996. Repetition in Dialogue . Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 1998. “On context and dialogue.” In Dialogue in the Heart of Europe, Proceedings IADA (Prague 1996), Svìtla Èmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová and J. Svìtlá(eds), 407–416. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2002. “The significance of context in comprehension: The ‘we case’.” Context in Context , Bruce Edmonds and Varol Akman(eds), FOS (Foundations of Science), Special Issue7: 239–254.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a ‘compositional’ meaning.” Approaches to Discourse Particles , Kerstin Fischer(ed.), 449–464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2008. Linguistica e Pragmatica del Linguaggio . Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2nd revised edition.Google Scholar
. 2009. “ Noi come meccanismo di intensità.” In Fenomeni di Intensità nell’Italiano Parlato , Barbara Gili Fivela and Carla Bazzanella(eds), 101–114. Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
. 2011a. “Indeterminacy in dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 1(1): 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse.” In The Discourse of Redundancy , Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer(eds), Language Sciences, Special Issue33(2): 243–254.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla and Morra, Lucia. 2000. “Discourse markers and the indeterminacy of translation.” In Argomenti per una Linguistica della Traduzione, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, Notes pour une Linguistique de la Traduction , Iørn Korzen and Carla Marello(eds), 149–157. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla and Miecznikowski, Johanna. 2009. “Central/peripheral functions of allora and ‘overall pragmatic configuration’.” In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics , Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Jacqueline Visconti(eds), 107–121. Amsterdam: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale . Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja and Thomassen, Gøril. this volume. “Referential and functional aspects of the Norwegian first person plural vi.” In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts , Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bühler, Karl.1934/1965. Sprachteorie . Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter and Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews.” Text & Talk 26: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciliberti, Anna(ed.). 2007. La Costruzione Interazionale di Identità: Repertori Linguistici e Pratiche Discorsive degli Italiani in Australia . Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Conway, Robert S.1989. “The singular use of nos.” Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge, Eng . Transactions, v. 1. London: Clay.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo(ed.). 1999. “Misunderstanding.” Journal of Pragmatics , Special Issue36(1).Google Scholar
Dieltjens, Sylvain and Heynderickx, Priscilla. 2007. “Strategic uses of the pronoun we in business communication.” In Discourse, Ideology and Specialized Communication , Giuliana Garzone and Srikant Sarangi(eds), 233–247. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1984. “The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation.” Text 4(4): 277–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna(ed.). 2002. Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. this volume. “«Judge us on what we do»: The strategic use of collective we in British political discourse.” In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts , Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, Charles J.1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis . Bloomington (Indiana): Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara and Bazzanella, Carla(eds). 2009. Fenomeni di Intensità nell’Italiano Parlato . Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2002. “Grammar and functions of we.” In Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures , Anna Duszak(ed.), 29–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2008. “Talking the talk, walking the walk: Candidate Profiles in Election Campaign Interviews.” In Proceedings of the IADA Workshop Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue. Homage to Sorin Stati , v. 2, Giovanni Gobber, Simone Cantarini, Sergio Cigada, Maria C. Gatti and S. Gilardoni(eds). L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, Special IssueXVI: 543–557.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1984. “Modifying illocutionary force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 341–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Wiltrud Mihatsch and Stefan Schneider(eds). 2010. New Approaches to Hedging . Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. “Intensity.” In Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics , Deborah Schiffrin(ed.), 43–70. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. and Svartvik, Jan.1978. A Communicative Grammar of English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.1983/1985. Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977/1980. Semantics , v. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana and Foppa, Klaus. 1990. The Dynamics of Dialogue . New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Massariello Merzagora, Giovanna. 2008. “Farsi testimone: Dalla tentazione del silenzio alla presa di parola tra ‘noi’ ed ‘io’ in Se Questo è un Uomo di Primo Levi.” In Discorsi di Lingua e Letteratura per Teresa Poggi Salani , Annalisa Nesi and Nicoletta Maraschio(eds). Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Massariello Merzagora, Giovanna and Dal Maso, Serena. 2006. Le Forme dell’io: La Referenza al sé nelle Storie di Vita di Immigrati . Milano: Mimesis.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L.1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom.1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Gonzales, Patrick and Jacoby, Sally. 1996. “When I come down I’m in a domain state: Talk, gesture, and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists.” In Interaction and Grammar , Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson(eds), 328–368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula. 2012. “Collective aspects of subjectivity: The subject pronoun εμε?ς (‘we’) in Modern Greek.” In Subjectivity in Language and in Discourse , Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois and Juliane House(eds), 33–65. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo. 1995. “La deissi.” In Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione , Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi and Anna Cardinaletti(eds), vol. III, 350–375. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Stati, Sorin. 1982. Il Dialogo: Considerazioni di Linguistica Pragmatica . Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Ochs, Elinor and Thompson, Sandra A.1996. “Introduction.” In Interaction and Grammar , Emanuel Schegloff, Elinor Ochs and Sandra A. Thompson(eds), 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temmerman, Martina. 2008. “«Today, we're all Danes»: Argumentative meaning of the 1st and 2nd person pronouns in newspaper editorials on the Muhammad cartoons.” L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria XVI: 289–303(Special Issue: Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue).Google Scholar
Vladimirou, Dimitra. this volume. “Author positioning and audience addressivity by means of ‘we’ in Greek academic discourse.” In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts , Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda. 2008. “The argumentative power of words or how to move people’s minds with words.” L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria , Special IssueXVI: 73–92(Special Issue: Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue).Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Jacobs, Catho, Dorien Van De Mieroop & Colette Van Laar
2022. Catching identitiesin flight. Narrative Inquiry 32:1 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
De Stefani, Elwys
2018. Formulating direction: Navigational instructions in driving lessons. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Simões Marques, Isabelle & Michèle Koven
2017. “We are going to our Portuguese homeland!”. Narrative Inquiry 27:2 ► pp. 286 ff. DOI logo
Simões Marques, Isabelle & Michèle Koven
2019. “We are going to our Portuguese homeland!”. In Storytelling in the digital world [Benjamins Current Topics, 104], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Bazzanella, Carla
2015. Grammar and Emotion. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
2014. Constructing collectivity with ‘we’. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 december 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.