Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 3:1 (2004) ► pp.27–52
On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities
Published online: 27 May 2004
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
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 (42)
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.
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.
Fortanet, I. 2004. The Use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 231, 45–66.
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.
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.
. 1997. Territory of Information. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2001. English generic we, you, and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics331, 1111–1124.
. 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.
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.
Sánchez Macarro, A. 2002. Windows on the World: Media Discourse in English. Valencia: Universitat de València.
Seidel, G. 1975. Ambiguity in political discourse. In: M. Bloch (ed.). Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London: Academic Press, 205–228.
Cited by (76)
Cited by 76 other publications
Chu, Rong-Xuan
Gallitelli, Eleonora
Gonja, Chika & Talaibek Musaev
Kong, Mingxuan & Wenyu Liu
Leuprecht, Christian, David B. Skillicorn & David Kernot
McEntee-Atalianis, Lisa & Rachelle Vessey
Yağlı, Emre
Chinn, Sedona, Dan Hiaeshutter-Rice & Kaiping Chen
Ebner, Johannes
Katiambo, David
Lentz, Paula, Kristen Getchell, James Dubinsky & Mary Katherine Kerr
Pan, Feng, Yi Fu & Tao Li
Phanthaphoommee, Narongdej & Jeremy Munday
2024. Pronoun shifts in political discourse. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:6 ► pp. 825 ff.
Winter-Froemel, Esme
Яcакова, Наталія
Maslauskienė, Greta
Robinson, Justyna A., Rhys J. Sandow & Roberta Piazza
Räikkönen, Jenni
2023. Leaving the EU out of the ingroup. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 142 ff.
UȚĂ BĂRBULESCU, OANA & MELANIA ROIBU
Yang, Zheng
Amaro, Raquel, Susana Correia, Matilde Gonçalves, Chiara Barbero & Miguel Magalhães
Gelabert-Desnoyer, Jaime J.
2022. Not so impersonal. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 407 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.
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.
Vertommen, Bram
2022. The strategic value of pronominal choice. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 361 ff.
Van Herck, Rebecca, Babette Dobbenie & Sofie Decock
Wang, Xi
Wang, Xi
Watson, Cate & Aileen Ireland
DeCoursey, C. A. & Ewa B. Krawczyk
Ledegen, Gudrun & Albin Wagener
Li, Jianing & Min-Hsin Su
Mang‐Benza, Carelle & Carol Hunsberger
Packard, Grant & Jonah Berger
Salamurović, Aleksandra
Formato, Federica
Wilson, Nick
2019. When we means you
. In The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 304], ► pp. 35 ff.
Zhang, Haisu & Weizhi Chen
Packard, Grant, Sarah G. Moore & Brent McFerran
Coesemans, Roel & Barbara De Cock
Green, Seth, Megan Stiles, Katherine Harton, Samantha Garofalo & Donald E. Brown
Liu, Jyi-Shane, Ching-Ying Lee & Hua-Yuan Hsueh
Masroor, Farzana & Ummul Khair Ahmad
Saft, Scott
Riboni, Georgia
2015. Enhancing citizen engagement. In Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 256], ► pp. 259 ff.
Dr Tanweer Ali, Kotwal, Ashok & Kate Power
Carta, Caterina
Carta, Caterina
Fetzer, Anita
2014. We and I, and you and them. In The Expression of Inequality in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 248], ► pp. 213 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2014. “Judge us on what we do”. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 331 ff.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
2014. Constructing collectivity with ‘we’. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 1 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.
Woodhams, Jay M.
Woodhams, Jay M.
Woodhams, Jay M.
Yeo, Jiin-Yih & Su-Hie Ting
Screti, Francesco
Vaughan, Elaine & Brian Clancy
Beldarrain-Durandegui, Angel
Nikula, Tarja, Taina Saarinen, Sari Pöyhönen & Teija Kangasvieri
Hernández-Campoy, J.M. & J.A. Cutillas-Espinosa
Suzuki, Takafumi
Halmari, Helena
2008. On the language of the Clinton-Dole presidential campaign debates. Journal of Language and Politics 7:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Saarinen, Taina
Saarinen, Taina
Smith, Karen
KAVALSKI, EMILIAN & MAGDALENA ZOLKOS
Petersoo, Pille
Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer
Cheng, Maria
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.
