In:Constructing Collectivity: 'We' across languages and contexts
Edited by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 239] 2014
► pp. 23–44
Referentiality, predicate patterns, and functions of we-utterances in American English interactions
Published online: 27 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.05sch
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.05sch
This usage-based study of we examines formal and functional properties of English conversational utterances from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, focusing on effects of the referentiality of the pronoun. Analyses suggest that different indexical uses of we have distinct formal distributions which reflect their discourse functions. Inclusiveness expressed with we utterances is shaped by the social understanding that when speakers include other speech act participants in their assertions, these utterances mediate inclusion through the use of modal elements or through presentation of inclusive opinions as commonly shared. In contrast, exclusive expressions frequently occur with past tense predicates, and in these utterances we indexes relationships and affiliations that are culturally conventional and central to participants’ routine experiences.
References (42)
Assouline, Dalit. 2010. “The emergence of two first-person plural pronouns in Haredi Jerusalemite Yiddish.”
Journal of Germanic Linguistics
22: 1–22.
Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne(eds). 2000.
Usage-based Models of Language
. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Benveniste, Émile. 1971.
Problems in General Linguistics
. Translated byMary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Boyland, Joyce Tang.2009. “Usage-based models of language.” In
Experimental and Quantitative Linguistics
, David Eddington(ed.), 351–419. Munich: Lincom.
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.”
Language
82: 711–733.
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena and Theakston, Anna. 2007. “What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation.”
Journal of Child Language
33: 251–282.
Cumming, Susanna, Ono, Tsuyoshi and Laury, Ritva. 2011. “Discourse, grammar and interaction.” In
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction
, 2nd
edition, Teun A. van Dijk(ed.), 8–36. London: Sage.
Cysouw, Michael. 2011a. “Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent pronouns.” In
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online
, Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath(eds). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at [URL]. Accessed on 2011–05-26.
. 2011b. “Inclusive/exclusive distinction in verbal inflection.” In
The World Atlas of Language Structures Online
, Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath(eds). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at [URL]. Accessed on 2011–10-09.
Du Bois, John W.1985. “Competing motivations.” In
Iconicity in Syntax
, John Haiman(ed.), 343–365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna and Paolino, Danae. 1993. “Outline of discourse transcription.
Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research
, Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert(eds), 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duszak, Anna(ed.). 2002.
Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures
. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, Charles J.1997. “The need for a frame semantics within linguistics.” In
Statistical Methods in Linguistics
, Hans Karlgren(ed.), 5–29. Stockholm: Scriptor.
Ford, Cecilia E.2004. “Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: because on the interactive-edited continuum.”
Text
14: 531–554.
Fox, Barbara A.2007. “Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.”
Discourse Studies
9: 299–318.
Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A. 2007. “Relative Clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction.”
Studies in Language
31: 293–326.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2011. “Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions?” In
Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion
, Mario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries and Milena Žic Fuchs(eds), 237–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2002. “Grammar and function of we.” In
Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures
, Anna Duszak(ed.), 31–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2007. “Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter.”
Journal of English Linguistics
35: 236–252.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971[1957]. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.” In
Selected Writings II
, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.
Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. “‘Speaking as a heterosexual’: (How) Does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction?”
Research on Language and Social Interaction
38: 221–265.
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. “A dynamic usage-based model.” In
Usage-based Models of Language
, Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer(eds), 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Lerner, Gene H. and Kitzinger, Celia. 2007. “Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference.”
Discourse Studies
9: 526–557.
Margolin, Uri. 1996. “Telling our story: On ‘we’ literary narratives.”
Language and Literature
5: 115–133.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. this volume. “The pragmatics of first person non-singular pronouns in Norf’k.” In
Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts
, Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom. 1990.
Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity
. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Myhill, John. 1995. “Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals.”
Linguistics
33: 157–211.
. 1996. “The development of the strong obligation system in American English.”
American Speech
71: 339–388.
Myhill, John and Smith, Laura A.1995. “The discourse and interactive functions of obligation expressions.” In
Modality in Grammar and Discourse
, Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman(eds), 239–292. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan.1985.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
. London: Longman.
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002.
Point of View and Grammar
. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2004. “Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation.” In
Language, Culture and Mind
, Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer(eds), 377–396. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
. 2007. “Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations.”
Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction
, Robert Englebretson(ed.), 111–138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sherzer, Joel. 1987. “A Discourse-centered approach to language and culture.”
American Anthropologist, New Series
89: 295–309.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description.” In
Meaning in Anthropology
, Keith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby(eds), 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
. 1998. “The uses and utility of ideology: A commentary.” In
Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory
, Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity(eds), 123–145. New York: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, Claudia. 2004. “Cultural standing in expression of opinion.”
Language in Society
33: 161–194.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Márquez, Daniel & Alicia Martínez-Flor
UȚĂ BĂRBULESCU, OANA & MELANIA ROIBU
DuBord, Elise M.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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.
