Cover not available

In:The Expression of Inequality in Interaction: Power, dominance, and status
Edited by Hanna Pishwa and Rainer Schulze
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 248] 2014
► pp. 213–238

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

We and I, and you and them

People, power and solidarity

 | University of Augsburg
Published online: 12 June 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.248.09fet
This chapter examines the referential domain, communicative function and perlocutionary effect of the personal plural pronouns I and we, and you and them in political discourse, considering in particular their role in doing dominance and doing collectivity. Its methodological framework is an integrated one, combining more recent developments of Searlean speech act theory with interactional sociolinguistics, in particular co-occurrence and conversational inference. The paper is organized as follows: the introduction sets the scene, and the second section presents the contextual constraints and requirements of political discourse. The third section investigates the form and function of personal pronouns in English, considering in particular their role in the expression of individuality and collectivity, and dominance and solidarity. The fourth section presents a micro-analysis, distinguishing between local contexts in which collectivity and individuality, and dominance and solidarity are entextualized and others where the referential domains of the personal pronouns are left underspecified. A conclusion summarizes the results obtained arguing for a cognitive prototype-based scalar conception of individuality and collectivity, and dominance and solidarity, which are fore- and backgrounded in interaction.
References (34)
References
Austin, John L. 1971. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2002. “The significance of context in comprehension: the we case.” Foundations of Science7: 239–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Anita Fetzer. 2006. “Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews.” Text & Talk26: 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner (eds.). 2002. “Introduction: themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton, and Christina Schäffner, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1992. “Referring as a collaborative process.” In Intentions in Communication, ed. by Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. 
Pollack, 463–493. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 1995. “Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse.” Text15: 379–410.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2006. “Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. Congress”. Language in Society35: 467–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna (ed). 2002. Us and Others. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “Political discourse in the media: analytical framework.” In Approaches to Media Discourse, ed. by Allan Bell, and Peter Garret, 142–162. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2000. “Negotiating validtiy claims in political interviews.” Text 20(4): 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Minister, we will see how the public judges you”. Media references in political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics38(2): 180–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Small stories in political discourse: the public self goes private.” In Narratives Revisited, ed. by Christian Hoffman, 163–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “‘Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change’: strategic context importation in political discourse.” In Contexts in Context: Parts meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Etsuko Oishi, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. ““Judge us on what we do”: The strategic use of collective we in political discourse.” In Constructing Collectivity: “We” across Languages and Contexts, ed. by 
Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman. 2006. “Political discourse as mediated and public discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 38(2): 143–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Doing leadership in political speech: semantic processes and pragmatic inferences.” Discourse & Society 23(2) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Elisabeth Reber (eds.). 2012. Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg. – [online]. URL: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1994. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: a Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1996. “The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Stephen C. Levinson, 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inigo-Mora, Isabel. 2004. “On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities.” Journal of Language and Politics3: 27–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janney, Richard W. 2002. “Cotext as context: vague answers in court.” Language & Communication22(4): 457–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauerbach, Gerda, and Anita Fetzer. 2007. “Introduction.” In Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Gerda Lauerbach, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svartvik. 1994. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mülhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People: The linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul, and Mary Bucholtz. 2009. “Public transcripts: entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts.” Text & Talk 5: 485–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pyykkö, Ritta. 2002. “Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse.” In Us and Others, ed. by Anna Duszak, 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skarzynska, Krystyna. 2002. “We and they in Polish political discourse.” In Us and Others, ed. by Anna Duszak, 249–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue