Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:1 (2022) ► pp.126–150

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

Using wǒmen (we) to mean s/he in Chinese parents’ interaction

Interpersonal meanings and relational work

 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 21 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19019.han
Abstract
Using the first-person plural pronoun wǒmen (we) to refer to a child (=he/she) is repeatedly observed in Chinese parents’ interaction. To understand its interpersonal meanings, this study investigates this non-prototypical pronoun use in Chinese parents’ community of practice. The analysis shows that the non-prototypical use of this pronoun not only displays agency and connection between parents and children but also reveals the seemingly close but detached relationship among parents. This non-prototypical pronoun use unveils the complex and dynamic nature of relational work. We argue for the significance of community of practice in relational work studies, as it can proffer social and cultural contexts to pronoun use and a situated understanding of interactants’ interpersonal relationships. The present study contributes to the documentation of the non-prototypical use of wǒmen in Chinese contexts and the comprehension of its interpersonal meanings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.First-person plural pronoun and relational work
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Interpersonal meanings of the non-prototypical use of wǒmen
    • 4.1Relationship between parents and children
      • 4.1.1Displaying agency
      • 4.1.2Creating connection and collectivity
      • 4.1.3Negotiating dynamic and situated parent-child relationship
        • Agency vs dependence
        • Connection vs. power
    • 4.2Relationship among parents
      • 4.2.1Building solidarity
      • 4.2.2Implying social distance
  • 5.Contextual and socio-cultural issues related to the pronoun use
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (34)
References
Arundale, Robert B. 2010. “Relating.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, 137–67. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2018. “Investigating Audience Orientation in Courtroom Communication.” Pragmatics and Society 9 (4): 545–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Cuizhu. 2009. “A Study on the Chinese Personal Pronoun (汉语人称代词考论) (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).” Huazhong Normal University, China.
Guo, Qiping. 2008. “Person Deictic Functions of Chinese ‘w/Wǒmen’and Their Illumination for Dictionary Definition.” Journal of Southwest University of Science and Technology (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 25 (1): 55–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Yanmei. 2015. “Discursive Construction of the Identity of Young Emerging Middle-Class Parents in China” (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China.
Han, Yanmei, and Jianping Chen. 2019. “‘We Were Not at School Today’: First Person Pronouns and Discursive Construction of Identities by Emerging Middle-Class Chinese Parents.” Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 42 (3): 285–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. 2005. “‘We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory … The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap’: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing.” Applied Linguistics 26 (3): 343–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2002. “Grammar and Function of We.” In Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures, ed. by Anna Duszak, 31–49. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1994. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Harper Collins Business.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra. 2004. “Relational Practice in the Workplace: Women’s Talk or Gendered Discourse?” Language in Society 33 (3): 377–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Chul-Kyu. 2009. “Personal Pronouns in English and Korean Texts: A Corpus-Based Study in Terms of Textual Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 2086–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuo, Chih-Hua. 1999. “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 121–38. 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
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Pragmatics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2008. “Relational Work, Politeness and Identity Construction.” In Handbooks of Applied Linguistics: Interpersonal Communication, ed. by Gerd Antos, Eija Ventola, and Tilo Weber, 509–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam. 2013. “Relational Work and Interpersonal Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 581: 145–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham. 2010. “Introduction to Interpersonal Pragmatics.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, 1–16. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Andreas Langlotz. 2008. “Relational Work: At the Intersection of Cognition, Interaction and Emotion.” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (Swiss Association of Applied Linguistics) 881: 165–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Elizabeth R. 2013. “Positioning Selves, Doing Relational Work and Constructing Identities in Interview Talk.” Journal of Politeness Research 9 (1): 75–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (ed). 2014a. Constructing Collectivity: “we” across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. “Constructing Collectivity with ‘we’: An Introduction.” In Constructing Collectivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, Rebecca & Melissa Mosley Wetzel. 2013. “Studying Agency in Literacy Teacher Education: A Layered Approach to Positive Discourse Analysis.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10 (1): 62–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rounds, Patricia L. 1987. “Multifunctional Personal Pronoun Use in an Educational Setting.” English for Specific Purposes 6 (1): 13–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2004. “Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation.” In Language, Culture and Mind, ed. by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer, 375–96. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2010. “Mitigation.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, 253–70. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2007. “Power Maneuvers and Connection Maneuvers in Family Interaction.” In Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families, ed. by D. Tannen, S. Kendall, and C. Gordon, 27–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Hailong. 2001. “The Interpersonal Functions and Cultural Differences of ’WE/Wǒmen ’in English and Chinese (英汉语“WE/我们”的人际功能与文化差异).” Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, no. 3: 17–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Triandis, Harry C., Robert Bontempo, Marcelo J. Villareal, Masaaki Asai, and Nydia Lucca. 1988. “Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships.” J Pers Soc Psychol 541: 323–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenger, E. T. Ienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Chunquan. 2005. “The Extensive Reference of the First Person Pronoun and Its Psychological Motivation (第一人称代词的虚指及其心理动因).” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 35 (3): 106–12.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liu, Mengna, Xiqiao Liang & Jinshi Chen
2024. Constructing identities in institutional impersonation fraud: self-styling and other-styling practices through stances. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue