Article published in:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 12:3 (2013) ► pp. 315–334

Managing ideological differences in joint political press conferences

A study of the strategic use of the personal pronoun ‘we’

| Örebro University
| Örebro University
This study focuses on Swedish political press conferences and explores the discursive efforts of politicians to express unity despite diverging ideological views. It concerns the use of the first person pronoun ‘we’ (Swedish. we) and is influenced by both dialogue theory and linguistic theories, which highlight the meaning of pronouns in context. The data consist of transcribed web broadcasts of press conferences with the leaders of the four political parties that form the Swedish Government since 2006. Our analysis reveals that a clear-cut use of the personal pronoun ‘we’ can serve the same political purposes as a more ambiguous use, i.e. to show unity while there are differences. The four party leaders are involved in a communicative project of ‘doing unity’ to demonstrate that they are a very capable government.
Keywords: political communication, press conferences, dialogue theory, pronouns, communicative project, journalism, politics
Published online: 27 September 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.01mob
References
Banning, Stephen A., and Susan Billingsley
2007 “Journalist Aggressiveness in Joint Versus Solo Presidential Press Conferences.” Mass Communication & Society 10 (4), 461–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430701580672Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
2002 “The Significance of Context in Comprehension: The ‘We Case’.” Foundations of Science 7 (3): 239–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019657025835Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1995 Människan i språket. Émile Benveniste; texter i urval av John Sweden-mark. Stockholm: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi
2006 “Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Press Conferences.” Discourse & Society 17 (2): 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057Google 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 & Talk 26 (1): 3–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul A., and Christina Schäffner
1997 “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 21, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 206–230. London: SAGE publications.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul A., & Christina Schäffner
(2002) Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E
2006 “Arenas of Interaction in the New Media Era.” In News from the Interview Society, ed. by Mats Ekström, Åsa Kroon, and Mats Nylund, 239–264. Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., Marc N. Elliott, John Heritage, and Laurie L. McDonald
2006 “Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents 1953–2000.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (4): 561–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.02568.xGoogle Scholar
2007 “When Does the Watchdog Bark? Conditions of Aggressive Questioning in Presidential News Conferences.” American Sociological Review 72 (1): 23–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200102Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., & John Heritage
(2002) The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623Google Scholar
Cramer, Jennifer
2010 “‘Do We Really Want to be Like Them?’: Indexing Europeaness through Pronominal Use.” Discourse & Society 21 (6): 619–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926510381217Google Scholar
de Fina, Anna
1995 “Pronominal Choice, Identity, and Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Text 15 (3): 379–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.3.379Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats, Åsa Kroon, and Mats Nylund
(2006) News from the Interview Society. Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats
2009 “Power and Affiliation in Presidential Press Conferences: A Study on Interruptions, Jokes and Laughter.” Journal of Language and Politics 8 (3): 386–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.8.3.03eksGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
(1995) Media Discourse. London: Edvard Arnold.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull
2008 “‘Well, I Answer It by Simply Inviting You to Look at the Evidence’. The Strategic Use of Pronouns in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (2): 271–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fetGoogle Scholar
Ínigo-Mora, Isabel
2004 “On the Use of the Personal Pronoun We in Communities.” Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1): 27–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05iniGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Geert
2010 “Press Conferences on the Internet: Technology, Mediation and Access in the News.” Journal of Pragmatics. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma. 2010.09.019.Google Scholar
Lanham, Richard A
(1991) A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
(1998) Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
(2009) Television Discourse. Analyzing Language in the Media. Palgrave Hampshire: Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Martin
2008 “The Discourse of the Broadcast News Interview.” Journalism Studies 9 (2): 260–277.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700701848303Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, & Rom Harré
(1990) Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alistair
1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal Volume 48 (2): 173–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173Google Scholar
Petersoo, Pille
2007 “What Does ‘We’ Mean? National Deixis in the Media.” Journal of Language and Politics 6 (3): 419–436.Google Scholar
Phillips, Louise
1996 “Rhetoric and the Spread of the Discourse of Thatcherism.” Discourse and Society 7 (2): 209–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007002004Google Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna
(2002) Power Talk. Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wilson, John
(1990) Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Li, Tao & Kaibao Hu
2021.  In Reappraising Self and Others [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 6], ► pp. 13 ff. Crossref logo
Mitchell, Philip & James Stewart
2017. Who are We?. Journalism Practice 11:4 ► pp. 417 ff. Crossref logo
Van Herck, Rebecca, Babette Dobbenie & Sofie Decock
2021. Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns. Intercultural Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo
Watson, Cate & Aileen Ireland
2021. Boards in action: processes and practices of ‘strategising’ in the Boardroom. Journal of Management and Governance 25:3 ► pp. 933 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.