Cover not available
Part of
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

| Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA
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.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.05sch
References (42)
References
Assouline, Dalit. 2010. “The emergence of two first-person plural pronouns in Haredi Jerusalemite Yiddish.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne(eds). 2000. Usage-based Models of Language . Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics . Translated byMary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Boyland, Joyce Tang.2009. “Usage-based models of language.” In Experimental and Quantitative Linguistics , David Eddington(ed.), 351–419. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.” Language 82: 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition . Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna(ed.). 2002. Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.1997. “The need for a frame semantics within linguistics.” In Statistical Methods in Linguistics , Hans Karlgren(ed.), 5–29. Stockholm: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.2004. “Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: because on the interactive-edited continuum.” Text 14: 531–554.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.2007. “Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.” Discourse Studies 9: 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. J.1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter.” Journal of English Linguistics 35: 236–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971[1957]. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb.” In Selected Writings II , 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. “‘Speaking as a heterosexual’: (How) Does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 221–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. and Kitzinger, Celia. 2007. “Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference.” Discourse Studies 9: 526–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margolin, Uri. 1996. “Telling our story: On ‘we’ literary narratives.” Language and Literature 5: 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. “Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals.” Linguistics 33: 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “The development of the strong obligation system in American English.” American Speech 71: 339–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of View and Grammar . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1987. “A Discourse-centered approach to language and culture.” American Anthropologist, New Series 89: 295–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Strauss, Claudia. 2004. “Cultural standing in expression of opinion.” Language in Society 33: 161–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.2009. “On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: a variationist study of that.” Linguistics 47: 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

UȚĂ BĂRBULESCU, OANA & MELANIA ROIBU
2023. Câteva observații despre... noi. Clusivitatea în limba română. Studii și cercetări lingvistice 2023:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
DuBord, Elise M.
2021. Nosotros como familia: the negotiation of group identity in a binational community of practice. Language and Intercultural Communication 21:5 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. The Politics of Person Reference [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 320], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.