Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Collectivity: 'We' across languages and contexts
Edited by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 239] 2014
► pp. 247–264

“Nail polish – We’ve chosen the nicest shades for you!”

Editorial voice and ‘we’ in a Flemish women’s magazine

| Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
This chapter analyses the discursive strategies text producers of a Flemish women’s magazine adopt by using the first person plural pronoun. The analysis shows that in some instances, exclusive ‘we’ is used to create a distance between the editorial voice and the readers. The editorial voice gets an advisory or even compelling overtone in these cases. In other cases, inclusive ‘we’ is used to create a sisterly ‘we’-collectivity. However, in the inclusive category, some instances of a pragmatically equivocal use can be found. This use seems to attribute the status of a role model to the editorial voice. On the whole, exclusive as well as inclusive uses of ‘we’ most often contribute to the persuasive and directive style this magazine adopts.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.17tem
References (37)
References
Bazzanella, Carla. 2002. “The significance of context in comprehension: The ‘we case’.” Foundations of Science 7(3): 239–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byerly, Carolyn M. and Ross, Karen.2006. Women and Media: A Critical Introduction . Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter and Fetzer, Anita.2006. “Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews.” Text & Talk 26: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa.1996. “‘Women who pay for sex. And enjoy it.’: Transgression versus morality in women’s magazines.” In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis , Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard(eds), 250–270. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1996. Women Talk . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crismore, Avon. 2004. “Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: A corpus linguistic analysis.” In Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics , Ulla Connor and Thomas A. Upton(eds), 307–330. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 1995. “Pronominal choice, identity, and solidarity in political discourse.” Text 15(3): 379–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deuze, Mark. 2004. Wat is Journalistiek? Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
Dieltjens Sylvain and Heynderickx, Priscilla.2003. “The indefinite ‘we’ (het ‘wij’-gevoel/ le ‘nous’ indéfini): Sender and receiver references in top-down communication: a text type-based approach.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 33(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dori-Hacohen, Gonen. this volume. “Establishing social groups in Hebrew: ‘We’ in political radio phone-in programs.” In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts , Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou(ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Feldstein, Mark. 2007. “Dummies and ventriloquists: Models of how sources set the investigative agenda.” Journalism 8(5): 499–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Marjorie. 1983. Forever Feminine: Women’s Magazines and the Cult of Femininity . Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Gauntlett, David. 2002. Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction . London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 2001[1981]. “Footing.” In Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader , Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates(eds), 93–110. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walteret al.1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst . Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “«Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing»: An interview-based study of ‘I’ and ‘we’.” Text & Talk 27(1): 27–54. 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
Huddleston, Rodneyet al.2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Frank. 1992. “Politeness phenomena in Dutch direct mail.” In Studies of Functional Text Quality , Henk Pander Maat and Michaël Steehouder(eds), 57–72. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato and Lehrer, Adrienne.1990. “Impersonal uses of personal pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C.2001. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication . 8th edition.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, Linda. 2000. The Language of Magazines . London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McQuail, Denis. 2010. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory . 6th edition.London: Sage.Google Scholar
Middleton, Peter. 1993. “Who am I to speak: The politics of subjectivity in recent British poetry.” In New British Poetries , Peter Barry and Robert Hampson(eds), 107–133. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom.1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity . Oxford: Blackwell.Google 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
Spiegelberg, Herbert. 1973. “On the right to say ‘we’: A linguistic and phenomenological analysis.” In Phenomenological Sociology , George Psathas(ed.), 129–156. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Sian. 2007. “The changing face of women’s magazines in Russia.” Journalism Studies 8(4): 613–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Mary. 1995. “A synthetic sisterhood.” In Gender Articulated Language and the Socially Constructed Self , Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz(eds), 143–165. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Martina. 2008. “«Today, we're all Danes»: Argumentative meaning of the 1st and 2nd person pronouns in newspaper editorials on the Muhammad cartoons.” L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria XVI: 289–303 (Special Issue: Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue ).Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop, Dorien.2006. “Identity construction in institutional speeches: The crucial role of pronouns.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 2: 81–103.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, Karijn.1995. Vijftien Jaar Flair in Beeld: Een Onderzoek naar de Evolutie in de Vormgeving van een Vrouwenblad . Unpublished MA thesis. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van De Mieroop, Dorien
2014. On the use of ‘we’ in Flemish World War II interviews. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 309 ff. 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.