This chapter examines the referential domain, communicative function and perlocutionary effect of the first person plural pronoun we in dialogic and monologic British political discourse. Its methodological framework is an integrated one, combining interactional sociolinguistics, in particular co-occurrence and conversational inference, with quantitative and qualitative corpus analysis. The first part presents the methodological framework, focussing on the two types of discourse and the genre-specific distribution of self-references expressing collectivity considering the pronoun we and possible juxta-positioning of self and others. Particular attention is given to the construction of more generalized and more particularized types of collectivity. The second part presents the micro-analysis, distinguishing between local contexts in which collectivity is entextualized and others where the referential domains of the indexicals are left underspecified.
2002. “Cotext as context: Vague answers in court.” Language & Communication22(4): 457-475.
Lauerbach, Gerda and Fetzer, Anita
. 2007. “Introduction.” In Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Anita Fetzer and Gerda Lauerbach (eds), 3-30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mülhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom.
1990. Pronouns and People: The linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul and Bucholtz, Mary
. 2009. “Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts.” Text & Talk5: 485-502.
2012. “Collective aspects of subjectivity: The subject pronoun εμείς (‘we’) in Modern Greek.” In Subjectivity in Language and in Discourse, Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois and Juliane House (eds), 33-65. Leiden: Brill.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. 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.