Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 23:2 (2013) ► pp.361–383

The strategic value of pronominal choice

Exclusive and inclusive “we” in political panel debates

This study explores the use of the first person plural pronoun “we/wij” by government and opposition party members in panel debates from the Flemish talk show De Zevende Dag. Both groups of politicians enter this arena with divergent communicative goals, which has clear implications (i) for the type of propositions in which subclasses of “we/wij”-pronouns are generally involved and (ii) for the politicians’ assessment of the status of these propositions. Patterns with regard to these three implications are analyzed by means of a systemic functional approach supported with quantitative data. It is claimed that government and opposition party discussants either employ distinct patterns in accordance with their different aims, or that they use similar ones, albeit with divergent discourse functions. The former scenario turns out to be true in the case of exclusive uses of “we/wij” and the latter in the case of inclusive meanings. In that way, the paper sheds light on subtle differences in how government and opposition party discussants argue and deal with the invisible presence of an overhearing broadcast audience.

Keywords: Political panel debates, Pronominal reference, Pragmatics, Appraisal, Systemic functional linguistics (SFL), Activity type
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.2.07ver
References
Bednarek, Monika A
(2009) Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition 17.1: 146-175. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blom, J.-P., and J.J. Gumperz
(1972) Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code switching in Northern Norway. In J.J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 407-434.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan
(2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, P., and A. 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.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul A
(2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.  MetBib. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P.A., and C. Schäffner
(1997) Discourse and politics. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 206-230.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E
(2002) Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 34.10-11: 1385-1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S.E., and J. Heritage
(2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3: 547-619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne
(1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie
(2006) Interviewers' challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39.3: 570-591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, David L
(1992) On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew, and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268-301.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen
(2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
(2002) Grammar and function of we . In A. Duszak (ed.), Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 31-49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
(2007) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., and G. Thompson
(2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, Isabel
(2004) On the ese of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27-52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(2000 [1994]) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lauerbach, Gerda E
(2006) Discourse representation in political interviews: The construction of identities and relations through voicing and ventriloquizing. Journal of Pragmatics 38.2: 196-215. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lauerbach, G.E., and A. Fetzer
(2007) Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives. In G.E. Lauerbach, and A. Fetzer (eds.), Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 3-28. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew, and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66-100.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R., and D. Rose
(2007 [2003]) Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R., and P.R.R. White
(2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B
(1997) Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pounds, Gabrina
(2010) Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific 'reporter' voice. Discourse Studies 12.1: 106-137. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik
(2000 [1985]) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
(1987) Pronouns for strategic purposes. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and Practices: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986.Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 261-269.Google Scholar
(1997) Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences 19.4: 341-356. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2000) The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10.1: 41-63. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., P.R.R. White, and K. Aijmer
(2007) Presupposition and 'taking-for-granted' in mass communicated political argument: An illustration from British, Flemish and Swedish political colloquy. In A. Fetzer, and G.E. Lauerbach (eds.), Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 31-74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
(1990) Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Harper Collins.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson
(1995 [1986]) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
(1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2012) Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Peter R.R
(1998) Telling media tales: The news story as rethoric. Sydney: University of SydneyPh.D. thesis.Google Scholar
(2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23.2: 259-284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H
(1998) Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki, and S. Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage Publications, pp. 87-106.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Jacobs, Catho, Dorien Van De Mieroop & Colette Van Laar
2022. Catching identities in flight . Narrative Inquiry 32:1 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Li, Tao & Kaibao Hu
2021. Corpus-Based Translation Studies and Political Discourse Analysis. In Reappraising Self and Others [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 6], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Li, Tao & Yifan Zhu
2020. How does China appraise self and others? A corpus-based analysis of Chinese political discourse. Discourse & Society 31:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Maalej, Zouheir A.
2022. Framing and manipulation of person deixis in Hosni Mubarak’s last three speeches. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 633 ff. DOI logo
Vázquez Laslop, María Eugenia
2019. Pragmatic and grammatical categories for the analysis of forms of address in presidential election debates. In It’s not all aboutyou [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Whissell, Cynthia
2021. Pumping Up the Base: Deployment of Strong Emotion and Simple Language in Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speeches. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Žurauskaitė, Eglė
2021. Expressing Impoliteness in Political TV Debates. Lietuvių kalba :16 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 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.