Article published in:
The referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences
Edited by Barbara De Cock and Bettina Kluge
[Pragmatics 26:3] 2016
► pp. 361–378

Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns

A cross-linguistic analysis

This paper argues for revisiting the traditional adscription of ambiguous readings of personal pronouns, such as hearer-dominant we or generic you, pluralis maiestatis and pluralis modestiae to specific genres and/or registers. Indeed, in many languages these phenomena are considered typical for a certain genre, register or discourse context. In this paper, I will argue, on the basis of quantitative data and a qualitative analysis of examples taken from different genres (including purposefully creative language use in fiction), that a more accurate account may be formulated in terms of (inter)subjective effect, viz. the attention to the (inter)locutor (among others Benveniste 1966), as a more suitable explanation for the variation of these phenomena attested in corpora.The hearer-oriented uses of we, for instance, are considered typical for relationships characterized by power asymmetries such as teacher-student, doctor-patient (Haverkate 1984: 87; Brown & Levinson 1987), whereas generic and speaker-referring you have been considered a feature of (informal) oral language than written discourse (Hidalgo Navarro 1996). Recent corpus-based analyses including quantitative and qualitative analyses, however, call for a more nuanced view (De Cock 2011 on Spanish and English; Tarenskeen 2010 on Dutch). We may, for example, find hearer-oriented or even hearer-dominant 1st person plural forms (Have we taken our medicine?) in contexts where no power- relationship can be defined, e.g. among couples.It will be shown that these uses have different intersubjective effects, however. Their distribution is in line with overall differences as to intersubjectivity according to register and genre, beyond referential ambiguity. The concept of (inter)subjectivity then allows for a more comprehensive analysis of these phenomena and their occurrence in specific registers and genres, addressing the way in which the (inter)locutor is taken into account in each genre.
Keywords: Subjectivity, Register, Intersubjectivity, Personal pronoun, Genre
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.02dec
References
Bazzanella, Carla
(2002) The significance of context in comprehension: The 'we case'. Foundations of science 71: 239-54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans, Leonie Cornips, and Marc Van Oostendorp
(2004) Verandering en verloedering. Normen en waarden in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press -Salomé. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
(1966) De la subjectivité dans le langage. In E. Benveniste (ed.), Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard, pp. 258-266.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
(1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bladas, Òscar, and Neus Nogué
(2016) “Que bé, tu!” (“That’s great, you!”): An emerging emphatic use of the second person singular pronoun tu (you) in spoken Catalan. Pragmatics 26.3: 473-500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
(1979) To catch a metaphor: Youas norm. American speech 541: 194-209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
(1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Massachusetts: M.I.T.Press, pp. 253-276.  BoPGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Barbara
(2010) A Discourse-functional analysis of speech participant profiling in spoken Spanish. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
(2011) Why wecan be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of pragmatics 431: 2762-2775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) El debate parlamentario frente al lenguaje coloquial y al debate televisivo: Una caracterización lingüística basada en el uso de la referencia de persona. In E. del Río, MC. Ruiz de la Cierva, and T. Albaladejo (eds.), Retórica y política. Los discursos de la construcción de la sociedad. Colección Quintiliano de retórica y comunicación. Logroño: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 729-734.Google Scholar
(2014) Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and non-subjectivity across spoken language genres. Spanish in context 12.1:10-34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Lotte Hogeweg
(2014) The use of second person pronouns in a literary work. Journal of literary semantics 43.2: 109-125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Sammie Tarenskeen
(2015) It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of pragmatics 881: 163-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce, and William Nolen
(1981) The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 271: 93-109.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gelabert, Jaime
(2004) Pronominal and spatio-temporaldeixis in contemporary Spanish political discourse: Acorpus-based pragmatic analysis. Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Gelabert-Desnoyer, Jaime
(2006a) La deixis espacio-temporal en el lenguaje parlamentario español contemporáneo. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación 261: 17-52.Google Scholar
(2006b) Registro y funciones de "nosotros" en el discurso parlamentario español. Lingüística en la red 41: 1-21.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haverkate, Henk
(1984) Speech acts, speakers and hearers. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
(2015) A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of pragmatics 881: 176-189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo Navarro, Antonio
(1996) Sobre los mecanismos de impersonalización en conversación coloquial: El tú impersonal. ELUA (Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante) 111: 163-176.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
(2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication 18.4: 549-574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias Recuero, Silvia
(2001) Los estudios de la cortesía en el mundo hispánico: Estado de la cuestión. Oralia 41:245-298.Google Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel
(2009) Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century Danish. Acta linguistica hafniensia: International journal of linguistics 411.11: 83-115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel, and Frans Gregersen
(2016)What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26.3: 417-446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kany, Charles Emil
(1969) Semántica hispanoamericana. Madrid: Aguilar.Google Scholar
Kluge, Bettina
(2010) El uso de formas de tratamiento en las estrategias de generalización. In M. Hummel, B. Kluge, and M.E. Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas detratamiento en el mundo hispánico. México -Graz: El Colegio de México -Karl-Franzens-Universität, pp. 1107-1136.Google Scholar
(2012) Referential ambiguity in interaction. Establishing generic reference of second person singular pronouns in the Romance languages. Unpublished habilitation thesis, Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar
(2016) Generic uses of the second person singular –how speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings. Pragmatics 26.3: 501-522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher
(1985) Sprache der Nähe –Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 361: 15–43.Google Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne, and Gillian Sankoff
(1979) Anything you can do. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 12:Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 419-440.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
(1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella, and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 101-124.Google Scholar
(1994) Subjecthood and subjectivity. In M. Yaguello (ed.), Subject hood and subjectivity. Thestatus of the subject in linguistic Theory. Paris: Ophrys, pp. 9-17.Google Scholar
Molino, Alessandra
(2010) Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for academic purposes 91: 86-101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nogué Serrano, Neus
(2008) La dixi de persona en català. Barcelona: Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor
(1979) Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 51-80.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Paquot, Magali
(2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. Continuum: London & New York.Google Scholar
Rubba, Jo
(1996) Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In G. Fauconnier, and E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 227-261.Google Scholar
Saukkonen, Pauli
(2003) How to define and describe genres and styles. Folia linguistica 37.3-4: 399–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
(2002) Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
(2004) Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skelton, John R., Andy M. Wearn, and F.D.Richard Hobbs
(2002) ‘I’ and ‘we’: Aconcordancing analysis of how doctors and patients use first person pronouns in primary care consultations. Family practice 19.5: 484-488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Miranda
(1995) Personally speaking... or not?The strategic value of ‘on’in face-to-face negotiation. Journal of French language studies 51: 203-23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Alexa Hepburn
(2005) ‘ You can hear a lot through the walls’: Noise formulations in neighbour complaints. Discourse & society 16.5: 647-673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie
(2010) From you to me and back. Unpublished MA thesis. http://​www​.ru​.nl​/optimalcommunication​/students​/vm​/theses/
Thibault, Pierrette
(1991) La langue en mouvement: Simplification, régularisation, restructuration. LINX (Linguistique Paris X, Nanterre), Ces langues que l’on dit simples 251: 79-92.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth C
(2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. InR. Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124-139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria, and José María García-Miguel
(2006) Transitividad, subjetividad y frecuencia de uso.VII Congrés de lingüística general. Barcelona, 18 al 21 de abril de 2006. [Actas en CD-ROM. ISBN: 84-475-2086-8].Google Scholar
Vila Pujol, Mª Rosa
(1987)La segunda persona gramatical en función no deíctica. Revista Española de lingüística 17.1: 57-68.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie
(1996) Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ynduráin, Francisco
(1969) Clásicos modernos: Estudios de crítica literaria. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Auster, Paul
(2012) Winter journal. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Baitz, Jon Robin
(2006) Brothers & Sisters. Season 1, Episode 22 Favorite son. ABC.Google Scholar
Congreso de los Diputados
(2001) Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados. Pleno y diputación permanente. Sesiones plenarias del 26 y 27 de junio del 20011, 4619-4721. http://​www​.congreso​.esGoogle Scholar
(2005) Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados. Pleno y diputación permanente. Sesiones plenarias del 11, 12 y 17 de mayo del 20051, 4329-4527. http://​www​.congreso​.esGoogle Scholar
COREC-UAM
(1992) COREC.Corpus de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea. http://​www​.lllf​.uam​.es​/~fmarcos​/informes​/corpus​/corpulee​.html
García García, Marta
(2005) La competencia conversacional en los estudiantes de español como lengua extranjera. Lingüística en la Red II. http://​www​.linred​.es​/numero2​_articulo​_2​.htmGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, David
(2004) Cloud atlas. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Rankin, Ian
(2005) Fleshmarket Close. London: Orion Books.Google Scholar

Full-text

Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Aijón Oliva, Miguel A.
2020. It can be us or you. The desubjectification of viewpoint through person choice in Spanish oral and written media discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 163 ► pp. 4 ff. Crossref logo
Auer, Peter & Anja Stukenbrock
2018. When ‘You’ Means ‘I’: The German 2Nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun Du between Genericity and Subjectivity. Open Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 280 ff. Crossref logo
De Cock, Barbara
2019.  In Reference and Identity in Public Discourses [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 306], ► pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
Figueras Bates, Carolina
2021. Mitigation in discourse: Social, cognitive and affective motivations when exchanging advice. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 119 ff. Crossref logo
Gardelle, Laure & Sandrine Sorlin
2018. Introduction. International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2 ► pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
Günthner, Susanne
2021. WIR im interaktionalen Gebrauch: Zur Verwendung des Pronomens der 1. Person Plural in der institutionellen Kommunikation – am Beispiel onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2 ► pp. 292 ff. Crossref logo
Parodi, Giovanni & Gina Burdiles
2019. Los pronombres neutros ‘esto’, ‘eso’ y ‘aquello’ como mecanismos encapsuladores en el discurso de la economía. Spanish in Context 16:1 ► pp. 104 ff. Crossref logo
Parodi, Giovanni, Cristóbal Julio, Laura Nadal, Gina Burdiles & Adriana Cruz
2018. Always look back: Eye movements as a reflection of anaphoric encapsulation in Spanish while reading the neuter pronoun ello. Journal of Pragmatics 132 ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Rasson, Marie
2016. Interpretación y tipología del pronombre indefinido uno a partir de tres géneros discursivos. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 67 ► pp. 227 ff. Crossref logo
Serrano, María José
2017. A variable cognitive and communicative resource in Spanish: The first-person plural subject and object. Journal of Pragmatics 108 ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo
Wilson, Nick
2019.  In The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 304], ► pp. 35 ff. Crossref logo
Zobel, Sarah
2016. A pragmatic analysis of german impersonally used first person singular ‘ICH’. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 26:3 ► pp. 379 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 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.