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. 501522

Full-text

Generic uses of the second person singular – how speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings
References
Bolinger, Dwight
(1979) To catch a metaphor. You as norm. American Speech 54.3: 194-209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja
(2010) On how we interpret plural pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 42.7: 1799-1815. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
(1978/1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
[1982] (1934) Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Fischer.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Coveney, Aidan
(2003) ‘Anything you can do, tu can do better’. Tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.2: 164-191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, Massimo
(2005) The C-ORAL-Rom Resource. In Emanuela Cresti, and Massimo Moneglia (eds.), C-ORAL-Rom. Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
(2005) Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Barbara
(2014) Profiling discourse participants. Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Sammie Tarenskeen
(2015) It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of pragmatics 88: 163-175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duchan, Judith, Gail Bruder, and Lynne Hewitt
(eds.) (1995) Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ehmer, Oliver
(2011) Imagination und Animation. Die Herstellung mentaler Räume durch animierte Rede. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna
(2003) Identity in narrative. A study of immigrant discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
DeMello, George
(2000) ‘Tú’ impersonal en el habla culta. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 48.2: 359-372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, Inke
(2009) ‘Wir bleiben Kanzlerin – We are pregnant’? On grammatical, semantic and pragmatic usages of the ‘we’ pronoun. Saarland working papers in linguistics 3: 21-34.Google Scholar
(2010) Discursive constructions of immigrant identity. A sociolinguistic trend study on long-term American immigrants. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna
(2002) Us and others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
(1979) Mental spaces: A discourse processing approach to natural language logic. Manuscript, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
(1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press. [reprinted 1994 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, and Torben Juel Jensen
this volume) What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics 26.3: 417-446. Crossref
Hummel, Martin, Bettina Kluge, and María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop
(eds.) (2010) Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. México DF: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Hyman, Eric
(2004) The indefinite YOU. English Studies 2: 161-176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel
(2009) Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41: 1-19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer
(1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 739-759. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kluge, Bettina
(2010) El uso de formas de tratamiento en las estrategias de generalización. In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge, and María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. México DF: El Colegio de México, pp. 1107-1139.Google Scholar
(2012) Referential ambiguity in discourse. The generic use of the second person singular in the Romance languages. Habilitation thesis, Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne, and Gillian Sankoff
(1979) Anything you can do. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 419-440.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Richard Watts
(2005) Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of politeness research, 1.1: 9–33. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, and Anna Siewierska
(2011) Introduction. In Andrej Malchukov, and Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubba, Jo
(1996) Alternate Grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In Gilles Fauconnier, and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 227-261.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50.4: 696-735. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
(1992) Repair after next turn. The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97.5: 1295-1345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
(2005) (Im) Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of politeness research 1.1: 95-119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39.4: 639-656. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Miranda
(1992) Personal reference and politeness strategies in French and Spanish: A corpus-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University, Department of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
(1995) Personally speaking … or not? The strategic value of on in face-to-face negotiation. French Language Studies 5: 203-223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve, and Gilles Fauconnier
(1989) Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In Gilles Fauconnier, and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-28.Google Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie
(2010) From you to me (and back). The flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in Dutch. Unpublished Master’s thesis in General Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen. (URL: www​.ru​.nl​/publish​/pages​/518697​/sammie​_scriptie​_definitief​.pdf, 2962011).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’analisis linguistica e letteraria 16: 289-303 (= Special issue: Proceedings of the IADA Workshop Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue, Homage to Sorin Stati, Milan 15-17 May, 2008).Google Scholar
Wales, Katie
(1996) Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel
(2011) The individual in interaction: Why cognitive and discourse-level pragmatics need not conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics 8.4: 517-542. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Zobel, Sarah
this volume) A pragmatic analysis of German impersonally used first person singular ‘ich’. Pragmatics 26.3: 379-416. Crossref
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Mysterious Address Term anata 'you' in Japanese [Topics in Address Research, 4], Crossref logo
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
2016. Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 26:3  pp. 361 ff. Crossref logo
Moyna, María Irene, Bettina Kluge & Horst J. Simon
2019.  In It’s not all about you [Topics in Address Research, 1],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Orozco, Leonor
2019. Expresión de tú genérico y actividades de imagen. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics 7:1  pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo
Rădulescu, Valentin & Daniël Van Olmen
2021. A questionnaire-based study of impersonalization in Romanian and English. Languages in Contrast Crossref logo
Sotirova, Violeta
2020. The status of the narrator in Modernist fiction. Journal of Literary Semantics 49:2  pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Suomalainen, Karita & Mikael Varjo
2020. When personal is interpersonal. Organizing interaction with deictically open personal constructions in Finnish everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 168  pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo
Varjo, Mikael & Karita Suomalainen
2018. From zero to ‘you’ and back: A mixed methods study comparing the use of two open personal constructions in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41:3  pp. 333 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 05 november 2021. 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.