1887
Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.2.07ver
2013-01-01
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bednarek, Monika A
    (2009) Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition 17.1: 146-175. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Blommaert, Jan
    (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, P. , and A. Fetzer
    (2006) Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk26.1: 3-37. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chilton, Paul A
    (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Clayman, Steven E
    (2002) Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics34.10-11: 1385-1401. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00070‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, S.E. , and J. Heritage
    (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowty, David
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3: 547-619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eggins, Suzanne
    (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Emmertsen, Sofie
    (2006) Interviewers' challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39.3: 570-591. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairclough, Norman
    (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Halliday, M.A.K. , and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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: 10.1075/pbns.98.03hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.03hel [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, Yan
    (2007) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hunston, S. , and G. Thompson
    (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Íñigo-Mora, Isabel
    (2004) On the ese of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27-52. doi: 10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini [Google Scholar]
  20. Lambrecht, Knud
    (2000 [1994]) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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: 10.1075/pbns.160
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160 [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, Stephen C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (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]
  25. Martin, J.R. , and D. Rose
    (2007 [2003]) Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, J.R. , and P.R.R. White
    (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McGregor, William B
    (1997) Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pounds, Gabrina
    (2010) Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific 'reporter' voice. Discourse Studies12.1: 106-137. doi: 10.1177/1461445609346777
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346777 [Google Scholar]
  29. Quirk, R. , S. Greenbaum , G. Leech , and J. Svartvik
    (2000 [1985]) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. (1997) Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences 19.4: 341-356. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  32. (2000) The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10.1: 41-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2000.tb00139.x
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00139.x [Google Scholar]
  33. 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: 10.1075/pbns.160.05sim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160.05sim [Google Scholar]
  34. Sinclair, John
    (1990) Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1995 [1986]) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Verschueren, Jef
    (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2012) Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. White, Peter R.R
    (1998) Telling media tales: The news story as rethoric. Sydney: University of Sydney Ph.D. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23.2: 259-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.2.07ver
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error