Volume 23, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


Grammatical persons and their variable referential scopes play an important role in the configuration of discourse and in the achievement of communicative goals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the use of the Spanish first-person plural from the viewpoint of morphosyntactic choice and style construction. The study focuses on clauses with unexpressed subjects, which in the case of ‘we’ are by far the more frequent option. A written-press corpus is analyzed whose materials are distributed into five different textual genres, while participants are characterized through two psychosocial features: Socioprofessional identity and gender. The overall frequencies of first-person plural subjects, as well as the rates of audience-exclusive vs. -inclusive uses, are calculated according to each external factor. Subsequent qualitative analysis shows that the choice of the first-person plural situates discourse in an intermediate zone along the continuum from subjectivity to objectivity, helping to shape an intersubjective perspective, most clearly in its inclusive uses. It is also concluded that the qualitative, interactional facet of linguistic choice is by no means independent of statistical variation patterns: Both types of data contribute to the understanding of morphosyntactic choices as creative stylistic resources.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijón Oliva, Miguel A
    (2006) Variación morfosintáctica e interacción social. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2011) Variación sintáctica y creación de estilos: Los clíticos reflexivos en el discurso. In M.J. Serrano (ed.), Variación variable. Almería: Círculo Rojo / Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, pp. 21-56.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aijón Oliva, Miguel A. , and María J. Serrano
    (2012) Towards a comprehensive view of variation in language: The absolute variable. Language & Communication32: 80-94. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2011.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2011.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alarcos, Emilio
    (1980) Estudios de gramática funcional del Español. Madrid: Gredos.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Albentosa Hernández, José I. , and Arsenio J. Moya Guijarro
    (2000) La reducción del grado de transitividad en la oración del discurso científico en lengua inglesa. Revista Española de Lingüística30: 445-468.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Almela Pérez, Ramón
    (2000) ¿Es nosotros el plural de yo ? Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante14: 9-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Auer, Peter
    (ed.) (2007) Style and Social Identities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Badía Margarit, Antoni
    (1988) La omisión del sujeto en español. In P. Peira (ed.), Homenaje a Alonso Zamora Vicente. Madrid: Castalia, pp. 361-367.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bello, Andrés
    (1860) Gramática de la lengua castellana destinada al uso de los americanos. Bogotá: Echevarría.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhat, D.N.S
    (2004) Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, Douglas
    (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, Douglas , and Susan Conrad
    (2009) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blas Arroyo, José L
    (2003) ‘Perdóneme que se lo diga, pero vuelve usted a faltar a la verdad, señor González’: Form and function of politic verbal behaviour in face-to-face Spanish political debates. Discourse & Society14: 395-423. doi: 10.1177/0957926503014004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bucholtz, Mary , and Kira Hall
    (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies7: 585-614. doi: 10.1177/1461445605054407
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cameron, Deborah
    (1993) Language and sex in the quantitative paradigm. In J. Coates , and D. Cameron (eds.), Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, pp. 3-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coates, Jennifer
    (2011) Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In J. Coates , and P. Pichler (eds.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 199-223.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coupland, Nikolas
    (2007) Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511755064
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755064 [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, William , and D. Alan Cruse
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  19. Crossley, Nick
    (1996) Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Cock, Barbara
    (2011) Why we can be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics43: 2762-2775. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dorgeloh, Heidrun , and Anja Wanner
    (2010) Introduction. In H. Dorgeloh , and A. Wanner (eds.), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-26. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Duszak, Anna
    (ed.) (2002) Us and Others. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.98
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98 [Google Scholar]
  23. Eckert, Penelope
    (1989) The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change1: 245-267. doi: 10.1017/S095439450000017X
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000017X [Google Scholar]
  24. (2000) Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2008) Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics12: 453-476. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2008.00374.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Eckert, Penelope , and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    (eds.) (2003) Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791147
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar]
  27. Edwards, John
    (2009) Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809842
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809842 [Google Scholar]
  28. Farrar, Kimberley , and Mari C. Jones
    (2002) Introduction. In M.C. Jones , and E. Esch (eds.), Contact-Induced Language Change. An Examination of Internal, External and Non-Linguistic Factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-16. doi: 10.1515/9783110892598.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892598.1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Finegan, Edward , and Douglas Biber
    (2001) Register variation and social dialect variation: The Register Axiom. In P. Eckert , and J.R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 235-267.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. García, Erica C
    (2009) The Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs: Cognitive Constraints on Spanish Clitic Clustering. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.61
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.61 [Google Scholar]
  31. Givón, Talmy
    (2001) Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldberg, Adele E
    (1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Haddington, Pentti
    (2007) Positioning and alignment as activities of stancetaking in news interviews. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 283-317. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.11had
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.11had [Google Scholar]
  34. Helmbrecht, Johannes
    (2002) Grammar and function of ‘we’. In A. Duszak (ed.), Us and Others. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 31-49. doi: 10.1075/pbns.98.03hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.03hel [Google Scholar]
  35. Heritage, John
    (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N.J. Enfield , and T. Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hirschman, Lynette
    (1973) Female-male differences in conversational interaction. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America , San Diego.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Holmes, Janet , and Stephanie Schnurr
    (2006) ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics10: 31-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00316.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00316.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Hopper, Paul J. , and Elizabeth C. Traugott
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  39. Joos, Martin
    (1961) The Five Clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kristiansen, Gitte , and René Dirven
    (2008) Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In G. Kristiansen , and R. Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-17. doi: 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
  41. Labov, William
    (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Langacker, Ronald W
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lavandera, Beatriz R
    (1978) Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?Language in Society7: 171-182. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500005510
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005510 [Google Scholar]
  46. Macaulay, Ronald K.S
    (2009) Quantitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Maltz, Daniel N. , and Ruth A. Borker
    (2011) A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Coates , and P. Pichler (eds.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 487-502. First published in J.J. Gumperz (ed., 1982) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281-312.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nuyts, Jan
    (2001) Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  49. Penny, Ralph
    (1993) Gramática histórica del español. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Posio, Pekka
    (2012) Who are ‘we’ in spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese? Expression and reference of first person plural subject pronouns. Language Sciences34: 339-360. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Real Academia Española & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua
    (2009) Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Richards, Keith
    (2006) Language and Professional Identity: Aspects of Collaborative Interaction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230505049
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505049 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rickford, John R. , and Penelope Eckert
    (2001) Introduction. In P. Eckert , and J.R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rivarola, José L
    (1984) ¿Quién es ‘nosotros’? Estudios de Lingüística de la Universidad de Alicante2: 201-206.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Satorre Grau, Francisco J
    (2002) Revisión del sistema pronominal español. Revista de Filología Española82: 345-380. doi: 10.3989/rfe.2002.v82.i3/4.159
    https://doi.org/10.3989/rfe.2002.v82.i3/4.159 [Google Scholar]
  56. Scheibman, Joanne
    (2007) Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 111-138. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.06sch [Google Scholar]
  57. Selting, Margret
    (2009) Communicative style. In S. D’hondt , J.-O. Östman , and J. Verschueren (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 20-39. doi: 10.1075/hoph.4.01sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.4.01sel [Google Scholar]
  58. Serrano, María J
    (2011) Otras personas y yo: Variación socioestilística de la expresión/omisión del sujeto pronominal nosotros en las conversaciones espontáneas. In M.J. Serrano (ed.), Variación variable. Almería: Círculo Rojo / Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, pp. 93-126.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Serrano, María J. , and Miguel A. Aijón Oliva
    (2011) Syntactic variation and communicative style. Language Sciences33: 138-153. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  60. (in press) Discourse objectivization, social variation and style in the use of Spanish . Folia Linguistica47.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sidnell, Jack
    (2010) Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Siewierska, Anna
    (2010) Person forms. In J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 322-343.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Stewart, Miranda
    (2001) Pronouns of power and solidarity: The case of Spanish first person plural nosotros . Multilingua20: 155-169. doi: 10.1515/MULTI.2001.007
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2001.007 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tannen, Deborah
    (ed.) (1993) Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Virtanen, Tuija
    (2010) Variation across texts and discourses: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on text type and genre. In H. Dorgeloh , and A. Wanner (eds.), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53-84. doi: 10.1515/9783110226485.1.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.1.53 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wulff, Stefanie
    (2006) Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S.T. Gries , and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101-125.
    [Google Scholar]
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