1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 3
  5. Article
The referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This paper argues for revisiting the traditional adscription of ambiguous readings of personal pronouns, such as hearer-dominant or generic , 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 , 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 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 1 person plural forms () 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.

© 2016 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.26.3.02dec
2016-09-01
2024-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.26.3.02dec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bazzanella, Carla
    (2002) The significance of context in comprehension: The 'we case'. Foundations of science7: 239-54. doi: 10.1023/A:1019657025835
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019657025835 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennis, Hans , Leonie Cornips , and Marc Van Oostendorp
    (2004) Verandering en verloedering. Normen en waarden in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press -Salomé. doi: 10.5117/9789053566657
     https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053566657 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Biber, Douglas
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. Pragmatics26.3: 473-500. doi: 10.1075/prag.26.3.06bla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.06bla [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger, Dwight
    (1979) To catch a metaphor: Youas norm. American speech54: 194-209. doi: 10.2307/454949
     https://doi.org/10.2307/454949 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. De Cock, Barbara
    (2010) A Discourse-functional analysis of speech participant profiling in spoken Spanish. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, KU Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2011) Why wecan 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/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  11. (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]
  12. (2014) Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.246
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.246 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and non-subjectivity across spoken language genres. Spanish in context12.1:10-34. doi: 10.1075/sic.12.1.02coc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.12.1.02coc [Google Scholar]
  14. de Hoop, Helen , and Lotte Hogeweg
    (2014) The use of second person pronouns in a literary work. Journal of literary semantics43.2: 109-125. doi: 10.1515/jls‑2014‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  15. de Hoop, Helen , and Sammie Tarenskeen
    (2015) It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of pragmatics88: 163-175. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, Bruce , and William Nolen
    (1981) The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language27: 93-109.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gelabert, Jaime
    (2004) Pronominal and spatio-temporaldeixis in contemporary Spanish political discourse: Acorpus-based pragmatic analysis. Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gelabert-Desnoyer, Jaime
    (2006a) La deixis espacio-temporal en el lenguaje parlamentario español contemporáneo. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación26: 17-52.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006b) Registro y funciones de "nosotros" en el discurso parlamentario español. Lingüística en la red4: 1-21.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 linguistics26.3: 343-375. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haverkate, Henk
    (1984) Speech acts, speakers and hearers. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pb.v.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.v.4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Helmbrecht, Johannes
    (2015) A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of pragmatics88: 176-189. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hidalgo Navarro, Antonio
    (1996) Sobre los mecanismos de impersonalización en conversación coloquial: El tú impersonal. ELUA (Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante)11: 163-176.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, Ken
    (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication18.4: 549-574. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018004005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Iglesias Recuero, Silvia
    (2001) Los estudios de la cortesía en el mundo hispánico: Estado de la cuestión. Oralia4:245-298.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jensen, Torben Juel
    (2009) Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century Danish. Acta linguistica hafniensia: International journal of linguistics41.1: 83-115. doi: 10.1080/03740460903364128
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740460903364128 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jensen, Torben Juel , and Frans Gregersen
    (2016)What do(es) you mean? The pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. Pragmatics26.3: 417-446. doi: 10.1075/prag.26.3.04jen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.04jen [Google Scholar]
  28. Kany, Charles Emil
    (1969) Semántica hispanoamericana. Madrid: Aguilar.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. (2012) Referential ambiguity in interaction. Establishing generic reference of second person singular pronouns in the Romance languages. Unpublished habilitation thesis, Universität Bielefeld.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2016) Generic uses of the second person singular –how speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings. Pragmatics26.3: 501-522. doi: 10.1075/prag.26.3.07klu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.07klu [Google Scholar]
  32. Koch, Peter , and Wulf Oesterreicher
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe –Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch36: 15–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. (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]
  36. Molino, Alessandra
    (2010) Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for academic purposes9: 86-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nogué Serrano, Neus
    (2008) La dixi de persona en català. Barcelona: Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Paquot, Magali
    (2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. Continuum: London & New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Saukkonen, Pauli
    (2003) How to define and describe genres and styles. Folia linguistica37.3-4: 399–414. doi: 10.1515/flin.2003.37.3‑4.399
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2003.37.3-4.399 [Google Scholar]
  42. Scheibman, Joanne
    (2002) Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  43. Siewierska, Anna
    (2004) Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 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 practice19.5: 484-488. doi: 10.1093/fampra/19.5.484
     https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.5.484 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stewart, Miranda
    (1995) Personally speaking... or not?The strategic value of ‘on’in face-to-face negotiation. Journal of French language studies5: 203-23. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500002763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500002763 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stokoe, Elizabeth , and Alexa Hepburn
    (2005) ‘ You can hear a lot through the walls’: Noise formulations in neighbour complaints. Discourse & society16.5: 647-673. doi: 10.1177/0957926505054940
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505054940 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tarenskeen, Sammie
    (2010) From you to me and back. Unpublished MA thesis. www.ru.nl/optimalcommunication/students/vm/theses/
  48. Thibault, Pierrette
    (1991) La langue en mouvement: Simplification, régularisation, restructuration. LINX (Linguistique Paris X, Nanterre), Ces langues que l’on dit simples25: 79-92.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, Elisabeth C
    (2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. InR. Hickey(ed.), Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.124-139. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Vila Pujol, Mª Rosa
    (1987)La segunda persona gramatical en función no deíctica. Revista Española de lingüística17.1: 57-68.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wales, Katie
    (1996) Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Watts, Richard
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ynduráin, Francisco
    (1969) Clásicos modernos: Estudios de crítica literaria. Madrid: Gredos.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Auster, Paul
    (2012) Winter journal. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Baitz, Jon Robin
    (2006) Brothers & Sisters. Season 1, Episode 22 Favorite son. ABC.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 del2001, 4619-4721. www.congreso.es
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2005) Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados. Pleno y diputación permanente. Sesiones plenarias del 11, 12 y 17 de mayo del2005, 4329-4527. www.congreso.es
     [Google Scholar]
  59. COREC-UAM
    (1992) COREC.Corpus de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea. www.lllf.uam.es/~fmarcos/informes/corpus/corpulee.html
  60. García García, Marta
    (2005) La competencia conversacional en los estudiantes de español como lengua extranjera. Lingüística en la Red II. www.linred.es/numero2_articulo_2.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Mitchell, David
    (2004) Cloud atlas. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Rankin, Ian
    (2005) Fleshmarket Close. London: Orion Books.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.26.3.02dec
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Genre; Intersubjectivity; Personal pronoun; Register; Subjectivity

Most Cited

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