The we-form has been analyzed in different theoretical frameworks and domains. Researchers point to the complexity of first person plural pronouns: not only can they refer to different participants in a communicative situation, but they can also be used to avoid other referential forms. In organizational discourse, however, transparency is of the utmost importance to ensure efficient communication. Based on the minute analysis of 3700 we-forms in a corpus of internal communications documents, we developed a framework for the interpretation of the we-form. Thirteen (con)textual and situational identifiers of different kinds are discussed and illustrated. In some cases the interpretation of the we-form is indicated by a single identifying element, in other cases a combination of identifying elements strengthens the interpretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DieltjensS. and HeynderickxP., The Indefinite “We” (het “wij”-gevoel/ le “nous” indéfini): Sender and Receiver References in Top-Down Communication: A Text Type-Based Approach, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33: 1, pp. 3–27, 2003. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/2WYH-U4VV-LTRP-J1V5
2.
HaeserynW. (eds.), Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (2nd Edition), Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers, Groningen and Wolters-Plantyn, Deurne, 1997.
3.
van den ToornM. C., Nederlandse Grammatica, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 1982.
4.
GrevisseM., Le Bon Usage. Grammaire Française Avec Des Remarques Sur la Langue Française d'aujourd'hui (11th Edition), Editions Duculot, Paris-Gembloux, 1980.
5.
BrunotF., La Pensée et la Langue (3rd Edition), Masson, Paris, 1922.
6.
de VriesJ. and te WinkelL. A., Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, Stichting Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicografie, Leiden, 1984, etc.
7.
Van Dale, Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal (13th Edition), Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht/Antwerpen, 1995.
8.
Trésor de la Langue Française, Conseil Internationale de la Langue Française.
9.
LittréE., Dictionnaire de la Langue Française: Tomes 1–7, Gallimard Hachette, Paris, 1971.
KursellJ., First Person Plural: Roman Jakobson's Grammatical Fictions, Studies in East European Thought, 62: 2, pp. 217–236, 2010. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11212-010-9115-x
14.
Van CompernolleR. A., Nous Versus On: Pronouns with First Person Plural Reference in Synchronous French Chat, Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliqué, 11: 2, pp. 85–110, 2007.
15.
DieltjensS. and HeynderickxP., The Ambiguous We-Form: Interpretative Clues in Parallel Texts, in Multilingualism and Applied Comparative Linguistics, BoersF.DarquennesJ.KerremansK., and TemmermanR. (eds.), Cambridge Scholar Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 139–160, 2008.
16.
BaumgartenN., Writer Construction in English and German Popularized Academic Discourse: The Uses of We and Wir, Multilingua, 27: 4, pp. 409–438, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2008.019
17.
ZwetsM., The Point at Issue: Personal Pronouns, Department of Linguistics, Radboud University, 2009.
18.
PosioP., Who are “we” in Spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese? Expression and Reference of First Person Plural Subject Pronouns, Language Sciences, 34: 3, pp. 339–360, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.001
19.
TravisC. E. and SilveiraA. S., The Role of Frequency in First-Person Plural Variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Nós vs. a Gente. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone, Linguistics, 2: 2, pp. 347–376, 2009.
De CockB., Why we can be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, pp. 2762–2775, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009
22.
Connor-LintonJ.TaylorC.LandolfiL., and SekiM., Soviet and American Expression of Personal Involvement: Some Implications for Cross-Cultural and Cross-Gender Communication, Multilingua, 6: 3, pp. 257–286, 1987. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.257
23.
Connor-LintonJ., The Role of Lexical Variation in Crosstalk: Pronominal Reference Choices in a Soviet-American Spacebridge, Journal of Pragmatics, 23, pp. 301–324, 1995. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00025-A
24.
DuszakA. (ed.), Us and Others. Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2002.
25.
CarciuO., An Intercultural Study of First-Person Plural References in Biomedical Writing, Ibérica, 18, pp. 71–92, 2009.
26.
LiebscherG.Dailey-O'CainJ.MullerM., and ReiterateT., Negotiating Identities through Pronouns of Address in an Immigrant Community, Pragmatics, 20: 3, pp. 375–400, 2010.
27.
SadeghiM. S.MazaheriM. A.MotabiD. F., and ZahediK., Marital Interaction in Iranian Couples: Examining the Role of Culture, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43: 2, pp. 281–300, 2012.
28.
LeeT. K., Author Manifestation and Perceptions of Self in Chinese Academic Discourse: Comparisons with English, Languages in Contrast, 13: 1, pp. 90–112, 2013. doi: 10.1075/lic.13.1.05lee
29.
MühlhäuslerP. and HarréR., Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford/Cambridge, 1990.
30.
KarremansJ. C. and Van LangeP. A. M., The Role of Forgiveness in Shifting from “Me” to “We,”Self & Identity, 7: 1, pp. 75–88, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860601182435
31.
RohrbaughM. J.ShohamV.SkoyenA.JensenM., and MehlM. R., We-Talk, Communal Coping, and Cessation Success in a Couple-Focused Intervention for Health-Compromised Smokers, Family Process, 51: 1, pp. 107–121, 2012.
32.
ZimmermannJ.WolfM.BockA.PehamD., and BeneckeC., The Way We Refer to Ourselves Reflects How We Relate to Others: Associations between First-Person Pronoun Use and Interpersonal Problems, Journal of Research in Personality, 47: 3, pp. 218–225, 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.008
33.
LiL.-J. and GeG.-C., Genre Analysis: Structural and Linguistic Evolution of the English-Medium Medical Research Article (1985–2004), English for Specific Purposes, 28: 2, pp. 93–104, 2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.004
FaircloughN. and WodakR., Critical Discourse Analysis, in Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 2), van DijkT. (ed.), Sage, London, pp. 258–284, 1997.
36.
De CilliaR.ReisiglM., and WodakR., The Discursive Construction of National Identities, Discourse & Society, 10: 2, pp. 149–173, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002002
37.
MarcusA., We Are You: The Plural and the Dual in “We” Fictional Narratives, Journal of Literary Semantics, 37: 1, pp. 1–21, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2008.001
38.
LuzónM. J., The Use of We in a Learner Corpus of Reports Written by EFL Engineering Students, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8: 3, pp. 192–206, 2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.04.001
39.
VergaroC., Shades of Impersonality: Rhetorical Positioning in the Academic Writing of Italian Students of English, Linguistics & Education, 22: 2, pp. 118–132, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2010.11.001
40.
SeidelG., Ambiguity in Political Discourse. A Sociolinguistic Investigation into a Corpus of French Political Tracts of May '68, in Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, BlochM. (ed.), Academic Press, London/New York/San Francisco, pp. 205–225, 1975.
41.
UrbanG., Rhetoric of a War Chief, Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies, 5, pp. 1–21, 1986.
42.
PyykköR., Who is “Us” in Russian Political Discourse, in Us and Others. Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures, DuszakA. (ed.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 233–248, 2002.
43.
VentselA., The Construction of the “We”-Category: Political Rhetoric in Soviet Estonia from June 1940 to July 1941, Sign Systems Studies, 35: 1/2, pp. 249–267, 2007.
44.
SkarzynskaK., We and They in Polish Political Discourse, in Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, DuszakA. (ed.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 249–264, 2002.
45.
TabakowskaE., The Regime of the Other: “Us” and “Them” in Translation, in Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, DuszakA. (ed.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 449–462, 2002.
BullP. and FetzerA., Who are We and Who are You? The Strategic Use of Forms of Address in Political Interviews, Text and Talk, 26: 1, pp. 3–35, 2006. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
48.
AdetunjiA., Inclusion and Exclusion in Political Discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo's Speeches, Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5: 2, pp. 177–191, 2006.
49.
ProctorK. and SuL., The 1st Person Plural in Political Discourse—American Politicians in Interviews and in a Debate, Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 13, pp. 3251–3266, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
50.
FieldP. S., Abraham Lincoln and the First-Person Plural: A Study in Language and Leadership, American Nineteenth Century History, 12: 1, pp. 49–75, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664658.2011.559748
51.
TemmermanM., Naming and Framing in Belgian Politics: An Analysis of the Representation of Politicians and the Political State of Affairs during the 2007 Government Formation Period in the Belgian Press, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24: 1, pp. 120–138, 2010. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.06tem
52.
DeschouwerK. and TemmermanM., Elite Behaviour and Elite Communication in a Divided Society: The Belgian Federal Coalition Formation of 2007, Journal of Language and Politics, 11: 4, pp. 500–520, 2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.4.02des
53.
VukoviccM., Positioning in Pre-Prepared and Spontaneous Parliamentary Discourse: Choice of Person in the Parliament of Montenegro, Discourse & Society, 23: 2, pp. 184–202, 2012. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431507
HylandK., Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, pp. 1091–1112, 2002.
56.
TangR. and JohnS., The “I” in Identity: Exploring Writer Identity in Student Academic Writing through the First Person Pronoun, English for Specific Purposes, 18, pp. 23–39, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
DueňasMur P., “I/We Focus on …”: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Self-Mentions in Business Management Research Articles, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6: 2, pp. 143–162, 2007. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjeap.2007.05.002
60.
KuoC.-H., The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles, English for Specific Purposes18: 2, pp. 121–138, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
61.
HarwoodN., Political Scientists on the Functions of Personal Pronouns in Their Writing: An Interview-Based Study of “I” and “We,”Text & Talk, 27: 1, pp. 27–54, 2007. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.002
62.
IvaničR., Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1998.
63.
HarwoodN., Person Markers and Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Multidisciplinary Corpus-Based Study of Expert and Student Texts, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University College, 2003.
64.
HarwoodN., “Nowhere has Anyone Attempted … In this Article I Aim to Do Just That.” A Corpus-Based Study of Self-Promotional I and We in Academic Writing across Four Disciplines, Journal of Pragmatics, 37, pp. 1207–1231, 2005.
65.
PantelidesK. and BartesaghiM., “So What are We Working on?” Pronouns as a Way of Re-Examining Composing, Composition Studies, 4: 1, pp. 24–38, 2012.
66.
RowlandT., Pronouns in Mathematic Talks. Power, Vagueness and Generalisation, For the Learning of Mathematics, 19: 2, pp. 19–26, 1999.
67.
RogersP. and SwalesJ. M., We the People? An Analysis of the Dana Corporation Policies Document, The Journal of Business Communication, 27: 3, pp. 293–313, 1990. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002194369002700305
GarzoneG., Annual Company Reports and CEOs' Letters: Discoursal Features and Cultural Markedness, in Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication, CandlinC. N. and GottiM. (eds.), Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 311–342, 2005.
70.
DieltjensS., Het gebruik van de wij-vorm in Belgische tweetalige top-downcommunicatie, Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, 2007.
71.
CysouwM. A., International conference on cognitive typology van 12 tot 14 april 2000 aan de Universiteit Antwerpen, 2000. Retrieved in 2002 from www.ufsia.ac.be/cgct/Abstracts.html
72.
GreenbergJ. H., Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements, in Universals of Language, GreenbergJ. H. (ed.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 73–113, 1963.
73.
IngramD., Typology and Universals of Personal Pronouns, in Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure, GreenbergJ.FergusonC., and MoravcsikE. (eds.), Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 213–247, 1978.
74.
LyonsJ., Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.
75.
WalesK. M., Exophora Re-Examined: The Uses of the Personal Pronoun WE in Present-Day English, UEA Papers in Linguistics, 12, pp. 21–44, 1980.
76.
CornwellP., Southern Cross, Warner Books, London, 1998.
77.
LammersH., Het Gebruik Van We/Wij in Media-Interviews, Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 22: 3, pp. 200–219, 2000.
78.
BiberD., Variation across Speech and Writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
79.
DieltjensS. and HeynderickxP., Interpretation of the We-Forms in Interviews and Quotes in Internal Business Documents, in Communication: Spanning Cultures, Change and Challenges, UsluataA. (ed.), T. C. Yeditepe University, Istanbul, pp. 125–140, 2008.
DieltjensS. and HeynderickxP., Evasive Actions in Top-Down Communication. Strategies for Avoiding Direct Sender and Receiver References, Document Design, 2: 2, pp. 210–219, 2001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/dd.2.2.10die
82.
SardinhaBerber A. P., Lexical Patterns for “Year” in Annual Business Reports, DIRECT Working Paper 9, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, 1994.
83.
KjellmerG., Patterns of Collocability, in Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics, AartsJ. and MeijsW. (eds.), Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 163–178, 1990.
84.
TutinA. and GrossmannF., Collocations Régulières et Irrégulières: Esquisse de Typologie du Phénomène Collocatif, Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, VII: 1, pp. 7–26, 2002.
85.
NelsonM., A Corpus-Based Study of the Lexis of Business English and Business English Teaching Materials, unpublished thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2000.
86.
DieltjensS. and HeynderickxP., The Interpretation of the Possessives Ons/Onze in “Fixed” Phrases in Internal Business Communication in Dutch, in Discourse, Identities and Genres in Corporate Communication. Sponsorship, Advertising and Organizational Communication, AlloriEvangelisti P. and GarzoneG. (eds.), Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 303–317, 2010.
87.
SwalesJ. M., Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
88.
LevinsonS. C., The Handbook of Pragmatics, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004.
89.
WodakR.De CilliaR.ReisiglM., and LiebhartK., The Discursive Construction of National Identity, translated by HirschA. and MittenR., Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1999.
90.
MintzbergH., Organisatiestructuren, Academic Service Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Schoonhoven, 1983.
91.
DieltjensS., Waarom Zeggen We (Jullie) Wij?, Ad Rem: Tijdschrift voor Zakelijke Communicatie, 22: 1, pp. 2–3, 2008.
92.
DieltjensS., and HeynderickxP., Instructive Discourse in Internal Business Communication: Comprehensibility and Target Group Orientation, in Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise. Genres and Trends, GarzoneG. and GottiM. (eds.), Peter Lang, Berlin, pp. 69–80, 2011.
93.
DieltjensS., and HeynderickxP., The CEO's New Year's Message from the 1960s to 2000, in Genre Change in the Contemporry World: Short-Term Diachronic Perspectives, GarzoneG.CatenaccioP. and DeganoC. (eds.), Peter Lang, Berlin, pp. 243–260, 2012.
94.
DieltjensS.HeynderickxP.DeesM., and VissersK., Linguistic Analysis of Face-to-Face Interviews with Patients with an Explicit Request for Euthanasia, Their Closest Relatives, and Their Attending Physicians: The Use of Modal Verbs in Dutch, Pain Practice, 14: 4, pp. 324–337, 2013. doi: 10.1111/papr.12076
95.
HeynderickxP.DieltjensS.JacobsG.GillaertsP., and de GrootE. (eds.), The Language Factor in International Business, New Perspectives on Research, Teaching and Practice, Peter Lang, Bern, 2012.
96.
JacobsG.BraeckeC., and DieltjensS., Displaying Competence: Introduction, Journal of Business Communication, 48: 4, pp. 351–354, 2011.
97.
PelsmaekersK.RolloC.Van HoutT., and HeynderickxP. (eds.), Displaying Competence in Organisators. Discourse Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2011.
