On the Use of the Personal Pronoun we in Communities

On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we Jou nal o Language and Poli ics 3:1 (2004), 27–52. issn 1569–2159 /e-issn 1569–9862©John Benjamins Publishing Company <TARGET"ini"DOCINFO AUTHOR "Isabel Íñigo-Mo a"TITLE "“On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies”"SUBJECT "JLP, Volume 3:1"KEYWORDS "p onominal e e ence, communi y, pa liamen , manipula ion, pe sonal iden i y, linguis ic o ms"SIZE HEIGHT "220"WIDTH "150"VOFFSET "4"> in communi ies Isabel Íñigo-Mo a Uni e si y o Se ille The pu pose o his pape is o show he exis ing ela ionships be ween he concep o communi y and he linguis ic o ms used o con ey o e en o manipula e i . Fi s o all, he limi s and es ic ions o any o m o commu- ni y will be defined. Second, one specific o m o communi y will be selec ed o analysis. The communi y chosen will be he Pa liamen a y communi y, and he linguis ic o m singled ou o s udy will be he fi s pe son plu al p onoun “we”. We will y o disco e any ype o ela ionship be ween (a) he scope o e e ence o his pe sonal p onoun and (b) he in en ions o he pe son who u e ed i . In his way, we can see whe he he e is any connec- ion be ween pe sonal iden i y (in e ms o inclusion/exclusion om a g oup) and p onominal choice. This could also lead us o he disco e y o any possible s a egic use o his pe sonal p onoun. Keywo ds: p onominal e e ence, communi y, pa liamen , manipula ion, pe sonal iden i y, linguis ic o ms 1. In oduc ion The pu pose o his pape is o show any possible ela ionship be ween he concep o communi y and he linguis ic o ms used o exp ess i . Acco ding o B own and Yule (1983), language has wo main unc ions: ansac ional (i.e. o <LINK"ini- 6"> communica e in o ma ion) and in e ac ional (i.e. o socialise). Taking his dis inc ion in o accoun , we will y o show o wha ex en language can mi o he kind o social ela ionship held among membe s o a communi y. We will s a by dealing wi h wo basic issues: communi y and iden i y. A e hey s able concep s? How can we define a communi y? Is a communi y based on a kind o a ional will o na u al law? Do communi ies ha e fixed o 28 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a a iable limi s? In wha ways does a speake ’s e i o y o he sel ela e o he hea e ’s e i o y? Once all hese ques ions ha e been answe ed, we will y o s udy one specific communi y: he Pa liamen a y communi y. Fi s o all, we will explain why we can call i a communi y and second, we will analyse i s use o he p onominal sys em. The way in which he p onouns a e ac ually used in con ex can show he kind o social and poli ical ela ionship be ween add esse and add essee/s. In ac , he pe sonal p onoun we a e going o s udy will be he fi s pe son plu al p onoun “we”. In his way, we can see whe he he e is any ela ionship be ween he specific poli ical g oup an MP belongs o and he pe sonal p onominal choice s/he makes. 2. Communi y and iden i y The concep o communi y is a difficul one o define, mainly due o i s he e ogeneous na u e and ambigui y. Some au ho s like Bellah, Madsen, <LINK"ini- 2"> Sulli an, Swidle and Tip on (1985), Wa en (1978), Wenge (1998) and mo e <LINK"ini- 31"><LINK"ini- 32"> ecen ly, Mason (2000), ha e ied o offe a plausible answe , bu hey all ag ee <LINK"ini- 19"> on i s difficul y. Mason (2000) desc ibed wo dis inc kinds o communi y: he <LINK"ini- 19"> “o dina y concep ” and he “mo alised concep ”. Whe eas he fi s shows no con o e sy, he second is mo e polemical. The “o dina y concep ” is he one whe e he e is mu ual ecogni ion, i.e. he membe s o he communi y ecognise each o he as membe s o he g oup because hey sha e ce ain alues, a way o li e, e c. The “mo alised concep ” includes wo mo e condi ions: (a) he e mus be solida i y be ween membe s and (b) no sys ema ic exploi a ion o injus ice. Howe e , hese ideas (i.e. solida i y, exploi a ion and jus ice) a e so abs ac and complex ha hey make his concep a difficul one o define and delimi . I is also a he e ogeneous concep , because we can speak abou poli ical, scien ific, speech o school communi ies — jus o men ion a ew. Wa dhaugh <LINK"ini- 30"> (1992:118), when discussing speech communi ies, explains ha we mus ake in o accoun a b oad spec um o ac o s, no only linguis ic ones: “Wha we can be su e o is ha speake s do use linguis ic cha ac e is ics o achie e g oup iden i y wi h, and g oup diffe en ia ion om, o he speake s, bu hey use o he cha ac e is ics as well: social, cul u al, poli ical and e hnic, o name a ew.” So, apa om ha ing diffe en ypes o communi ies, he e seems o be an ample numbe o pe iphe al aspec s which define a communi y. On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 29 Gi en his wide a ie y o ac o s, we may wonde : is he e some hing com- mon o all hese diffe en ypes o communi ies? In 1887, Tonnies s a ed ha bo h socie y and communi y a e based on ela ionships, bu whe eas he o me is based on a a ional law and a a ional will, he la e is buil on a na u al law and a na u al will. In o he wo ds, a communi y can be defined as a o m o ela ionship in which he pa icipan s ag ee on a kind o a ee con ac . The specific na u e o his con ac will de e mine he ype o communi y ha will be cons i u ed. As Tonnies explains, al hough hese ela ionships will be basically based ei he on au ho i y o on ellowship, we can also find some cases in which a mix u e o hem p e ails. Howe e , e e y hing is no so simple, as Maie (1995:369) wa ns: “(…) he <LINK"ini- 17"> concep o communi y is o en nai ely used o designa e jus abou any o m o eal o imagined associa ion be ween indi iduals.” This s a emen leads us o a u he ques ion: do communi ies ha e fixed o a iable limi s? The answe depends on ou idea o communi y as a s a ic en i y o a dynamic one. My pe sonal iew on his issue is highly ela ed o he concep o willingness. We can find diffe en examples ha could explain his poin : 1. A communi y whose pa icipan s do no accep any new membe because i hinks ha i hey do so, hey may lose some o hei own iden i y. This would be a s a ic communi y. 2. A communi y ha is cons an ly accep ing new membe s because i hinks ha , hanks o his beha iou , i will be en iched. This would be a highly dynamic communi y. 3. Finally, a school communi y shows how ague he limi s o a communi y can be. One s uden , al hough echnically a membe o his communi y, may eel ha s/he does no belong o ha communi y because s/he does no sha e i s alues. Hence, we may conclude ha ano he ac o o ake in o accoun when desc ib- ing a communi y is i s membe s’ eelings. Only hese could show us he eal limi s o a communi y. Closely ela ed o his idea a e Ba son, Ahmad and Tsang’s (2002) mo i es <LINK"ini- 1"> o communi y in ol emen . These a e: egoism, al uism, collec i ism1and p inciplism. They (2002:429) explain ha : “Diffe en ia ion is based on iden ifica ion o a unique ul ima e goal o each mo i e. Fo egoism, he ul ima e goal is o inc ease one’s own wel a e; o al uism, i is o inc ease he wel a e o ano he indi idual o indi iduals; o collec i ism, o inc ease he wel a e o a g oup; and o p inciplism, o uphold one o mo e mo al p inciples.” 30 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a The au ho s poin ou ha hese mo i es a e no mu ually exclusi e and ha mo e han one may be p esen in a gi en si ua ion, so hey may ei he conflic o coope a e wi h ano he . Addi ionally, each one has i s s eng hs and weak- nesses. Ba son, Ahmad and Tsang (2002:434) illus a e hem in he ollowing <LINK"ini- 1"> cha (Table 1). Ano he impo an and defining cha ac e is ic o communi ies is con as . Table 1.Fou mo i es o communi y in ol emen Mo i e Ul ima e Goal S eng h(s) Weakness(es) Egoism Inc ease one’s own wel a e. Many o ms; easily in- oked; powe ul. Inc eased communi y in- ol emen ela es o he mo i e only as an ins u- men al means o unin- ended consequence. Al uism Inc ease he wel a e o one o mo e o he indi iduals. Powe ul; may gene alise o g oup o which o he is a membe . May be limi ed o indi- iduals o whom empa- hy is el ; inc eased com- muni y in ol emen ela es o he mo i e only as an ins umen al means o unin ended conse- quence. Collec i ism Inc ease he wel a e o a g oup o collec i e. Powe ul: di ec ly ocused on common good. May be limi ed o ing oup. P inciplism Uphold some mo al p inciple (e.g. jus ice). Di ec ed owa d uni e sal and impa ial good. O en seems weak; ul- ne able o a ionalisa ion. One specific communi y — le us call i X — can be defined jus by saying ha i does no sha e communi y Y’s alues. As Wa dhaugh (1992:120) explains:2 <LINK"ini- 30"> “In e nally, a communi y mus ha e a ce ain social cohesi eness; ex e nally, i s membe s mus find hemsel es cu off om o he communi ies in ce ain ways. The ac o s ha b ing abou cohesion and diffe en ia ion will a y conside ably om occasion o occasion (…) The ex ension is p o ided by he insis ence ha a g oup o communi y is defined no only by wha i is bu by wha i is no : he ‘cu -off’ c i e ion.” Finally, one example o communi y ha is qui e in e es ing is he ancien “poli ical communi y”.3Ju ile and S oschein (1999:436) explain ha his is <LINK"ini- 14"> an example o ac i e communi y in he sense ha he membe s o hese On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 31 communi ies “… join in commi men s o coope a e owa d he a ainmen o common pu poses” and “… ha e some o m o legi ima e decision-making au ho i y.” Howe e , hese poli ical communi ies diffe om o he ac i e communi ies in ha hei “… legi ima e au ho i y, he ea e e e ed o as he go e nmen , makes he mos binding and inclusi e decisions o a gi en e i o y.” In o de o be a ull membe o a poli ical communi y, i is necessa y o: (a) be a ci izen, (b) ha e and exe cise ull equali y o igh s and obliga ions, (c) accep he poli ical o de , and (d) sha e a common iden i y wi h o he ci izens. Why can we s a e ha Membe s o Pa liamen cons i u e a communi y? I we ake in o accoun Ba son, Ahmad and Tsang’s (2002) ou ypes o mo i a- <LINK"ini- 1"> ion o communi y in ol emen (egoism, al uism, collec i ism and p incipl- ism), we can conclude ha all o hem play an impo an ole in poli ics. When speaking abou collec i ism, Ba son, Ahmad and Tsang (2002:437) add ha <LINK"ini- 1"> “The collec i e may be one’s ace, eligion, sex, poli ical pa y, o social class”. Depending on he si ua ion and he specific cha ac e is ics o he MP, we can say ha hese ou ypes o mo i es may ei he conflic o coope a e wi h one ano he . Fo example, egoism may lead an MP o ge in ol ed in business whe e he ul ima e goal is o inc ease he /his own wel a e.4In his case, s/he may o ge abou he /his (a) pa y’s in e es s (collec i ism), (b) ci izens’ wel a e (al uism), o (c) poli ical belie s (p inciplism). These mo i es may also coope a e because i he /his poli ical pa y is in an ad an ageous si ua ion,5i is highly p obable ha he /his pe sonal si ua ion (egoism) o he wel a e o he /his ollowe s also imp o es (al uism). Acco ding o Maie (1995:371–2) he e a e fi e basic cha ac e is ics ha <LINK"ini- 17"> define a communi y. These a e: 1. “Communi ies a e o ms o o ganisa ion o ela ionships be ween indi idu- als which do no co e all aspec s o li e.” Apa o m being Membe s o Pa liamen (MPs), poli icians (a) can also belong o o he communi ies (a ennis club, e c.) and (b) ha e ano he li e ou side Pa liamen (in hei neighbou hood, in hei homes, e c.) 2. “Communi y-like ela ionships a e symme ic and asymme ic, and mos ly mixed.” As we all know, a Pa liamen , ela ionships a e essen ially based on powe : fi s o all, we ha e o dis inguish be ween he poli ical pa y ha cons i u es he Go e nmen and he es o he poli ical pa ies in he Opposi ion, and second, e en inside he main poli ical pa y, we ha e o diffe en ia e be ween Minis e s and Backbenche s. 3. “Admission o new membe s o he communi y can be ealised o some ex en by ag eemen s and con ac s, bu always in ol es in addi ion an 32 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a in o mal lea ning p ocess.” On he one hand, i is clea ha MPs a e cons an ly changing (mainly a e Gene al Elec ions); and, on he o he hand, i is also ob ious ha poli icians’ wo k does no finish in he Cham- be o he House o Commons whe e o mali y p e ails, i ex ends beyond i o much laxe scenes whe e mos poli ical affai s a e no mally nego ia ed. 4. “A communi y has no gua an eed s abili y o e ime (…) Rela i e s abili y, wi h mo emen s o g ow h and decadence, he e o e depends on ela ion- ships ha a e a leas pa ly connec ed wi h o he communi ies o diffe en o ms o social o ganisa ion.” As I said be o e, mainly a e gene al elec- ions, he e a e impo an changes in he Pa liamen a y communi y, bu an impo an ac o o ake in o accoun is ha hese changes a e mainly p oduced by people ou side Pa liamen : he o e s. 5. “The communi y as a o m o o ganisa ion p o ides an iden i y o he membe s o he communi y. This means ha he communi y cons i u es a kind o “we”, i p o ides a mi o which u nishes ecognisable images o he membe s o hemsel es.” When speaking abou he poli ical communi- y, Ju ile and S oschein (1999:439) s a e ha : “Clues o s abili y and <LINK"ini- 14"> inclusi eness o he poli ical communi y and, he e o e, o he poli ical sys em a e o be ound in i s consensus on iden i y, pu pose, igh s and obliga ions, and peace ul conflic esolu ion.” This is a e y in e es ing idea ha can be linguis ically es ed. Wha do MPs mean when hey use he fi s pe sonal plu al p onoun “we”? Do hey only e e o he pa liamen a y communi y? Is he e jus one single iden i y hey adhe e o? In o de o p o ide accu a e answe s o hese ques ions we ha e o look deeply in o he eal easons o being in Pa liamen . The e is one key idea ha defines i : a gumen a ion. As Maie (1996:35) poin s ou : “(…) conside a ions o <LINK"ini- 17"> iden i y a e cen al o heo ies o a gumen a i e discou se.” Bu when alking abou he pa liamen a y communi y, we canno speak abou “single iden i ies” bu a he abou “pa y iden i ies”. Maie (1996:45) also admi s he <LINK"ini- 17"> diffe ence and explains: “Iden i y he e means ei he he s uc u e o he social g oup, whe e one pa y is a g oup ep esen ed by one o mo e indi iduals, o he s uc u e o he pe sonali y when pa ies a e indi idual pe sons.” Addi ionally, we mus keep i clea in ou minds ha e e y MP has a dual esponsibili y because s/he ep esen s (a) he /his poli ical pa y and (b) he /his cons i uency. This means ha when he in e es s o he wo do no coincide, he MP may ace an iden i y p oblem. The e o e, in o de o shed some ligh on hese issues, we a e going o analyse all he diffe en uses o he pe sonal On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 33 p onoun “we” and y o disco e any ela ionship wi h eelings o iden i y and he sea ch o pe suasion. 3. P onominal selec ion Unlike nouns, pe sonal, possessi e, and eflexi e p onouns ha e dis inc ions o pe son: – 1s pe son p onouns: “I, me, my, mine, mysel , we, us, ou , ou s ou sel es.” Thei e e ence includes he speake (s)/w i e (s) o he message. – 2nd pe son p onouns: “you, you , you s, you sel , you sel es.” Thei e e ence excludes he speake (s)/w i e (s) o he message, bu includes he add essee(s). – 3 d pe son p onouns: “he, him, his, himsel , she, he , he s, he sel , i , i s, i sel , hey, hem, hei , hei s, hemsel es.” Thei e e ence excludes (a) he speake (s)/w i e (s) and (b) he add essee(s). These p onouns e e o hi d pa ies no di ec ly in ol ed in he p oduc ion o ecep ion o he message. Qui k e al. (1985:340) summa ise he meanings o he h ee pe sons in Table 2:6 <LINK"ini- 21"> Table 2.Meanings o 1s , 2nd, and 3 d pe son7 1s pe son +s +/-h +/-o 2nd pe son -s +h +/-o 3 d pe son -s -h +o Taking in o accoun he diffe en meanings o 1s , 2nd, and 3 d pe son p onouns, Rees (1983) de eloped a gene al scale o p onominal dis ancing which ep esen ed <LINK"ini- 22"> he ela ionship be ween dis ancing s a egies and he p onoun sys em: 012345678 I We You One You I She He They (di ec ) (inde ini e) Dis ancing om sel 8 As Mai land and Wilson (1987:504–5) a gue, his scale has no no ma i e alue <LINK"ini- 18"> and i is use ul “… o ep esen ing idiosync a ic a ia ion in p onominal 34 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a a ia ion. We would p edic , o example, ha indi iduals who cons ue he wo ld in simila ways, ha is, ha e he same ideology and belie sys em, would exhibi simila pa e ns o p onominal choice.” These au ho s analysed he speeches o h ee diffe en poli ical leade s (M. Tha che ,9N. Kinnock10 and M. Foo 11) and disco e ed impo an simila i ies be ween Kinnock and Foo and diffe ences be ween Kinnock/Foo and Tha che . Acco ding o Fo ane (2004: 46), “In he nego ia ion o meaning ha is <LINK"ini- 10"> always p esen be ween he pe son issuing a message and he pe son ecei ing he message one o he key elemen s is he e e ence o he pe sonal p onouns.” This s a egic use o he p onoun sys em is especially in e es ing in he case o he fi s and second pe son p onouns because o hei implica ions o bo h pa icipan s in he speech e en . 3.1 Special uses o “we” Two o he main uses o he pe sonal p onoun “we” a e he exclusi e “we” and he inclusi e “we”. Whe eas he fi s one excludes he hea e (so “we” = “I” + my g oup), he second includes i (so “we” = “I” + “you”). Exclusi e “we” ep esen s a way o dis ancing, bo h om he hea e and om wha he speake is saying, and i is no mally associa ed wi h powe . B own and Le inson <LINK"ini- 6"> (1987:202) s a e ha : “Thus in addi ion o he widesp ead use o V p onouns o singula add essees, he e is also he widesp ead phenomenon o ‘we’ used o indica e ‘I’ + powe - ul. Apa om he oyal ‘we’ which mos o us don’ expe ience, he e is he episcopal ‘we’ and he business ‘we’. The e may be wo dis inc sou ces he e. One is he ‘we’ ha exp esses he na u e o he ‘co po a ion sole’ o he ju al accompanimen s o high office — ‘we’ as office and incumben and p edeces- so s. Then he e is also he ‘we’ o he g oup, wi h oo s p ecisely analogous o he second sou ce o ‘you’ (plu al) discussed abo e: a eminde ha I do no s and alone. The business ‘we’ pe haps a emp s o d aw on bo h sou ces o conno a ions o powe .” Because o his dicho omy, Pennycook (1994:175) desc ibes his p onoun as a <LINK"ini- 20"> p onoun o “… solida i y and ejec ion” and “… communali y and au ho i y” (ibid.: 176). Qui k e al. (1985:350–1) dis inguish up o eigh diffe en uses o “we”. <LINK"ini- 21"> These a e: a. Gene ic: i is an “enla ged” inclusi e “we” which may include he whole human ace. On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 35 b. Inclusi e au ho ial: i is used in se ious w i ing and seeks o in ol e he eade in a join en e p ise. c. Edi o ial: i is used by a single indi idual in scien ific w i ing in o de o a oid an egois ical “I”. d. Rhe o ical: i is used in he collec i e sense o “ he na ion”, “ he pa y”. I may be iewed as a special ype o gene ic “we”. e. To e e o he hea e (= you): i is no mally used by doc o s when alking o a pa ien and by eache s when gi ing ins uc ions o s uden s. I is an inclusi e “we” used o sound condescending in he case o doc o s and non-au ho i a i e in he case o eache s. . To e e o a hi d pe son (= s/he): Fo example one sec e a y migh say o ano he wi h e e ence o hei boss: “We’ e in a bad mood oday”. g. Royal: i is i ually obsole e and is used by a mona ch. h. Nons anda d: plu al “us” used o he singula “me”: “lend us a fi e ”. 3.2 Te i o y o in o ma ion The agueness ha cha ac e ises he fi s pe son plu al has led Bibe e al. <LINK"ini- 3"> (1999) o decla e ha mos o he ime, i is he add essee who has o decide who is included in he e e ence o he p onoun. In his sense, he heo y de eloped by Kamio (1994, 1995, 1997, 2001) is use ul. This heo y is based on <LINK"ini- 15"> he idea ha human beings, like mos highe animals, end o occupy a ce ain space a ound hem, whe e hey claim hei own p esence and exclude o he s. He s a es ha “Ou heo y is based on he no ion o psychological dis ance be ween a gi en piece o in o ma ion and he speake /hea e ” (1994:68) and adds ha “… he speake ’s e i o y o in o ma ion is a concep ual ca ego y which con ains in o ma ion close o he speake him/he sel .” (ibid.: 77). In his way, he use o human language would be con olled by he no ion o e i o y. Thus, when an indi idual conside s ha some piece o in o ma ion is inside he /his e i o y, s/he will use diffe en linguis ic s a egies han when i is ou side. Kamio offe s a lis ha includes in o ma ion ha alls wi hin he speake ’s e i o y o in o ma ion (1994:77): a. In o ma ion ob ained h ough he speake ’s di ec expe ience. b. In o ma ion abou pe sons, ac s, and hings close o he speake , including in o ma ion abou he speake ’s plans, ac ions, and beha iou and in o ma- ion abou places o which he speake has a geog aphical ela ion. c. In o ma ion embodying de ailed knowledge ha alls wi hin he speake ’s p o essional o o he expe ise. 42 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a i. M . Ha y G eenway14: Does my igh hon. F iend ag ee ha i was a agic day o educa ion when M s. Shi ley Williams, hen a membe o he Labou Go e nmen , go id o di ec -g an schools? Will no he op -ou sys em es o e ha p inciple, no only o b igh child en, bu o a wide educa ional and social ange? M . Bake 15: I hink ha many issues will be laid a he doo o he igh hon. Lady, who was one o my p edecesso s when a membe o he Labou Go e nmen . No only did she des oy he di ec -g an schools, bu she ied o legisla e o des oy he g amma schools. We s opped ha in 1980. G an -main ained schools will no be di ec ly analogous o di ec -g an schools, bu hey will p o ide a wide a ie y and choice o pa en s. Tha is he choice ha we wan - o comp ehensi e, g amma , seconda y mode n, Chu ch and independen schools, and now o ci y echnology colleges and g an -main ained schools as well. When M . Bake u e s he sen ences “We s opped ha in 1980” and “Tha is he choice ha we wan ”, he is speaking as a ep esen a i e o a g oup ( he Conse - a i e MPs) which is he Go e nmen pa y. So, he is also including M . Ha y G eenway in he scope o e e ence because he belongs o he same poli ical pa y. And one example o exclusi e “we” is ( ou h session: 15 h Ma ch 1988, page 978): ii. M . Skinne 16: Does he Sec e a y o S a e ecall ha a ew yea s ago he To y Go e nmen decided o meddle wi h s uden g an s and he ne esul was ha li e ally housands o s uden s, many om middle-class amilies, came o Wes mins e o p o es ? They blocked Wes mins e b idge, wi hou any p o oca ion om people such as mysel , and he ne esul was ha he To y Go e nmen had o back off. Is he awa e ha i he s a s he p ocess again, no only will hose s uden s come down o Wes mins e o lobby, bu hey will ca y ou he same exe cise and we on he Opposi ion Benches will suppo hem o he hill? M . Bake 17: I am glad o see he hon. Gen leman pu ing himsel a he head o a middle-class ma ch. The p oposals upon which we a e wo king in he e iew o s uden suppo will bea pa icula ly upon he pa en al con ibu ion and one o he ad an ages o loans is ha hey may subs an- ially educe he con ibu ion ha pa en s ha e o make. In his case, when M . Bake says “we a e wo king in he e iew o s uden suppo ”, he is also speaking as a ep esen a i e o he Go e nmen pa y, bu now he is excluding he add essee, because M . Skinne does no belong o he Conse a i e Pa y. M . Bake is speaking as he ep esen a i e o a poli ical g oup who has he powe o make decisions because i is he Go e nmen pa y. On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 43 Taking in o accoun he heo y de eloped by Kamio18 (1994, 1995, 2001), we could say ha whe eas P2(i.e. he con e sa ional space: he speake and he /his su ounding space) would co espond o inclusi e “we”, P1(i.e. he speake ’s e i o y) would s and o exclusi e “we”. Apa om hese wo ypes o “we”, we mus include wo mo e “wes”: he gene ic “we” and he pa liamen a y “we”. Whe eas he fi s e e s o a kind o pa io ic “we” ha emb aces all B i ish people, he second es ic s he e e ence o he pa liamen a y communi y. In he ollowing example we can find wo gene ic “we” (fi h session: 19 h Ap il 1988, page 661): iii. M . Pike19: Is i no a ac ha he Depa men ’s own inspec o s ha e said ha sub-s anda d buildings o en ha e an ad e se effec on he wo king condi ions and educa ion o ou child en? Is i no a ac also ha he Depa men ’s own su ey showed ha £2 billion is needed by 1991 o pu ou schools in accessible o de ? When will he Go e nmen ackle his p oblem and pu i igh ? M . Dunn20: I may poin ou o he hon. Gen leman ha £319 million was alloca ed o capi al wo ks in schools in 1988–89 -26 pe cen . mo e han in 1987–88. Taking accoun o capi al eceip s and o he flexibili ies, au ho - i ies’ o al na ional spending powe in 1988–89 was £3.6 billion, which should enable many o s a ge ing o g ips wi h he p oblems o which he hon. Gen leman has e e ed. In M . Pike’s speech, “ou child en” and “ou schools” e e o all B i ish child en and schools. We can find wo pa liamen a y communi y “we” in (fi h session: 19 h Ap il 1988, page 670): i . M . Win G iffi hs21:Like he Minis e , we app ecia e he need o his campaign o be success ul, bu can he hon. Lady assu e us ha he na ional cu iculum will no be in oduced un il local au ho i ies ha e confi med wi h he Go e nmen ha he e a e sufficien qualified eache s o each all subjec s in he na ional cu iculum? When M . Win G iffi hs says “we app ecia e” and “can he hon. Lady assu e us”, he is speaking in he name o he whole pa liamen a y communi y because (a) i is logical o hink ha any membe o he pa liamen a y communi y app ecia es some hing which is posi i e and (b) when an MPG is equi ed o explain some- hing, s/he has o ake he whole pa liamen a y communi y in o conside a ion. I we add hese wo new uses o he diag am offe ed by Kamio (2001), we <LINK"ini- 15"> can es ablish he ollowing co espondences: 44 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a d. P2D2 P1D1 P3 P1= Exclusi e “we” P2= Inclusi e “we” P3= Pa liamen a y communi y “we” P3would be a p oximal a ea ha would comp ise a la ge a ea han he one co e ed by P2(“con e sa ional space”), because i would include mo e indi id- uals, no jus he speake and he /his di ec add essee(s). Finally, we would ha e o add a kind o dis an a ea (D3) ha would go beyond he gene al pe cei ed space and comp ise a whole coun y: e. P2D2 P1D1 P3D3 P3+D3=gene ic “we” 5.2 Discou se unc ions As Pennycook (1994:176) claims, whene e anyone claims he igh o speak o a <LINK"ini- 20"> la ge g oup “… he e is always his double assump ion o au ho i y and commu- nali y.” When analysing he main discou se unc ions o hese ou diffe en ypes o “we”, we disco e ed ha hey could be g ouped unde wo main headings: (a) powe and dis ance; and (b) iden i y, communi y and pe suasion. 5.2.1 Powe and dis ance As R. Lakoff (1990:13) affi ms, “Language d i es poli ics and de e mines he <LINK"ini- 16"> success o poli ical machina ions. Language is he ini ia o and in e p e e o powe ela ions. Poli ics is language.” In a speech deli e ed by Neil Kinnock in On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 45 1984,22 he p onoun “we” was di ec ly linked o he wo d powe wen y- ou imes (Mai land and Wilson 1987). <LINK"ini- 18"> Looking a he figu es (Table 3), he fi s ou s anding ea u e is ha he ype o “we” mos ly used is he exclusi e “we”: 53.4% agains only 14.6% (inclusi e), 19.4% (gene ic) o 12.5% (pa liamen a y communi y). As men ioned ea lie , his is highly connec ed o one o B own and Le inson’s (1987) nega i e <LINK"ini- 6"> poli eness s a egies: o impe sonalise S and H a oiding he p onouns “I” and “you”. Thus, i can be said ha in he House o Commons: (a) i is p e e able o keep a dis ance be ween speake and hea e ; and (b) Membe s o Pa liamen a ou an “I + powe ” o m. Ano he in e es ing ea u e is ha he speake s who employ his ype o “we” a highe numbe o imes a e he Membe s o Pa liamen who a e pa o he Go e nmen (MPG) (when answe ing a ques ion posed by a membe o Pa liamen who is in he Opposi ion (MPO)): 76.1% (Table 4). One s aigh o wa d explana ion o hese esul s is he ac ha hese MPGs a e he ones who ha e he powe because hey ep esen he Go e nmen . Addi ionally, his asymme y in powe ela ions is also eflec ed in he ac ha he one who answe s he ques ion is in a mo e powe ul posi- ion, since s/he is he “holde o knowledge”. In ela ion o MPPG and MPG beha iou s, he fi s issue ha s ikes us is he high numbe o exclusi e “wes” (76.1% when alking o an MPO and 50.4% when add essing o ano he membe o he same poli ical g oup; Table 4). This has an easy answe : hey ha e he powe because hey belong o he Go e n- men pa y, so i is ob ious ha hey p e e he “I + powe ” exclusi e “we”. When hey a e answe ing a ques ion posed by an MPO, he numbe is highe (76.1%) because i has a iple finali y: (1) o emind he MPO ha hey a e in a much mo e powe ul posi ion, (2) o unde sco e he ac ha hey belong o a diffe en communi y wi h diffe en alues, and (3) o show ha his is a highly cohesi e communi y whose membe s all belong o he same poli ical pa y.23 5.2.2 Iden i y, communi y and pe suasion As Zupnik (1994:340) explains, “… fi s pe son plu al deic ic p onouns may <LINK"ini- 34"> ulfill a powe ul pe suasi e unc ion since hey ha e he po en ial o encode g oup membe ships and iden ifica ions: speake s may index diffe en g oups as included in he scope o he p onoun ‘we’ while excluding o he s” (Seidel 1975; <LINK"ini- 27"> Conno -Lin on 1988; Fai clough 1989; Wilson 1990). <LINK"ini- 7"><LINK"ini- 9"><LINK"ini- 33"> In ela ion o he inclusi e “we”, he pe cen ages show ha hese we e used mos ly among membe s o he same pa y (in ac , he pa y o he Go e nmen : 23.9%, Table 4); and i is e y in e es ing o no e ha no e en one o hese 46 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a inclusi e “wes” was ound when an MPO asked an MPG a ques ion (0%, Table 4). Finally, we ound many coincidences when s udying he gene ic and he pa liamen a y communi y “we”: hose who mos ly p e e ed hese op ions we e MPOs posing ques ions o MPGs (55.3% and 36.8%, Table 4). Howe e , can we say ha his is a s a egic beha iou ? Is i a me e coincidence ha mem- be s om diffe en pa ies used his pe sonal p onoun in a diffe en way? In ela ion o he MPOs asking ques ions o MPGs, he o de o p e e ence would be as ollows (Table 4): (1s ) gene ic “we” (55.3%); (2nd) pa liamen a y communi y “we” (36.8%); and (3 d) exclusi e “we” (7.7%). This beha iou can be easily explained i we ake in o conside a ion he so-called “Classi ying P ocesses”. As Villegas (1989:30) explains: <LINK"ini- 29"> “No es a o que una ez que un suje o ha sido adsc i o a una ca ego ía ideológico- polí ica, puedan gana se expec a i as pa a pa ones conside ados ap opiados, acep ados o consecuen es. Tampoco es a o que la pe sona obje o de la clasificación expe imen e consecuencias de i adas de és a, an o en el plano a ec i o-emocional como en el plano es ic amen e conduc ual.”24 Thus, an MPG will conside he ac ha an MPO does no use an inclusi e “we” and ins ead, s/he employs an exclusi e “we” o be “app op ia e”. As B ow and Gilman explain (1960:273), “Beha io no ms a e p ac ices consis en wi hin a g oup. So long as he choice o a p onoun is ecognized as no mal o a g oup, i s in e p e a ion is simply he membe ship o he speake in ha g oup.” MPGs a e absolu ely excluded om he e e ence g oup o ideological- poli ical ca ego y o MPOs. The classi ying p ocesses a e e en mo e solid when speaking abou poli ical pa ies han when obse ing o dina y con e sa ions; i will be almos impossible o an MP om he Opposi ion o eel ha s/he belongs o he same ideological-poli ical ca ego y as an MPG o an MPPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who belongs o he pa y o he Go e nmen ). We can he e o e s a e ha in a oiding he use o inclusi e “we” and p e e ing he exclusi e “we”, he MPO is unde sco ing he /his diffe ences wi h he /his i al. A he same ime, howe e , s/he is consolida ing he /his ela ionships wi h all he B i ish people and he es o he pa liamen a y communi y, hanks o he /his o e whelming use o he gene ic and pa liamen a y communi y “we”. He /his main pu pose is o ge as many people as possible o ag ee wi h he /his opinion, and his will be easie i he lis ene eels ha s/he is in he same ideological-poli ical ca ego y. Ob iously, his would be ex emely difficul wi h an MPG o an MPPG, bu wha abou all hose ci izens and he es o he pa liamen a y communi y who ha e no ye o med a e y solid opinion on he On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 47 issue? Acco ding o Sánchez Maca o (2002:120), “In any e en , he in e p e a- <LINK"ini- 25"> ion o each pe sonal p onoun has o ake in o accoun he speake ’s in en ion and he hea e ’s pe cep ion, and bo h pa icipan s’ awa eness o he public na u e o he alk.” This is suppo ed by he ac ha , as Biffen (1996:43) <LINK"ini- 4"> explains: “This [Ques ion Time] is a guably one o i s [Commone s’] bes - known ac i i ies, since i occupies p ime ime, is widely epo ed in he p ess and o en makes he ea ly e ening adio and ele ision news bulle ins.” This would explain why he ype o “we” p e e ed by he Opposi ion is he gene ic “we”: hey know ha hey a e being wa ched and lis ened o by he whole coun y. As Maie (1996:36) s a es: “In o de o each common discu si e <LINK"ini- 17"> g ound, he pa ies mus adop a kind o idealized iden i y in ol ing a ce ain schema iza ion and simplifica ion”, and his unique iden i y will be easie o each wi h ci izens who do no ep esen any opposi ion poli ical pa y, ha is wi h people whose e e ence g oups a e less nea ly defined. Thus, he MPO is exploi ing he /his lis ene ’s eelings because s/he is ying o p omo e (1) a social iden i y; (2) a his o ical, poli ical, acial o e hnic iden ifica ion; and (3) a de ence o he na ion and social g oups’ in e es s. Acco ding o Roiz (1994), <LINK"ini- 24"> he e a e six gene al ules and p ocedu es in pe suasion: (1) o exploi eelings; (2) o simpli y; (3) o exagge a e and dis o in o ma ion; (4) o epea ideas; (5) o exploi psychological con agion; and (6) o suppo p e-exis ing a i udes. Taking he fi s ule in o accoun , we may conclude ha he MPO’s beha iou is a pe suasi e one ha could be summa ised in he ollowing way: fi s , s/he a oids he use o he inclusi e “we” and a ou s he exclusi e “we” because s/he is ying o dis ance he /himsel om he /his hea e , and, second, s/he p e e s he pa liamen a y communi y and gene ic “we”. This beha iou has one explana ion: s/he is ying o con ince only hose whose ideological-poli ical ca ego ies a e loosely defined, because s/he knows ha s/he will ha e a be e chance o changing hei belie s, a i udes and beha iou . A he same ime, ci izens who do no suppo he Go e nmen pa y see ha he MPO is clea ly dis ancing himsel om he Go e nmen ’s policies and emphasising ha s/he does no sha e he Go e nmen ’s alues. Thus, we can be assu ed ha he a ge o he MPO’s s a egies is he audience and no he /his ace- o- ace add essee. Howe e , wha abou hose exclusi e “wes” (50.4%) used among membe s o he same poli ical pa y: he Go e nmen pa y? The ollowing wo ds om a o me MP (Biffen 1996:x) demons a e his in a e y in e es ing way: “Enjoy- <LINK"ini- 4"> men o Pa liamen mus be ma ched by affec ion o you cons i uency. I is no acciden ha Hansa d eco ds Membe s’ names alongside hei cons i uencies and makes absolu ely no e e ence o pa y poli ical affilia ion.” 48 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a This means ha some imes he Go e nmen ’s in e es s do no coincide wi h he cons i uency’s in e es s and ha he MPG will ha e o make a choice: fideli y o he /his cons i uency o o he /his poli ical colleagues. The conse- quence o his dilemma will be he use o an exclusi e “we” whe e he MPG de aches he /himsel om he /his poli ical pa y in e es s and s eng hens he /his links wi h he /his cons i uency. He e is an example aken om he fi h session (19 h Ap il 1988, page 671): . M . C an25: In he ligh o ha answe , does my hon. F iend ag ee ha i is indeed a s ange decision by he Uni e si y G an s Commi ee o ecom- mend he closu e o he geology depa men a he Uni e si y o Hull, p ecisely because o he amoun o help i gi es o indus y, a es ed o by he ac ha Yo kshi e and Humbe side CBI has w i en o say exac ly ha ? Can my hon. F iend find some in en i e way o gi ing a signal o he UGC ha i has aken a w ong decision? M . Jackson26: The basic pu pose o he subjec a ionalisa ion exe cises ha a e being unde aken by he UGC is o s eng hen p o ision na ionally o eaching and esea ch. We wish o s eng hen i academically by concen a ing on cen es o excellence, and financially by deploying ou esou ces in he mos clea ly a ge ed way. In such a p ocess he e will always be gaine s and lose s, and he lose s will always dispu e he c i e ia. Unde he cons i u ional a angemen s in his a ea he c i e ia a e o he UGC o de e mine. Wi h ega d o egional in e es s, one o he hal dozen majo ea h sciences cen es p ojec ed by UGC will be in Leeds, which is no a away. In con as o wha happened when analysing MPOs beha iou , he second ype o “we” used mos o en was he inclusi e one. As men ioned ea lie , his g oup — he Go e nmen g oup — has a mo e consolida ed in e nal cohesi eness han MPs in he Opposi ion benches. I will be e iden ha i hey wan o pass a law, hey will ha e o suppo he o ma ion o a highly cohesi e “bloc” ha would be difficul o figh agains . 6. Conclusion The main goal o his pape has been o show he close links be ween he concep o communi y and he linguis ic ealisa ions o a s a egic beha iou . Fo his pu pose, he con ex chosen o analysis has been he House o Com- mons (B i ish Pa liamen ). In his specific scena io, he speake and he hea e ’s On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 49 e i o ies mix in an app oaching-dis ancing ela ionship, depending on he poli ician’s pu pose. One o he linguis ic means used o achie e his lo e/ha e connec ion has been he fi s pe son p onoun “we”. This p onoun has embod- ied ou diffe en ypes o e e ences: (1) exclusi e (I + my poli ical g oup), (2) inclusi e (I + you), (3) pa liamen a y communi y (I + pa liamen a y commu- ni y), and (4) gene ic (I + all B i ish people). In his s udy, he e o e, we ha e ound a dynamic concep o communi y in which he scope o e e ence changes depending on hespeake ’s in en ions. Thepoli ician knows ha s/hecan do his and so s/he “plays” wi h he /his hea e ’s eelings o inclusion/exclusion in o de o win he ba le. No es 1. This dis inc ion be ween indi idualis and collec i is mo i es is also p esen in Mason <LINK"ini- 19"> (2000), who makes a dis inc ion be ween indi idualis and collec i is accoun s. 2. Following Gumpe z (1971) and Bloomfield (1933). <LINK"ini- 11"><LINK"ini- 5"> 3. This concep goes back o Pla o’s “The Republic” (427–347 BCE) and A is o le’s “The Poli ics” o 384–322 BCE. 4. Un o una ely, his is no su p ising. 5. Fo his pu pose, s/he will do as much as possible o imp o e he /his pa y colleagues’ si ua ion (collec i ism) and de end he /his poli ical belie s (p inciplism). 6. “s” s ands o “ he o igina o (s) o he message”; “h” s ands o “ he add essee(s) o he message; and “o” s ands o “any o he e e en (s) excluded om he defini ions o s and h.” 7. The meanings o he singula p onouns a e limi ed o he boxes wi h hick bo de s, while he meanings o he plu al p onouns may include also he boxes wi h hin bo de s. 8. 0 and 8 ep esen any selec ional choice closes and u hes om he sel . 9. Conse a i e Pa y leade . 10. Labou Pa y leade . 11. Labou Pa y leade . 12. They e e o he p onoun sys em. 13. Tha is, his ques ion-and-answe exchange akes place be ween wo colleagues o he same pa y. 14. He is an MPPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who belongs o he Pa y o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). 15. He is an MPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who is pa o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). 16. He is an MPO (a Membe o Pa liamen who is in he Opposi ion: he Labou Pa y). 17. He is an MPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who is pa o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). 50 Isabel Íñigo-Mo a 18. P e iously explained. 19. He is an MPO (a Membe o Pa liamen who is in he Opposi ion: he Labou Pa y). 20. He is an MPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who is pa o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). 21. He is an MPO (a Membe o Pa liamen who is in he Opposi ion: he Labou Pa y). 22. Leade o he Labou Pa y (1987 and 1992). 23. Le us emembe ha he Opposi ion is made up o diffe en poli ical pa ies, so his is a om being a cohesi e g oup. 24. Ten a i e ansla ion: “I is no a e ha when an indi idual has al eady been assigned o an ideological-poli ical ca ego y, s/he is expec ed o ollow ce ain s anda ds ha will be conside ed app op ia e, accep ed o consis en . I is no a e ei he ha he indi idual being classified expe iencesconsequences om hisa bo hle els, he affec i e-emo ionaland hebeha iou al”. 25. He is an MPPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who belongs o he Pa y o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). 26. He is an MPG (a Membe o Pa liamen who is pa o he Go e nmen : Conse a i e Pa y). Re e ences Ba son, C.D., Ahmad, N. and Tsang, J.A. 2002. Fou mo i es o communi y in ol emen . <DEST"ini- 1"> Jou nal o Social Issues 58(3), 429–445. Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sulli an, W.M., Swidle , A. and Tip on, S.M. 1985. Habi s o <DEST"ini- 2"> Hea . New Yo k: Ha pe and Row. Bibe , D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Con ad, S. and Finnegan, E. 1999. Longman G amma o <DEST"ini- 3"> Spoken and W i en English. London: Longman. Biffen, J. 1996. Inside Wes mins e . London: And é Deu sch Limi ed. <DEST"ini- 4"> Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New Yo k: Hen y Hol . <DEST"ini- 5"> B own, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discou se Analysis. Camb idge: C.U.P. <DEST"ini- 6"> B own, P. and Le inson, S.C. 1987. Poli eness. Some Uni e sals in Language Usage. Cam- b idge: CUP. B own, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The p onouns o powe and solida i y. In: T. Sebeok (ed.). S yle in Language. Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess, 253–276. Conno -Lin on, J. 1988. Au ho ’s s yle and wo ld- iew in nuclea discou se: A quan i a i e <DEST"ini- 7"> analysis. Mul ilingua 7(1/2), 95–132. Du an i, A. 1985. Sociocul u al dimensions o discou se. In: T.A. Van Dijk (ed.). Handbook <DEST"ini- 8"> o Discou se Analysis ol. 1. New Yo k: Academic P ess, 193–230. Fai clough, N. 1989. Language and Powe . London: Longman. <DEST"ini- 9"> Fo ane , I. 2004. The Use o “we” in uni e si y lec u es: Re e ence and unc ion. English o <DEST"ini- 10"> Specific Pu poses 23, 45–66. Gumpe z, J.J. 1982. Discou se S a egies. Camb idge: CUP. <DEST"ini- 11"> On he use o he pe sonal p onoun we in communi ies 51 Gumpe z, J.J. and Cook-Gumpe z, J. 1982. Language and he communica ion o social iden i y. In: J.J. Gumpe z (ed.). Language and Social Iden i y. Camb idge: CUP, 1–21. Gumpe z, J.J. 1971. Language in Social G oups. S an o d: SUP. Hansa d Pa liamen a y Deba es.House o Commons Official Repo . London: HMSO. <DEST"ini- 12"> Hymes, D. 1972. Models o he in e ac ion o language and social li e. In: J.J. Gumpe z and <DEST"ini- 13"> D. Hymes (eds). Di ec ions in Sociolinguis ics: The E hnog aphy o Communica ion. New Yo k: Hol , 35–71. Ju ile , P. and S oschein, S. 1999. Missing bounda ies o compa ison: The poli ical <DEST"ini- 14"> communi y. Poli ical Science Qua e ly 114(3), 435–453. Kamio, A. 1994. The heo y o e i o y o in o ma ion: The case o Japanese. Jou nal o <DEST"ini- 15"> P agma ics 21, 67–100. Kamio, A. 1995. Te i o y o in o ma ion in English and Japanese and psyhological u e anc- es. Jou nal o P agma ics 24, 235–264. Kamio, A. 1997. Te i o y o In o ma ion. Ams e dam: Benjamins. Kamio, A. 2001. English gene ic we, you, and hey: An analysis in e ms o e i o y o in o ma ion. Jou nal o P agma ics 33, 1111–1124. Lakoff, R.T. 1990. Talking Powe . The Poli ics o Language in Ou Li es. New Yo k: Basic <DEST"ini- 16"> Books. Maie , R. 1995. A gumen and communi y. Communica ion and Cogni ion 28(4), 367–386. <DEST"ini- 17"> Maie , R. 1996. Fo ms o iden i y and a gumen a ion. Jou nal o he Theo y o Social Beha iou 26(1), 35–50. Mai land, K. and Wilson, J. 1987. P onominal selec ion and ideological conflic . Jou nal o <DEST"ini- 18"> P agma ics 11, 495–512. Mason, A. 2000. Communi y, Solida i y and Belonging: Le els o Communi y and hei <DEST"ini- 19"> No ma i e Significance. Camb idge: CUP. Pennycook, A. 1994. The poli ics o p onouns. ELTJ 48(2), 173–178. <DEST"ini- 20"> Qui k, R., G eenbaum, S., Leech, G., and S a ik, J. 1985. A Comp ehensi e G amma o he <DEST"ini- 21"> English Language. London: Longman. Rees, A. 1983. P onouns o Pe son and Powe : A S udy o Pe sonal P onouns in Public Dis- <DEST"ini- 22"> cou se. The Uni e si y o Sheffield, Depa men o Linguis ics. Unpublished Mas e ’s hesis. Richa ds, J.C. and Schmid , R.W. (eds). 1983. Language and Communica ion. London: <DEST"ini- 23"> Longman. Roiz, M. 1994. Técnicas Mode nas de Pe suasión. Mad id: Eudema. <DEST"ini- 24"> Sánchez Maca o, A. 2002. Windows on he Wo ld: Media Discou se in English. Valencia: <DEST"ini- 25"> Uni e si a de València. Sea le, J.R. 1969. Speech Ac s. An Essay in he Philosophy o Language. Camb idge: CUP. <DEST"ini- 26"> Seidel, G. 1975. Ambigui y in poli ical discou se. In: M. Bloch (ed.). Poli ical Language and <DEST"ini- 27"> O a o y in T adi ional Socie y. London: Academic P ess, 205–228. Tonnies, F. 1974. Communi y and Associa ion. London: Rou ledge. <DEST"ini- 28"> Villegas, J.F. 1989. Decisiones sob e las pe sonas: Un análisis psicosocial de los p ocesos <DEST"ini- 29"> clasifica o ios. Re is a de Psicología Social 4(1), 25–34. Wa dhaugh, R. 1992. An In oduc ion o Sociolinguis ics. Ox o d: Blackwells. <DEST"ini- 30"> Wa en, R. 1978. The Communi y in Ame ica. Chicago: Rand McNally. <DEST"ini- 31"> Wenge , E. 1998. Communi ies o P ac ice: Lea ning, Meaning and Iden i y. Camb idge: CUP. <DEST"ini- 32">