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">