Abstract

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.

Journal
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published
2014-07-01
DOI
10.2190/tw.44.3.b
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Also cites 51 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1075/la.52
  2. 10.1007/s11212-010-9115-x
  3. 10.1515/MULTI.2008.019
  4. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.001
  5. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.008
  6. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009
  7. 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.257
  8. 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00025-A
  9. 10.1075/pbns.98
  10. 10.1075/prag.20.3.04lie
  11. 10.3138/jcfs.43.2.281
  12. 10.1075/lic.13.1.05lee
  13. 10.1080/15298860601182435
  14. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01388.x
  15. 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.008
  16. 10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.004
  17. 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90092-0
  18. 10.1177/0957926599010002002
  19. 10.1515/jlse.2008.001
  20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2009.04.001
  21. 10.1016/j.linged.2010.11.001
  22. 10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy
  23. 10.12697/SSS.2007.35.1-2.09
    Sign Systems Studies  
  24. 10.1075/pbns.98.15ska
  25. 10.1075/pbns.98.27tab
  26. 10.1215/00166928-38-3-211
  27. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
  28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
  29. 10.1080/14664658.2011.559748
  30. 10.1075/bjl.24.06tem
  31. 10.1075/jlp.11.4.02des
  32. 10.1177/0957926511431507
  33. 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
  34. 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
  35. 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5
  36. 10.1016/0889-4906(87)90072-X
  37. 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2011.tb00124.x
  38. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
  39. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
  40. 10.1515/TEXT.2007.002
  41. 10.1075/swll.5
  42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
  43. 10.1177/002194369002700305
  44. 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00077-0
  45. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
  46. 10.1075/dd.2.2.10die
  47. Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics
  48. 10.3917/rfla.071.0007
  49. 10.1111/papr.12076
  50. 10.1177/0021943611414685
  51. 10.1057/9780230307322
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →