Sociolinguistic
research suggests that demonstrative phrases, such as “this place” or “that
person” increase a sense of communality between speaker and audience,
particularly when the audience is predisposed to it. For example, in a study entitled
“That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives,” Christopher Potts and Eric Acton conclude
that Palin’s use of demonstratives in political speech “both presumes
and, when welcome, reinforces a sense of shared perspective.” Palin’s use of
phrases like “these people” and “this country,” they argue, creates a sense of
common ground with audiences predisposed to agree with her, but can be
off-putting to those who do not.
I
hypothesize that this conclusion might also be true for using first person
plurals (“we”, “our”) instead of second person voice (“you”, “your”), i.e. “we should do our chores,” versus “you should do your chores.” I argue that
the first person plural can create a sense of communality between speaker and
audience, particularly in contexts where one person has a perceived superiority
of knowledge, such as in the student-teacher or physician-patient relationships.
Moreover, as in the case of demonstratives, this strategy of communication can
backfire, perceived negatively when no prior sense of communality exists.
First
person plurals like “we” and “us,” I claim, act like demonstratives in bringing
the listener into the speaker’s frame of reference. For example, in a school
context, the teacher can subtly draw the student into the teachers’ point of
reference by using words like “we” and “us,” which I argue in turn enhances communication.
Consider the following statements as illustration of the potential
effectiveness of the first person plural in a school context:
1. “We cannot draw on the classroom walls.”
2. “We will learn about fractions today.”
And compare
them to the following:
1. “You cannot draw on the classroom walls.”
2. “You will learn about fractions today.”
For both
statements, the first person voice appears more effective because it suggests
that the teacher will also be following the given instruction. The first person
plural voice thus removes the separation between speaker and recipient, placing
the speaker in the same category as the recipients. In contrast, the second
person voice decreases the sense of common ground, placing the listener in a different
category.
Little
sociolinguistic research exists on whether the use of the first person plural creates
a more effective communication dynamic. A few studies though suggest that the
first person plural can actually create a more negative impression of the
speaker. In a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839333/),
researchers examined whether physician use of the first person plural when
talking to patients helped to foster positive physician-patient partnerships.
The study found that “patients were less likely to highly rate their provider’s
communication style if first person plural statements were used.” The
researchers speculate that this might be because first person plural statements
often had “at least one negative feature, such as being too persuasive (‘That’s
going to be our goal’), indirect (‘What can we do to improve your diet?’), or
ambiguous (‘Let’s see what we can do’).” This complexity parallels how Potts
and Acton found that Sarah Palin’s use of demonstratives was off-putting to
listeners in some contexts, such as when they did not agree with her views.
Additional
research on first person plurals appears necessary. For example, a case study
analysis, similar to Acton and Potts’ study on Sarah Palin, would provide
better insight into the hypotheses I have posed in this post. As I have sought
to show, the potential similarities between the use of demonstratives and the
use of first person plurals in creating a sense of common ground makes this a
deserving topic of additional study.
For now, as
one potential starting point for discussion, are there any other words or
linguistic features that might serve a strategic role in connecting speaker and
listener?
I think it would be interesting to see how all different pronoun choices effect listeners. For example, the use of he, she, and they. "They" is technically a third person plural pronoun, rather than a third person singular pronoun, yet it has been increasingly used as a singular pronoun.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading a text or listening to a speech that is supposed to be unbiased, the speaker might say "he or she" or "they." "He or she" is the correct phrase in this instance, yet it generally sounds clunky and somewhat archaic. "They," on the other hand, fits into natural speech better. Additionally, "they" has become more common as acceptance of differing gender identities increases. It allows another alternative for someone who doesn't identify with their (notice my pronoun usage) biological sex or doesn't fall under either male or female.
When these individuals hear "he or she," they might feel ostracized, like when hearing "you" versus "we." "They" provides a good alternative, even though it might not be grammatically correct - in the English class sense.
What an interesting question--I think the answer can really go either way. On one hand, there are certain cases in which a first or second person voice draws the listener closer to the speaker. While reading a novel, for example, a point of view character that consistently referenced the reader would create an almost "story telling" perspective, as if the character was speaking casually to a friend.
ReplyDeleteOther times, I think this tense serves to isolate the listener. Like in your example with Sarah Palin, I think most of these cases would occur when it made the speaker seem presumptuous. Personally, I've always hated the phrase, "Excuse us." The speaker really means to say, "Excuse me," but their switch of words makes them seem less considerate. Then again, it's still more polite than, "Excuse you," if you were, say, trying to pass each other in a grocery store aisle.
I think the distinction here is what your starting point is. If it would be natural to use first person, the second person becomes presumptuous. If it would be natural to use third, second becomes inclusive.
I find your proposition very interesting, in part because what you propose, in ways, seems very intuitive. I’ve seen this kind of 1st person pronoun rhetorical strategy applied many times before, whether it be an inspiring speech before battle in Henry IV, or before a crowd by Marc Antony in Julius Caesar, or an encouraging email to another student working on a project. Writers have been able to contrast the personalities of different fictional characters through dialogue and speech style for centuries, long before linguistic studies were formalized. Of course, studies help us uncover the exact mechanisms by which these rhetorical subtleties take place, but at the same time I wonder whether there is a boundary line between linguistics and rhetoric at all. If we can study the use of pronouns as a rhetorical technique, what stops us from studying and uncovering the mechanisms of tricolon, anaphora and other techniques?
ReplyDeleteI think the examples you give of using "we" instead of "you" are actually off-putting in some ways. For example, if a teacher comes to class and says "we are going to learn about x" then it might imply that the teacher is learning it with you (something that may cause you to lose confidence in a teacher). Second, I think it can be even more alienating when someone claims to be part of a shared experience that they do not in fact participate in. As a struggling student it may be frustrating to hear a teacher say something like "we are frustrated but will work through this" because you do not believe that your teacher is genuinely frustrated. People typically respond better to people when they feel like they are connected to them. However, I think using the pronoun "we" can sometimes make attempts at false connection too obvious and sometimes further alienate the listener.
ReplyDeleteThis idea you proposed is quite fascinating! I do agree with Elana that sometimes using the pronoun “we” can be alienating due to false connections made with the listener, but I claim that this is not a very common case. I always feel that when a teacher uses “we” to talk about the material that will be covered or what the class as a whole needs to do regarding an assignment, using the word “we” is comforting and unifying. And to mention Anne’s question, a linguistic feature that disconnects speakers from listeners is honorific titles. For example, in elementary through high school, I thought calling my teachers using “Mr.” or “Ms.” followed by their last names was quite alienating. I believe that simply using first names allows for a much deeper connection between speakers and listeners.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the case of school, the effect of the use of “we” on listeners depends on their age level. In early years such as preschool and elementary school, the students are still learning social constructs and how to behave at school. Thus, the use of “we” is appropriate for teaching as it implies that we, as a society, do or don’t do something, which is easier to grasp than a singular and situation-specific “you.” It is also appropriate in cases such as “we are going to learn about fractions now,” as it implies a feeling of inclusion and connectedness and outlines a clear shift in focus for the entire group. However, in a high school or university setting, the same use of “we” in instruction would seem patronizing and belittling, thus creating a separation between instructor and student. Since its purpose of teaching students the social constructs of schooling are no longer necessary at these levels, students feel as though they are being treated like children and inferiors.
ReplyDeleteI've definitely heard about this sort of thing before - for example, when arguing with someone, it's best not to say, "You did this!". Instead you should say, "I feel...". Otherwise it sounds more like you are blaming that individual.
ReplyDeleteI think the issue is not just the fact that an individual would feel blamed (although that can definitely be the case in many of the situations you mentioned), but, more importantly, it makes people feel alone. It's easier to admit wrongdoing if others were also involved.
It creates an important sense of community to not use that sort of language.
I agree with the comments made by Nicolo about this proposition seems so interesting given the fact that it seems quite intuitive. Using "we" statements seems be a sort of "trick" that we are discussing in a socio linguistic fashion because of its effects on relationship between listener and speaker. But I wanted to further the question and also bring into the fold some ideas of semantics that go along with this question. Is it not semantically different to use a statement such as "We cannot draw on the classroom walls" as opposed to "You cannot draw on the classroom walls"? I believe there is a true semantic difference in these situations, one that as has been previously said both logically and intuitively changes the focus of the sentence. So I wonder then how much of this is truly a socio-linguistic question or whether it is one of semantics that just so happens to have an effect in a given society or social situation? That might not even change the answer as well, it could simply be that the reason using "we" is so effective socially is because of its semantic change. Very interesting idea and discussion!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ellen that the use of "we" versus "you" seems dependent on the maturity level of the speaker and the social constructs of the environment in which a phrase is uttered. I've noticed my mom, a preschool teacher, address her students in that manner, however I don't have any recollection of my mother speaking to me that way so it is fair to assume that this is not something she does naturally, rather, as you asserted, context affects her speech. My question is, can anyone think of other examples of language usage that is as influenced by context as much the first person plural?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ellen that the use of "we" versus "you" seems dependent on the maturity level of the speaker and the social constructs of the environment in which a phrase is uttered. I've noticed my mom, a preschool teacher, address her students in that manner, however I don't have any recollection of my mother speaking to me that way so it is fair to assume that this is not something she does naturally, rather, as you asserted, context affects her speech. My question is, can anyone think of other examples of language usage that is as influenced by context as much the first person plural?
This is really interesting, and I feel like it touches on a very important topic. We use language to communicate, but more importantly, we need to communicate because we need to cooperate with one another. And so phrasing what we mean in the specific ways that you mention is very important to establishing the commonality that allows us to cooperate. As others have brought up in the comments, it seems to me that we all develop an intuition for how to formulate our sentences this way, because it is simply so necessary to survival. It’s interesting how our communication seemingly depends very little on what we’re actually saying and so much more on how we say it, on our intention. How even changing a word just from “this” to “that” might unconsciously influence our audience to a significant degree.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's just me, but I tend to associate "you" with more accussational sentences than "we." For example, "you spilled the beans" seem much more mean and directed than "we spilled the beans." Somehow, "we spilled" or "we talked" seem much more peaceful than "you spilled" or "you talked," etc.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to not use "you" a lot because in Korean, "you" is not an acceptable thing to say to older, respected people. I wonder how "we", "you", and "I" differ among different languages!
(Also, this post reminds me of what Keith said during a CS103 lecture- when we write mathematical proofs, we use "we" instead of "I" because it brings the readers into the writer's frame of reference.)
I agree with others who say that the lines we draw in order to associate meaning to phrases "we" and "you" are not so clear cut. In general, I am not sure if "we" can ever be offputting, because in the contexts where it makes sense to use first person plural, the two parties are already espoused. I'm having a hard time coming up with a case where the usage of "we" implies a separation of parties, rather than a coming together of them. "You" on the other hand, is inherently referential and much more direct. The speaker is able to separate himself from the referent, and this speech may be more oscillatory with respect to the aggressiveness or off-putting-ness. I agree that it would be interesting to see how all of the different pronouns affect the way that speakers react to a relevant phrase.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the use of we instead you is usually off-putting, with a few exceptions. If a doctor tells me, “What can we do to improve your diet,” as is your example, I’d, frankly, be somewhat offended. My doctor wouldn’t be doing anything (beyond offering suggestions) and yet she would be taking credit for some of the work ahead. However, in some cases, using we can create a sense of community through speech, and thus, “we” becomes a helpful speech tool if and only if the speaker want s to create a sense of community and the listener would be reception towards that community. “We will be learning about fractions today” implies the class is a unit and the teacher is on equal footing. This case differs from the diet case though, because learning fractions is not something the students can easily do without a teacher, whereas changing a diet is something the doctor cannot directly help with. This is also why I believe the use of “we” might actually be helpful in political speeches. Realistically, those who vote are those who have some degree of nationalism or care for the country. Using “we” in a political speech might enhance that sense of nationalism and unify the speaker with his or her audience.
ReplyDeleteWhile I definitely agree with the original post and the comments that plural first-person pronouns can be used to forge a sense of group identity and a sort of in-group unity, I think that such pronounce can also have the opposite effect in certain instances. For example, take Anne’s example of a teacher who says “we cannot draw on the classroom walls.” I think statements like these, when made by an authority figure, can often come across as somewhat condescending. This also depends on other factors, such as the tone in which such an statement is uttered. And I don’t know if this is true for others, but I, at least, would often interpret such a statement as patronizing, and wouldn’t feel any increased sense of identity with the speaker.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion on plural pronouns reminded me of Mila Kunis’s rant against the use of the phrase "We’re pregnant" by dads-to-be (see: http://abcn.ws/TJILnZ). I don’t know if this phrase has always been commonplace or if it’s just in vogue nowadays. I certainly didn’t grow up hearing my dad or my uncles saying it, so it sounds very odd to me. Strangely enough, however, the phrase, "We’re having a baby" sounds just fine to me, even though it seems to convey the same thing as "We’re pregnant."
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question about other strategic uses of speech, one thing that came to my mind was the use of the hearer’s first name in the middle of a sentence. Although I realize this is likely an affiiliative strategy, there are certain situations in which it sounds off-putting or even condescending. For example, I’m generally fine with people addressing me by my first name (and to be honest, there aren’t very many alternatives, since I haven’t reached a high enough level of expertise or professionalism in any field!). But I can’t help but find it slightly condescending when, in the course of telling me some story from his/her personal life, a friend of mine liberally inserts my name into the middle of his/her sentences and thoughts (e.g., “We were at the parking lot, Marianne, and … happened” or “So, you see, Marianne, I had to…”). It makes me feel a bit like one of my parents is lecturing me. Have other people had the same feeling when their friends or acquaintances liberally sprinkle their first name into the conversation?
Marianne, in response to your comment, I generally agree with your analysis of superfluous uses of my name in conversation. In general during conversation, my experience has led me to believe that the use of my name in conversation is meant to either demean me or regain my attention, as if it had been lost.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this changes in written communication. When emailing professors at Stanford, I have found that they often use my name when it is unnecessary. For example, one professor regularly says "See you soon, Aaron." In this case, I actually am reassured by this use, as if the Prof. is telling me, "I recognize your existence. Please know that this is not a standard, generalized answer, but an answer meant specifically for you."
An interesting edge case is when individuals use my name in generic examples. They might say when describing a generic example of a concept, "If Aaron believes that the probability == x ... then Aaron might do y." This does not seem as condescending to me. What do others think?
I also agree that when people use my name in the middle of a sentence, especially so abruptly, it definitely sounds condescending or inappropriate. I would hesitate to say that happens all the time, though, because I have heard it being used in a more light/humorous way.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point, Aaron. The use of names in email versus real life is very different. I think that the fact that email does not have physical contact makes it even more okay to say someone's name. Yet, I still think it'd be a bit strange to see my name mid-sentence throughout an email. I think your example is more a greeting/ending which merits name. Nonetheless, it's probably easier to slide names into sentences in email versus in-person.
I had never considered manipulation of speech in this way before, but found this blog profoundly interesting. I was most interested in the point made about Sarah Palin and how her use of “this country” or “these people” either attracted or alienated people from the rest of her speech. Although initially skeptical of the alienating aspect of this research, I believe I know understand how using the first person plural could have the opposite effect on some people, especially those who did not agree with her statements. I believe that most people are stubborn and generally do not like being told what to do. Therefore, when Sarah Palin uses the first person plural instead of the second person, it sounds as though she is assuming that all of those listening agree with her ideas. Therefore, maybe it is not the concepts themselves that are causing the alienation, but the assumption that all “these people” must agree with her.
ReplyDelete