(Redirected from Exclusive we)In
linguistics, an 'inclusive ''we''' is a
pronoun or
verb conjugation that indicates the inclusion of the speaker, the audience, and perhaps other people, as opposed to an 'exclusive ''we''', which specifically excludes the audience. No European language makes this distinction, but it is quite common in the indigenous languages of eastern and southwestern Asia, America, Australia and the Pacific, as well as in some Creole languages.
Schematic paradigm
Inclusive-exclusive paradigms may be summarized as a two-by-two grid:
| | Includes 'you'? |
| 'Yes' | 'No' |
Includes
'me'? | 'Yes' | ''Inclusive'' | ''Exclusive'' |
| 'No' | ''2nd person'' | ''3rd person'' |
Where found
The inclusive-exclusive distinction is nearly universal among the
Austronesian languages and the languages of northern
Australia to the
Woiwurrung language down south, but rare in the
Papuan languages in between. (
Tok Pisin, an English-Melanesian
pidgin, generally has the inclusive-exclusive distinction, but this varies with the speaker's language background.) It is widespread among the
Dravidian languages, the
Munda languages, and the languages of eastern
Siberia, such as
Evenki, though it has been lost from some. In
America it is found in about half the languages, with no clear geographic or genealogical pattern. It is also found in a few languages of the
Caucasus and
Sub-Saharan Africa, such as
Laal, and in the
Indo-European languages of
Marathi,
Rajasthani, and
Gujarati.
Dravidian languages
The distinction between the inclusive and exclusive we existed in proto-Dravidian, and has been retained in most modern Dravidian languages. In Tamil, the forms are inclusive நாம் (nām) and exclusive நாங்கள் (). In
Telugu, the forms are inclusive మనము (manamu) and exclusive మేము (memu). In
Malayalam, നമ്മള് () is the inclusive form of we while ഞങ്ങള് () is exclusive. Modern
Kannada is the only one of the literary Dravidian languages that does not retain the distinction.
Viet-Muong languages
Vietnamese makes a distinction between inclusive and exclusive we. Among the many
Vietnamese pronouns there are ''chúng ta'' (inclusive) and ''chúng tôi'' (exclusive). ''Chúng'' is a plural marker derived from
Chinese.
Chinese languages
In standard
Mandarin, the pronoun ''wǒmen'' 我們 "we", which is the plural of the pronoun ''wǒ'' 我 "I", is indefinite like its English counterpart. However, in northern Mandarin dialects there is an additional pronoun, ''zámen'' 咱們, which is inclusive. In these dialects, ''wǒmen'' 我們 is exclusive. (See also:
Chinese pronouns.)
Taiwanese is similar. Exclusive ''goán'' is the plural of ''goá'' "I", while inclusive ''lán'' is a separate root also with the plural suffix. ''Lán'' may be used to express politeness or solidarity, as in asking a stranger "where do we live?" to mean "where do you live?".
Austronesian languages
In
Malay and
Indonesian, the pronoun ''kita'' is inclusive, and ''kami'' is exclusive. That is, you may say "We (''kami'') will go shopping, and then we (''kita'') will eat," making it clear that your guest is not to accompany you to the market, but is invited to dinner. What you cannot do is be ambiguous as to whether your guest is included, as you can in English.
Tagalog has a very similar system with ''kamí'' and ''táyo'' being respectively the exclusive and inclusive forms. The word ''kitá'' (or ''katá'') was originally a
dual inclusive pronoun "you and I". However, it has now become a
portmanteau pronoun for first plus second person, as in ''mahál kitá'' "I love you", originally "you and I are dear."
In other
Philippine languages, particularly those spoken in northern
Luzon, the use of the dual pronoun is widely used.
Kapampangan, for example, has ''ikata'' (dual inclusive), ''ikatamu'' (plural inclusive), and ''ikami'' (exclusive).
Ilokano has ''data''/''sita'', ''datayo''/''sitayo'', and ''dakami''/''sikami''.
Tausug of
Sulu is the only
Visayan language which has the dual form. Its pronouns are ''kita'' (dual inclusive), ''kitaniyu'' (plural inclusive), and ''kami'' (exclusive).
American languages
In
Quechua, both forms, inclusive ''ñuqanchik'' and exclusive ''ñuqayku'', are clearly based on the first-person singular pronoun ''ñuqa'', but it is not immediately clear how they relate historically to the second-person pronoun ''qam'' or the plural suffix ''-kuna''.
Aymara has four pronominal roots: Inclusive ''jiwasa,'' exclusive ''naya,'' second person ''juma,'' and third person ''jupa.'' All are indefinite as to number apart from ''jiwasa,'' which must refer to at least two people. Plurality may be emphasized with the suffix ''-naka;'' inclusive ''jiwasanaka'' implies at least three people. Verbal conjugations reflect the same four persons.
Other
Amerindian languages that make the distinction are the
Tupian languages, among them
Tupinambá,
Guaraní and
Nheengatu. In these languages there is a singular first person (''xe'' in Tupinambá, ''ixé'' in Nheengatu, ''che'' in Guarani) and two alternate plural forms: ''oré'' (exclusive) and ''îandé'' (Tupi) or ''ñandé'' (Guarani). The inclusive form may have been formed under influence of the singular first person (which is ''nde'' in most languages of the group).
Additionally, all
Algonquian languages make a distinction between first person plural inclusive and exclusive. For example, in
Shawnee, the first person plural exclusive independent pronoun is ''niilawe'', the corresponding inclusive pronoun is ''kiilawe'', while the first person singular pronoun is ''niila'' and the second person singular pronoun is ''kiila''. The inclusive/exclusive distinction is also made throughout the pronominal inflection of verbs in all Algonquian languages.
Fula language
The
Fula language (Fulfulde, Pulaar, Pular) of
West Africa has inclusive and exclusive first person plurals.
Pidgins
The Chinese pattern, with the plural form of "I" as the exclusive pronoun, is a common one. It is also common for the inclusive pronoun to be composed of the pronouns for "I" and "you". Both are the case in the English-Melanesian-based
creole languages
Tok Pisin and
Bislama, where the inclusive pronoun is a variant of ''yumi'' (two people, that is, ''you'' + ''me'') or ''yumipla'' (for more than two people; ''-pla'' or ''-pela'' is a plural suffix), and the exclusive pronoun is the plural of "me": ''mipla''.
Distinction in verbs
Where verbs are inflected for
person, as in Australia and much of America, the inclusive-exclusive distinction is made there as well. For example, in
Passamaquoddy "I/we have it" is expressed
:Singular '''n'-tíhin'' (first person prefix ''n-)''
:Exclusive '''n'-tíhin-'èn''' (first person ''n-'' + plural suffix ''-èn)''
:Inclusive '''k'-tíhin-'èn''' (inclusive prefix ''k-'' + plural ''-èn)''
Singular we
There is an interesting twist with inclusive pronouns in
Samoan. In this language, as in the related languages Malay and Tagalog, there are two separate roots for "we", inclusive ''’ita'' and exclusive ''’ima''. Unlike in those languages, the Samoan pronouns must be used with the dual suffix ''-’ua'' or the plural suffix ''-tou'' to mean "we".
| 'Samoan pronouns' | ''singular'' | ''dual'' | ''plural'' |
| ''Exclusive person'' | a’u | ’ima’ua | ’imatou |
| ''Inclusive person'' | ’ita | ’ita’ua | ’itatou |
| ''Second person'' | ’oe | ’oulua | ’outou |
| ''Third person'' | ia | ’ila’ua | ’ilatou |
However, the inclusive pronoun ''’ita'' may also occur on its own as a singular pronoun. In this case it means "I", but with a connotation of appealing or asking for indulgence, rather like the concept of ''
amae'' in
Japanese (and ''not'' like the
royal we in English). That is, by using ''’ita'' instead of the normal word for "I", ''a’u'', there is involvement the other person in statements about yourself.
References
★
Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists, , Thomas E, Payne, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-521-58224-5
★ Filimonova, Elena (eds). (2005). Clusivity. Typological and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN: 90 272 2974 0.
See also
★
We
Further reading
★ Jim Chen,
First Person Plural (analyzing the significance of inclusive and exclusive we in
constitutional interpretation)
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
